Impeachment Thoughts


What are ya going to do? Democrats are just batshit crazy.

A few thoughts on this impeachment theater effort by long-simmering Democrats. First of all, the idea of the President being impeached today based on a phone call with another head of state is unprecedented. Furthermore, to have a CIA spy at the White House make the whistleblower report on information he’s not even privileged to know of is pretty close to treason—outright treason. The intelligence apparatus in this country has a real motive problem here since the President has campaigned on draining the swamp, and now they’ve assigned spies to conduct covert operations inside the WH? And Nancy thinks the Ukraine phone call is easy for the public to understand? Huzzah! I’ll take those odds.

That said, in hindsight, I wonder if Trump should have released the full phone call script. A summary would have been better, if not a straight out fight. The release of the script set a precedent, and a bad one. Democrats will make additional demands for other phone call scripts, you can bank on it. Fighting them will take a colossal effort and great expense. But that’s not why, in hindsight, Trump should have thought twice.  It’s because now this will color every phone call he has with heads of state in the future. How could it not? There are already reports that point to this. It will take time to rebuild that trust. Probably until he is reelected, which, if this is all they have, he will be.

Now this is clearly either a Hail Mary pass or orchestrated theater (your pick, or both). Pursuing impeachment based on this transcript of the phone call, the opposition will be hard pressed to make the case with proof. The whole thing hinges on how to prove you can read the President’s mind and discern his intentions. That’s it. Of course, that is their favorite party game, so they are at least practiced at it.

To my mind, this looks like a defensive play. Trump has everything going for him in terms of reelection, especially this robust economy. None of the Democratic accusations have hit, and the electorate is clearly moving in his direction. Dems have a plate of unsavory candidates on offer themselves this year. This is the Dems attempt to agitate their traditional factions in order to protect their demographic silos. They need all of their people, even those that only occasionally tune in, to have a sound wall between them and the real state of affairs in this country. This impeachment noise is that wall.

They will make a show of this, definitely. This is the part that has happened before. Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both Democrats. Both failed to be prosecuted convicted* in the Senate. A House impeachment action is always a circus affair.

Now many believe that Bill Clinton’s impeachment was unnecessary, and many believe it was. I had a nuanced take on it, and it hasn’t changed much despite a transition in my political thinking. I can hold these thoughts simultaneously: 1) The sexual abuse suffered by some women who have powerful bosses is wrong and should not happen. 2) This impeachment effort wasn’t about that and wasn’t worth it. These were not “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But what about Andrew Johnson? Well that was distinctly different. It doesn’t even matter what the charges were there, as it was the composition of the elected bodies and the unique circumstances of the time that drove that effort.

One of the many tactics Lincoln used to get reelected in 1864 while the country was engaged in the Civil War was to create a uniparty ticket. It was actually called The National Union Party. And it consisted of himself, a republican, and Andrew Johnson, a democrat. Johnson was born a southern son (NC), and later migrated to Tennessee where he began to accumulate his political power. He thus represented the willingness of some southern sons even as he represented the increasing power of the West to broker a peace between the traditional colonies.

Then Lincoln got assassinated a year later, and a HEAVILY Republican (75.9%) Congress was stuck with Lincoln’s f*cking Democrat as president. Not only did they have massive voting block power, they were very put out after the assassination of the President who guided them through the Civil War and very recently to victory. This impeachment was a power flex due to political imbalance and war, something the founding fathers had hoped to avoid. Everywhere in the FF’s world are processes to encourage compromise and share power. That doesn’t happen when there is lopsided political power. War agitates everyone.

In both cases the House made it a sordid public affair, relying as in so many of our civil courts on the feels of the story, instead of the standard of proof. But, at the end of the day, even with heavy margins in the Senate, there were some circumspect Senators in both cases who just really didn’t think the Senate ought to go there. It wasn’t even close for Bill Clinton, and Johnson survived for the lack of one vote.

So I expect this will go like that. It might be over by January, or they could drag it out until next summer or fall. But it will fail in the Senate. Design of the game. Two-thirds majority required. Democrats do not have the numbers to win there, and Republicans will likely be unified in defiance, even though they don’t have to be.

