Good question

He seemingly did nothing. And diplomacy? He called Kim Jong-Un "Little Rocket Man" and they apparently discussed giving NK a "bloody nose" and gave everybody here ulcers for a few months wondering if we were going to die in a nuclear war.

I award him no points and may Goddess have mercy on his soul.

Republicans have minimized or talked down any and all nasty comments made by Trump since day one

Their outrage over Wolf's remarks, which were nowhere near the repulsive comments made daily by Trump, is painfully laughable. The calls for some kind of "solidarity" with SHS, made by some people in the media (i.e. Mika), are absolutely sickening.

Please proceed, idiots

Jackson was not only unqualified for the position but not even appropriate for the current post he holds.

Was it his "Little Rocket Man" tweets that did the trick?

Or his (mis-)Administration's apparent discussion about giving North Korea a "bloody nose" if they didn't disarm?

Guess this will be used to justify Dump's military parade?

Ummmm......

Superdelegates had NOTHING to do with Trump winning in 2016. They didn't alter or affect the outcome of the primary either. Is he implying that his supporters refused to vote for Hillary because the superdelegates didn't make Bernie the nominee instead (and there was no Earthly way that was ever going to happen)? Or is he suggesting that his supporters were so upset about the existence of superdelegates that they refused to vote for Hillary? If so, that was a REALLY dumb way to protest a system that's been around in the Democratic Party for a long time (and one that Bernie's campaign manager- of all people- actually helped devise).

I must be blind as a bat

because I can't name anything good Trump is doing- even trying to be objective. Has anybody out there ever tried to compile an objective list of good things that Trump has done/is doing?

And FTR the taxcuts suck and Trump inherited a good economy from President Obama, an economy that is actually starting to not do so well.

Comey's reasoning/rationale for his actions during the election are confusing at best

The most charitable explanation is that he bent over backwards, front, sideways and every which direction in order to respond to Republican criticisms of the FBI investigation and conspiracy theories (basically, because FBI found no criminal wrongdoing and Bill Clinton had contact with Loretta Lynch) and, in doing so, he ended up stepping all over the Election and Hillary Clinton to prove how "impartial" he was when he should have just ignored the idiot Republicans in Congress and kept his mouth tightly shut, like he did about their nascent investigation of Donald Trump, which also, incidentally, started during the Election.

Republicans hate her not only because she is a woman

but also because she is an EFFECTIVE woman who is clearly above their intelligence and capability levels and knows how to constantly outmaneuver them- even in the minority. Any Democrats declaring her to be a "liability" or an "anchor" on the party solely because of the Republican opposition to her and seeking to replace her as ML for simply that reason alone need to hang their heads in shame IMHO.

Agreed.

Republicans flat out admitted that the Benghazi investigations were politically motivated because they thought that she was probably going to run again in 2016 and that the investigations were damaging her poll numbers with the investigations. And all of the investigations of her since the 1990's, as well as all of the MSM's false equivalencies of her and Trump during the campaign almost certainly helped create a false/negative perception of her that lead people to vote against her and/or for Trump despite the fact that she was never actually indicted for anything and that nothing she had done was even remotely equivalent to the minute amount of negative stuff put out there (BEFORE THE ELECTION) about Trump.