She did well. Trump had one hard hit and I think it was on the Clinton Foundation. (Granted the Moderator's opening statement and question shook her for him first) but then he did not stay on the offensive she recovered and then drubbed him the rest of the way . Honestly. I think the Republicans *REALLY* want him to lose .. . . what the little people love about him is what those in the party hate Trump is uncontrollable. Say what ya will about Hillary she is towing her party line Worse case Senario . . .who would you want for president. . . The Joker (Trump) or Lex Luthor (Hillary) There is no NONE OF THE ABOVE option (The Riddler and Poison Ivey aside) Rocket River
So buried 2/3 of the way into the article is the statement that, yeah, Trump is probably right. However everything preceeding it seems to indicate he was wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You don't know what you posted? Trump is NOT the only business person importing construction material.
If you understand basic English, it makes perfect sense. It never said Trump's claim was right. It said one portion of it was right. Trump's claim was that US steel was suffering because of other countries' dumping of cheap steal due to our terrible trade agreements and subsidies by foreign governments. The quote you point only confirms the US steel was suffering and that it's caused by lower priced imports. It says nothing about the reasons for those lower priced imports and directly contradicts the idea that the decline was related to trade agreements since it started in the 1980's, long before NAFTA ever existed (nevermind that NAFTA doesn't even apply to Chinese steel) or China was admitted to the WTO, which they joined under President Bush.
So cheap steal imports didn't cause a decline in the US steel industry and instead cheap imports caused the decline in the US steel industry. How did any of what you typed make sense to yourself?