They could lose 8 without sweating, more if some Democrats defect, which they will. I don’t expect anything other than unified defiance from the GOP, minus Romney of course.  These are the Dem senators that I think have to be worried about supporting impeachment because they are up for reelection in red or Trump states: Doug Jones (AL-1st), Tom Udall (NM), Gary Peters (MI-1st), Tina Smith (MN-1st). I’ve identified those who are up for their first reelection. Of course, Joe Manchin (WV) is always in play, though he’s not up for reelection, so that decreases the heat for him.

Now I expected it to go this route because it has become obvious to me lately that the GOP might not mind an impeachment effort and could use it as a unifying strategy with voters. Maybe galvanizing is a better word than unifying. Not necessarily actively pursuing it, but like, bring it when you’ve got brass knuckles in your jacketed hand. The benefit is to force the left into a rabid, hyper-partisan eeeeeend of the woooorld as weeeee know it tone and hyperreaction. Everybody will get sick of it outside rigid leftist ideological enclaves. This is not Iraq compounded by a declining economy and the exploitation of Katrina. They have no hook here. This is about a left that has been throwing a hissy fit since November 8, 2016 because they are such sore losers.


This is what irrelevance looks like.

Keep all this in mind as Democrats execute Operation Batshit Crazy Exgirlfriend. They are going to be flinging as much poo as possible and hoping one of their monkeys turns out to be Shakespeare. (Fat chance at that.) But there is nothing they can do about the dynamics in the Senate. They know they are checked, and this impeachment effort is going nowhere. And they know they have to throw a lot of shade and drama just to give the appearance in 2020 that they are holding their own. I’d say don’t stress about it too much. Us wasting our time freaking out about every little thing is a byproduct of this effort known as gas-lighting. I’m not letting them do that to me. I’m going to keep living my best life. Irrelevance is the best revenge.

*Klown edit

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in #GoTrump, Impeachment, Keep Fucking That Chicken Award, Trump is Still President!. Bookmark the permalink.

205 Responses to Impeachment Thoughts

  1. Dora says:

  2. DeniseVB says:

    Well, here ya go. 😉

  3. DeniseVB says:

    How is this allowed to continue if the House didn’t up/down the Impeachment inquiry ? The Dems seem to be making up rules as they go along.

  4. michelina says:


  5. michelina says:

    thank you for putting up with me——gotta catch up——talk soon

  6. DeniseVB says:

    What fresh hell is this ? They also sell commie t-shirts at this site.

  7. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  8. DeniseVB says:

    “Mitch McConnell could be key…” ?? Well, he better be. The Dems are flailing all over the place to destroy PTrump before he destroys them. The “inquiry” is nothing more than MORE obstruct and resist. Then took a 2 week vacay. This is getting exhausting, lol. Anyhoo, this article pretty much explains the impeachment process…..

  9. taw46 says:

    “…..Nancy IS AOC…..”

    Nobody knows the Constitution like Levin. A must watch.

    • Dora says:

      I was just going to post that. Mark Levin is great!

      It’s hard to believe he started out as a ‘Never Trumper’.

      • taw46 says:

        He was a strong supporter of Ted Cruz. During the primary he said he would not vote for Trump in the General should he become the nominee, because he was not a conservative. However, unlike the other NeverTrumpers, once Trump won the nomination, Levin announced he would support and vote for him in the General.

        • lyn says:

          Levin has a brain.

          • taw46 says:

            I listened to him for years. Never heard anyone who knows the founding documents like he does. He is passionate and sometimes really loses it when talking about the insane left (mostly on his radio show, don’t see it on the tv show). The Obama years really made him crazy, lol.

          • Myiq2xu™ says:

            If you don’t “lose it” occasionally you’re not paying attention to what is happening.

        • DeniseVB says:

          There’s a lot of 2016 Never Trumpers who came around. Had Trump not entered the 2016 race, I would have been on the Cruz Train too. But life comes at you fast, only a Trump could have trumped the Hillary that year. He had nothing to lose 🙂

          • taw46 says:

            I was for Cruz until Trump showed up and started talking about immigration. Be still my heart, no one else had the guts to bring it up but him. Many Americans didn’t have a clue as to what was going on until he told them.

          • Myiq2xu™ says:

            My original list was:
            1. Walker
            2. Cruz
            3. Perry

            I started of as a NeverJeb. I told people if someone held a gun to my head and told me to pick Jeb or Hillary I would tell them to pull the trigger. Trump was nowhere on my list because I didn’t consider him a serious candidate. Somewhere around the Megyn Kelly debate I changed my mind about Trump. Scott Adams had a lot to do with that.

          • DeniseVB says:

            Looks like my early list too. NeverJeb !

    • Constance says:

      WOW! Amazing.

  10. michelina says:

    caught up I will do as commanded VB

  11. taw46 says:

    Another good one to read.

    • lyn says:
      Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, their brand of amateur political theater has long since worn thin. The American people are increasingly apt to view all politicians as self-interested and dishonest, including Democrats. Will a plurality of Americans support the impeachment of Donald Trump, therefore? Most assuredly. But a comparable number would probably also support the impeachment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) if such a thing were possible—which is merely a reflection of how polarized and embittered voters have become.

      • lyn says:

        Sixty-six percent of Americans are against impeachment. That’s why the liars are scrambling to blast their bullshit everywhere.

        • lyn says:

          … with the hopes of creating more Americans who have caca for brains.

        • taw46 says:

          And they have the microphone. The question is can they persuade Americans that Trump is guilty. Because they are good at giving half truths or completely ignoring facts that don’t fit the narrative. It is said that a majority of people still get their news from MSM. If that is all they hear and read, then that 66 percent is likely to change. The big unknown, will the Americans fall for the bs?

  12. helenk3 says:

    Iran prisoner swap
    you want to see your sick friend, then let my people go

  13. helenk3 says:

    so the Pentagon used proper judgement on the Ukraine arms, but the dems say Trump with held them. Does anyone in congress have a clue?
    This is scary, they are so busy running around like headless chickens working against a sitting president they do not know what is really going on.

  14. taw46 says:

    She’s got that ‘I’m running’ sound in her voice.

  15. helenk3 says:

    I do not how to make the video show but it is worth watching

  16. helenk3 says:

    so brennen put a CIA operative in the WH, when did it change that the CIA could investigate on American soil? The FBI could but not the CIA.
    I remember reading about a time when CIA had to have a meeting on an Indian reservation because it was not US soil

  17. Dora says:

  18. helenk3 says:

    interesting. are we willing to put up with Trump’s unorthodox behavior?
    He has gotten more done in 2 years than the last 3 presidents ever did.
    what did we want and what did we get?
    you decide

  19. taw46 says:

  20. Dora says:

    Mark is on a roll!

    • michelina says:

      I thoroughly enjoyed mark Levin on the f & f video————kind of support we need
      can’t believe at one time I loved that woman (hillary) she makes me ill

      • DeniseVB says:

        Many former Hillary supporters here, we understand totally 🙂 The 2008 primary especially, she had every right to fight Obama all the way to the convention floor, then leave without endorsing him, but she rolled over and threw us all under the bus. Dems have gone down hill ever since. Hillary too.

        • michelina says:

          I was always an independent. I vote for people I like not party. they were both disgusting with sarah palin———–and I am one who never forgets

  21. taw46 says:

  22. John Denney says:

    “The president used that opportunity to try to coerce that leader to manufacture dirt on his opponent and interfere in our election,” Schiff told chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, referring to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. “I can’t imagine a series of facts more damning than that.”

    So, investigating a specific instance of possible corruption is “manufacturing dirt”?

    OK, then. The Mueller “investigation” was really just “manufacturing dirt” on the President.

    Any investigation of the President is now, “manufacturing dirt”.

  23. Myiq2xu™ says:

  24. helenk3 says:–calls-in-democrats-sights


    wth if we never have any trust between a US government and a foreign government again so be it

    bring on the carrier pigeons

  25. Dora says:

    Think she will accept? (sarc)

    • DeniseVB says:

      Teen CJ Pearson challenged Climate Girl to a debate about climate and stuff. I think Candace Owens has upped her debate challenge to 100k to AOC’s favorite charity…..crickets on both accounts.

  26. Myiq2xu™ says:

    I took the liberty of making a minor edit to Lola’s post. Both Johnson and Clinton were prosecuted in the Senate but neither was convicted.

  27. Woke Lola says:

    Thanks for the edit, MyIQ

    • Myiq2xu™ says:

      I’m kinda a Nazi about legal terms. I was also wondering the other day what would happen if the House passed articles of impeachment and the Senate simply ignored them (which would be a failure to prosecute.)

      • Woke Lola says:

        I probably was thinking “failed to successfully prosecute” and just missed it on review.

        To your second point, that would provoke SCOTUS involvement, another check. The most they could do is force the Senate into a perfunctory show trial. This is going nowhere by all game scenarios.

  28. 1539days says:

    The best of the Democratic candidates.

  29. Myiq2xu™ says:

    So I look at the clock and realize I have to go get Mom from church. I jump up (slowly) and run (slowly) out to the car. I’m driving away from the house and I’m wondering why the world looks so blurry when I realize I’m still wearing my reading glasses.

  30. John Denney says:

    An analysis of the Trump Ukraine call by a constitutional lawyer:

    1. It is unquestioned that Biden, as a sitting VP, took his son Hunter (apparently on gov’t transport) to first Ukraine and then China or that, after each visit, Hunter Biden gained significant economic advantages (as in managing a $1.5B fund in the latter case). Hunter Biden has zero experience in East Europe or China, and no experience in either company’s type of opertions. He was a board member, and board members do not necessarily have either of these, but Biden as a lawyer was really only useful to them (from a professional knowledge point of view) WRT US operations and laws pertaining thereto.

    2. [Joe Biden] Using government office to gain economic advantage for family members [Hunter Biden] is at least arguably and I assert positively is corrupt under existing statutes.

    3. The President is head of the Executive, which carries exclusive power to conduct foreign relations. No other branch of government has this power. (Do not confuse the Senate’s Advise and Consent responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs – the Senate must advise and consent to completed treaties but has zero role in negotiating those treaties, at least as a matter of law.)

    4. The President as Chief Executive is chief law enforcement officer of the USA. As such, he is empowered – I would argue obligated – to investigate corruption, especially at high levels of government.

    5. Item #1 constitutes probable cause for an investigation of Biden for corruption.

    6. As Executive, the President is the ONLY official authorized to request foreign assistance in a corruption investigation (he may delegate this power).

    7. Obtaining foreign cooperation in investigations of corruption by a US official is a matter of statecraft/diplomacy, ie, a function of foreign affairs. No (or very few) rules apply. The President has the sole power here.

    8. CONCLUSION: Trump not only is entirely within his powers to use foreign aid as a means to persuade Zelensky to investigate the Biden affair, I believe he was obligated to do so (qv #4).

    • Myiq2xu™ says:

      My inner legal Nazi demands I correct #5 – it constitutes reasonable suspicion to investigate. Probable cause is the evidence threshold for arrests and searches. There is insufficient evidence to arrest Joe Biden at this point, but plenty of reason to investigate his activities.

  31. Dora says:

    If this is true, it’s frightening.

    • Myiq2xu™ says:

      If banning the AR-15 would end the gun control issue for all time I would agree to it, not because I think it’s right but because it would be a reasonable compromise. Someone could still challenge the constitutionality of the law though.

      But it would not end anything. If we gave them the AR-15 the Democrats would come back the very next day with some other guns to ban.

      • John Denney says:

        They’ve been moving the goal posts for, what? a hundred years?

        Used to be that an American could buy any weapon he wished. Fully functional Civil War cannons used to sit out in people’s front yards.

        But the slow, steady encroachments on the 2A has made most civilians utterly defenseless in public. Simultaneously, there has been an engendering of hoplophobia in the populace to such an extent that, for instance, school teachers would literally rather die shielding students with their bodies than use a firearm to defend them.

    • DeniseVB says:

      “Dem voters” so that doesn’t surprise me, and “poll conducted by The Hill”, yawn. How about we try taking guns away from criminals first ?

    • Cisco says:

      If I may.
      I’m not frightened at all.
      The ones that should be frightened and extremely cautious are those that actually try to…

      • SHV says:

        States are starting to ban 80% lowers which aren’t considered firearms by the ATF. I bought a multi-pack on sale a few weeks ago.

  32. lyn says:

    Fun film on Netflix.

  33. Dora says:


  34. DeniseVB says:

    Hillary’s mini-me is jumping into the fray. So the gloves are off, right? We can smash her in the cyber face now? This is just not a good look for her, little bitch……

  35. Dora says:

    Oh, give me a break!

  36. DeniseVB says:

    Say what Joe?

  37. Woke Lola says:

    Well, well, well. Biden flinches.

    • Somebody says:

      To ban Rudy? Scratch a dem and you always come up with a fascist. So is that going to be his MOA if elected? Ban all critics?

    • DeniseVB says:

      Hell, you know that’s what Obama did, sent the entire media on vacation for 8 years and left us with the swooning JournOlisters. Joe’s not that bright, he should have sent a “hit man” to the nets 😛

    • lyn says:

      The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists, Joe. Thank Ronnie for that.

  38. DeniseVB says:

    These are not spontaneous phone calls, part 2.

    • Somebody says:

      Does Liz ever wear anything but black? I know she usually wears a color cardigan or jacket, but it seems she always pairs everything with black pants and a black shirt. I’m not suggesting orange pantsuits or Mao wear like Hillary, but damn.

      I guess I’m sexist for asking that. Men generally wear suits in only a handful of colors.

      • DeniseVB says:

        To tell you the truth, I really haven’t noticed what the Dem ladies are wearing, so they must not be too awful. 😀 Love it, Mao wear.

      • Constance says:

        Warren always wears the black column and a bright sweater or unconstructed blazer. It’s a lot more relatable than what Hillary wore. Women looked at Hillary’s clothes and though “where exactly do those clothes come from, I’ve never seen anything like that in the store”. Warren’s look can be purchased on QVC. Warren also stays very skinny and jumps around a lot and charges the stairs and all that makes her different than Hillary the fat old lady who could hardly do stairs.

        • Somebody says:

          I get relatable, retail politics 101. It just seems she could mix it up with some navy, brown or khaki, coupled with her colorful cardigans and jackets.

          • Mothy67 says:

            I think she always looks like someone’s uptight aunt. Not a funt at all and not your own aunt. Someone elses.

          • lateblum says:

            I like the way she dresses. Even though it is the same style every time, it works for her. It actually is relatable to those of us who had to wear decent clothes to work every day but not look uppity or like a clothes horse.

  39. Myiq2xu™ says:

  40. Angie says:

  41. Angie says:

    You’re wrong to question whether Trump should have released the full transcript. Anything short of the full transcript would leave room for the Dems to make up more shit than they already have.
    As for precedent–fuck precedent. The way the dems and the media have acted since the election is without precedent. The CIA, led by Brennen, and Comey’s FBI are openly and with the full approval of the media and DNC spying on the duly elected President of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton went on TV today and claimed Trump is illegitimate. You can say Trump is playing defense all you want, but the ONLY way you can defeat this kind of lunacy and hysteria is with the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. Period. This is not conveniential politics. And if it hurts future presidents, blame the Dems & the media.

    • lyn says:

      ❤ Great comment! I hate Hillary to hell.

    • Woke Lola says:

      Wait, I never said Trump was playing defense. I said Democrats are.

      I get why Trump released the transcript. There was nothing there. But I still think it may have been a mistake. There may be things I’m not seeing, and if this eventually leads to more transparency overall in government, I will applaud that outcome.

      I agree this unhingedness coming from the deep state, which clearly includes many elected Democrats and much of the media, is unprecedented.

      • lyn says:

        I want to see all Obama admin. communication with Iran. P.S. I hate the term “quid pro quo.”

      • Angie says:

        I misread. You write about the release of the transcript then started next paragraph with “This looks like a defensive play.” Going back & re-reading I see where I made my mistske.

        I still disagree that Trump may have made a mistake re: precedent for reasons I stated. There is no precedent and if Trump doesn’t break the swamp once & for all, it won’t matter anyway. That is, if Dems pull this off there will NEVER be another non-uniparty POTUS again. The Dems actions are an existential threat.

        And I’ll add that I think that Trump did think twice before he did release the transcript. He raised the precedent issues publicly before releasing & he waited some 3 or 4 days obviously until he consulted with Ukraine President.

        • Woke Lola says:

          I definitely agree that none of this will matter if he doesn’t do something about the swamp. It’s ridiculous what these assholes get away with. Honestly, I have secret fantasies that I wake up one day to the news that EVEYTHING has been declassified. 😂🙏👍

    • Locked-N-Loaded says:


  42. Dora says:

  43. lyn says:

    Love the replies.

