That and unemployment rates in general have some issues.

Unemployed individuals who have given up the job search are excluded.
Incarcerated individuals are excluded.
The rate has been steadily dropping over time (dropping during Obama) Whether Trump has facilitated that drop is unknown.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ay-jobs-report

The U.S. and Canada have reached a deal on an updated North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) after negotiators in Washington and Ottawa worked furiously into the night to meet a self-imposed midnight Sunday deadline.

Source

Details so far are few, full text expected today.

Even with the deal, the U.S. has not removed steel and aluminum tariffs that have hit Canada and Mexico?

Other sources claim the rejigged pact will substantially boost American access to Canada’s dairy market and protect Canada’s auto industry from possible US tariffs.

Some people claim not much else of significance has changed?

Isn't that the strangest notion? "He will have the votes of the blacks" ..... "she will secure the votes of the Latinos this way" ..... as if the color of the skin means you share one mind. Except if you're white (because white is no color?!)

And this is not racism?

Read the full text of the new United States, Mexico and Canada [NAFTA] Agreement

Source

As I posted before, not much has changed - seems to be a lot of fuss and work for a few gallons of milk?

I assume Canadian wood exports are not impacted as I could not find anything in the Agreement?

The female prosecutor who questioned Ford and Kavanaugh has poured cold water on Ford's story.

GOP-hired prosecutor questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford

Her memo is shown in full in the above article.

Well of course there is insufficient evidence to bring a case against Kavenaugh, that was obvious from the beginning.

The question for the Senate is "is he the right man for the job", not can he be tried!

Maybe the FBI will turn up something new?

For myself, his anger and partisan views displayed at his Senate interview would be sufficient to disqualify him.

... and his drinking. I’d hate to think that a Supreme was drunk or hung over much of the time. But, OTOH, maybe the Supremes need some insight into drug addiction.

Interesting Op-ed from the WSJ which specifically addresses "partisan views" and directly quotes Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a left leaning Justice, with her open disdain of Donald Trump. As for his "anger" during the hearing, what was he supposed to do - sit back and play reticent when his future career and reputation were at stake? He was a litigator for years and of course he was going to fight back! To quote the WSJ:

"Under this Feinstein-Biskupic standard, Democrats are allowed to say anything to ruin a nominee and then disqualify that nominee because he fights back rather than withdraws".

Regarding partisanship:

"As for Judge Kavanaugh being a partisan Republican, what else is new? The four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court are partisan Democrats. The relevant standard for a judge is whether he can separate his legal analysis from his partisan affiliation. Judge Kavanaugh has a decade-long record of doing exactly that on the federal bench."

Here is the complete WSJ Op-Ed:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feinste...bit-1538337954

Source

So the White House was trying to play with a heavily stacked deck

"four individuals it had been given permission to speak to"!
Talk about taking the p#ss!!

What a corrupt bunch they are! The FBI should be allowed to select their own interviewees without micro management.

Whereas

Source

So you are quoting an opinion piece from a Right-Center newspaper!

Thanks

Trump today:

Love it!

Source

Fox News (hmmm perhaps not) :

https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/242136243315376/

And - for once, would you believe - he's got a point. Going back to drinking in high-school? Seriously? He's right, what about the last 20 years?

And is all this about drinking in high-school now? I thought it was sexual accusations - and even if they could make a case with the vague information, wouldn't it be counter productive for those who want to blame him if there were a 'case of diminished responsibility' in the end?

Seems to me, the longer this takes, this is mudslinging at it's worst.

This is -for lack of better terms - a pissing contest between Democrats and Republicans! It makes me never want to move back there except we have a home and kids there...

Both parties are to blame in my view - one trying in vain to out maneuver the other. What a sad state of affairs!!

Hmm Marton.. Let's get this straight... You only quote from neutral sources?? Please spare me...! PS...The WSJ has been highly critical of Trump and is not his biggest fan. Nor am I, but what I like about them/WSJ is that they support "due process". Therein lies the caveat...

And sadly as an independent voter, the Dems are all about nailing Kavanaugh and stalling the nomination so they can gain majority in the next election. Or did this clear fact elude you? There is an end game being played here - thanks to Feinstein et al.

If this is a fake accusation as you claim then how come the Dems did not do a better job and produce a witness or two to support the allegations.
And please do not post " because they were too dumb"!

"due process" I get tired of repeating this is not a criminal case; it is a job interview.

Lucky me then. I only worked for one American company ever and I went in there through the side door (via Manpower). Gee, had I had to do a job-interview with them, that would have been embarrassing too. (For them - I stand behind all my activities )

And then expats complain if someone here dares to ask a married woman if they plan to have children in the near future

I don't quite understand what you mean here. If the allegation/accusation is indeed false, then the Dems would have a very hard time producing witnesses to corroborate the story/accusation. Wow..go figure that is EXACTLY what has happened. And so, in the absence of witnesses, they throw more allegations and dirt to stall the process.

Again, let's see what the FBI comes up with this week...

And in other News Mr. Trump is calling NAFTA II the best agreement in the history of our galaxy. Except he isn’t calling it NAFTA II, he is calling it USMCA (You es emm sea eh?). I think he got the order wrong. It should be USCAM (You Scam) which is a much better name.

#YOUSCAM

I don't understand you. Not only is this the best agreement in the history, he only has achieved more in his presidential term so far than any other president in history (it was announced in a UN meeting so it must be true).

Some people are just never satisfied.