Democrats "sorting out Trump's mess" = Re-enacting the failed policies that produced 1.48% annual GDP growth during the Obama years (fourth worst in history) When it comes to economics, Democrats couldn't sort their way out of a wet paper bag...
Please provide links to non-partisan sites that support your position, because it's way off target based on existing numbers, and personal involvement in the employment market of unskilled labor.
There just isn't strong evidence to impeach Trump. There could be, but it hasn't been found. They spent a couple of years searching for collusion, and now they've got this ambiguous evidence to support an obstruction claim. They are going after his tax records, want to subpoena accountants and demand records of past business dealings too. There's hope they can find something that would justify impeachment. As time passes this effort to get Trump becomes more irritating. They're scheduling hearings on Mueller's Report seeking to draw out testimony and characterize the Report's contents in ways that help persuade the public Trump is really awful. They know it won't look good if they impeach on a partisan vote and then get rejected in the Senate by another partisan vote. By then the election will be much closer and voters will be asking themselves what the Democrats have done for them, two years of acrimony and resistance, and nothing accomplished.
please provide links to your sites proving it wrong if you disagree, most people know that excess foreign outsourcing and excess foreign imports are becoming a problem
Nice try. You made a posit, it is up to you to provide proof. Current economy says that the employment market is 'full', validated by unemployment statistics, which 'most people know means there is a lack of workers'.
nice try, if you can't dispute what I said, just admit it the fact is, corps are firing Americans and hiring people from overseas cause it is cheaper...
Read the Mueller Report, because it's absurd to suggest that there isn't "strong evidence" to impeach Bonespurs on the basis of what's in that report standing alone. There are continuing investigations into his other behavior, too.
I've read the Report, and scrutinized the language Mueller used, it was carefully written. Volume 1 comes to the conclusion he couldn't find evidence of a conspiracy, cooperation/coordination with Russia) that would suffice in a criminal prosecution (beyond a reasonable doubt) Mueller may have found evidence that Trump or some team ember "more likely than not" conspired, cooperated/coordinated with Russia, there are references to such incidents, but Mueller ultimately concludes each of these might not withstand careful scrutiny. This means many of the situations where some claim there's clear evidence of conspiracy, just don't make the cut. That Trump Tower meeting has been one of the instances irredentist anti-Trumpers often cite, that's their smoking gun. In their view it is clear; that talent agent for the Russian oligarch's son did tout the Russian "crown prosecutor" who offered "dirt" on Hillary, Junior did express interest, they agreed to meet, but we know the "crown prosecutor" had nothing, all she wanted to do was persuade Trump's team to lift certain sanctions, and nobody at the meeting discussed this with her. At worst, Mueller could show intent, but its an inchoate offense, and that's overlooking some significant issues; the talent agent's ties to Fusion GPS; the dubious agency of the inexistent Russian "crown prosecutor"; Junior leaving early suggesting lack of interest... An inchoate offense is one that never is completed, its an attempted crime, the Tower meeting would have been a crime had that fake "crown prosecutor" actually produced some real "dirt" on Hillary (the DNC hack was just a few days earlier -I think this is what Junior hoped for, that's why he went there), so she whips out a USB and says "its all here, just lift the sanctions and you can have it", and Junior says "ok" -you've got the crime. Each of the many instances of possible conspiracy, cooperation/coordination can be examined, there are many, each has its own elements, I read the Report seeking the evidence to satisfy the elements of the crime and never found anything closer than the Trump Tower meeting. I also thought there was a significant flaw in that the whole investigation is premised on the notion Russians wanted Trump to win the election, and I'm not so certain of this. It certainly isn't clear to me Trump is a Russophile, he sure hasn't been kind to Russia. Whether Hillary would have been worse for them is pure speculation, she sure had been kind to them as Secretary of State. Mueller affirms authoritatively that Russia sought Trump's election, but he has absolutely no evidence of this.
I guess a proven failed liberal liar would have worked much better and we all know, you would have the media denying the blatant facts, just as you are now. Try to get a grip lmao. How pathetic can you all get? Lets see it.
Housing prices are up, which precludes a number of people from purchasing. Cutting interest rates is an incentive. Care explain the unemployment rates, if the economy is not 'doing well'? While I may not see it as richly as some, there are many people, regular joes, that are benefitting from the increase in rates of pay, and being selective about jobs.
I found out after my post the number was 142 separate meetings rather than 160. But that's still many times the number of any other Presidential candidate in history. Those meetings were with both Russians & Russian officials. I don't know if they were about political concerns or about business opportunities for Trump & his family, but both would be highly suspicious or even illegal for a Presidential candidate.
My concern is that the mainstream media will promote the notion the economy is crashing and thereby induce this.
yep, Trump is praying it will happen after he leaves office, took the Bush changes till the end of 8 years, he almost made it Trump thought the corps would trickle down.... seems not where are all those corps that bragged about tax cut bonus checks that first year... they still got the tax cuts this year and the next and the next
They should go up with the low unemployment, but they haven't. You article overlooks inflation except towards the end where it notes inflation in February was higher than wage growth.