    • michelina says:

      I can’t deal with listening everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie

    • lateblum says:

      I watched this horrid propaganda Sunday morning. I was so angered by this effort to legitimize the Left and HRC efforts to disenfranchise 63million voters and call the election illegitimate. It was disgusting. And I kept reminding myself of what HRC said in the debate when she implied the conservatives wouldn’t accept the election results (when she won) and how dangerous that would be.
      OMG when I think about how I held her I such high regard in 2008!! How blind I was! And now,the ppl who called me racist in 2008 because I supported her rather than TehOne, those ppl are giving her full throated support. smh

  44. Angie says:

  45. Mothy67 says:


  46. Woke Lola says:

  47. helenk3 says:

    the more I see these useless cowards, the more I believe in the SOS law shoot on sight. You can use a stun gun and aim for the little privates they have. That way they can not reproduce which is doing the world a favor

  48. helenk3 says:

    keep reading about the idiot mayor on NYC making the words illegal alien a crime to speak. So would criminal intruder be ok to say?

  49. swanspirit says:

    This segment, on Life, Liberty, and Levin, reveals, via his guest, partially, the depth, breadth, and expanse of the corruption of the Bidens.
    And his guest, Peter Schweizer, has written a best selling book, with those details and more, involving so many more members of Congress. He goes into what Hunter Biden did with the money, once he brought it back to the states.And none of this is secret.
    I was gobsmacked. I shouldn’t have been, given what we know so far, but I was.
    Why should we worry about the Chinese, stealing our military secrets, when Hunter Biden’s company sells those secrets to them?

  50. Myiq2xu™ says:

    20 Jobs that were popular in 1980 that have almost disappeared:

    20. Newspaper publishing and printing
    475,800 people were employed in 1980, falling to 207,700 in 2017 (a 56% drop).

    19. Metalworking machinery manufacturing
    370,300 people were employed in 1980, falling to 156,600 in 2017 (a 58% drop).

    18. Iron and steel foundries
    208,500 people were employed in 1980, falling to 88,100 in 2017 (a 58% drop).

    17. Metal forging and stamping
    183,300 people were employed in 1980, falling to 73,700 in 2017 (a 60% drop).

    16. Blast furnaces, steelworks, and rolling and finishing mills
    682,200 people were employed in 1980, falling to 270,000 in 2017 (a 60% drop).

    15. Construction and material handling machines manufacturing
    389,400 people were employed in 1980, falling to 152,400 in 2017 (a 61% drop).

    14. Water transportation
    189,600 people were employed in 1980, falling to 74,000 in 2017 (a 61% drop).

    13. Household appliances manufacturing
    185,800 people were employed in 1980, falling to 71,400 in 2017 (a 62% drop).

    12. Primary aluminum production
    171,600 people were employed in 1980, falling to 64,100 in 2017 (a 63% drop).

    11. Metal mining
    122,000 people were employed in 1980, falling to 45,200 in 2017 (a 63% drop).

    10. Computer and related equipment manufacturing
    419,400 people were employed in 1980, falling to 146,600 in 2017 (a 65% drop).

    9. Guided missiles, space vehicles, and parts manufacturing
    198,100 people were employed in 1980, falling to 66,900 in 2017 (a 66% drop).

    8. Cutlery, hand tools, and general hardware manufacturing
    143,900 people were employed in 1980, falling to 46,500 in 2017 (a 68% drop).

    7. Coal mining
    263,100 people were employed in 1980, falling to 62,500 in 2017 (a 76% drop).

    6. Radio, TV, and communication equipment manufacturing
    588,900 people were employed in 1980, falling to 136,000 in 2017 (a 77% drop).

    5. Primary metal industries, other than iron, steel, and aluminum
    251,200 people were employed in 1980, falling to 54,000 in 2017 (a 78% drop).

    4. Footwear manufacturing
    160,600 people were employed in 1980, falling to 32,500 in 2017 (an 80% drop).

    3. Yarn, thread, and fabric mills
    568,300 people were employed in 1980, falling to 107,600 in 2017 (an 81% drop).

    2. Apparel and accessories manufacturing
    1,149,300 people were employed in 1980, falling to 206,900 in 2017 (an 82% drop).

    1. Knitting mills
    178,100 people were employed in 1980, falling to 17,700 in 2017 (a 90% drop)

    Only two of those jobs really disappeared. The others just left the country.

  51. Myiq2xu™ says:

Comments are closed.