No question about it....He is also the first president to not have a vision outside of personal profit.
The guy doesn't give a shit about the future of this country.
On the contrary, I would argue he is precisely without need for personal wealth which makes him a major improvement over the standard politician. He had no need to do this job, certainly the pay wasn't the lure, he's not even taking the pay.
Ultimately he fought a different battle his entire life, I imagine many of these career politicians don't appreciate this and they will do their best to impede his success. Can you imagine if a non-politician runs the country better than us? All of the lobbyists and bagmen will lose all their influence.
Always consider these points before you go after him. He's certainly not perfect and definitely not diplomatic, but this is why he is supported. America needs a non-politician to get it back on track. I recall a certain actor became president, and will go down as one of the best leaders in world history not just U.S history.
THE FAILED ACTOR?
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president
The Iran–Contra affair, as it became known, did serious damage to the Reagan presidency. The investigations were effectively halted when President George H. W. Bush (Reagan's vice president)
pardoned (AND 7 OTHER REAGAN GUYS) Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger before his trial began
1 Iran–Contra affair
2 Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging
3 Lobbying scandal
4 EPA scandals
5 Inslaw Affair 6 Savings & loan crisis
7 Operation Ill Wind (50 CONVICTIONS)
8 Wedtech Scandal
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia
How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist
Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.
In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish
that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents.
The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundation’s magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: “Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?”
How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan