And not in Illinois. Soon we will also not control the governorship. @Rhodesiaboo

we already don't control the government imo

Rauner may as well be a dem

Well then maybe Illinois should pass a law that divides that state between Chicago and the rest of the state

I'm sure the dems who control Illinois's state legislature will be responsive to that

Why?

He's being sarcastic, you smart man.

Rauner can't even control the Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly anymore.

He definitely cannot control the Democrats!

When can the gang wars in Chicago finally end?

Anyways, PA-01 polls are coming

Brian Fitzpatrick is an amnesty fag and a 'muh russia' fag, but he's not a democrat, so we'll see how this goes.

criticized the muslim travel ban

this is also a district where previous polls show Fitzpatrick in the lead, including DNC internals

if he's in the lead, don't get too excited

in other news, Cruz is now out of the margin of error in the Texas Senate poll in the NYT

looks like he got a wave of people saying they'll vote R

I'd be OK with Cruz+9

Matching Drumpf's vote would be reasonably acceptable.

if we matched Drump'fs 2016 performance of D+2

then no blue wave

and I think that'd correspond to 56 senate seats

Trump has to stop with the tarrifs.

They're going to result in higher interest rates..

Ugh...

Trump has to expand them further if the long term health of the American economy is any concern. From political perspective of short term gains and losses it may be disadvantageous but this is what he campaigned on.

Rather excellent article on the topic: https://republicstandard.com/trumponomics-part-1-tweets-tough-talk-tariffs-and-twin-deficits/

You underestimate China's tolerance for poverty.

And the power and influence tariffs have over the stock market, and foreign investment in general.

That's right, however investment into the American market will increase once internal demands increases for American manufactured steel and other widgets.

@Rabbi Akeldama is particularly expert on this topic if you're looking for a discussion on the topic.

@[Lex] Except the demand wouldn't increase, merely the cost of investment.

The demand would increase due to the increased cost of imports. This is especially necessary in the event of war but more importantly in order to avoid debt. When one creates a fiscal deficit, the gross value of all excess imports is paid with treasury bonds which have a upward curve in bond yields as America becomes less and less able to repay its debt.

It also leads to foreign countries asserting greater levels of control over your political process and your economics. This is evident in Australia where Chinese speculation has caused a real estate bubble in Sydney.

And increasingly the case in the American west coast.

The twin-deficits phenomenon refers to a situation where a nation simultaneously maintains a current account deficit and, a budget deficit. In layman’s this means the value of a nations imports exceeds exports, the effect being the national currency builds up overseas, forcing overseas holders of dollars to convert most of them into US Treasury securities; by auctioning US Treasuries the US Government can fund budget deficits. It’s really that simple. Cause and effect.
National trade overspending translates to the federal government overspending. Give the government a large credit limit, it will use it.
By kicking the proverbial tin can down the super-highway of debt rather than taxing corporate and individual incomes in the present, politicians can avoid immediate fallout from voters as well as corporate donors. Can’t somebody else deal with it? The answer in the neoliberal universe is Yes! Your children, grandchildren, and their children can deal with it. Year after year the US Federal government sells fresh treasury debt overseas, rolling over old debt but also increasing new issuance. It is never retired and there’s no end in sight.

This process of continually funding the government through debt is only possible under two scenarios. Firstly, wealthy nationals can purchase most government debt, as in Japan, where the vast majority of the huge government debt is owned by the BoJ or Japanese institutional investors who presumably hold more in common with their own government than foreigners - and vice versa. Secondly, in the case of the US, with a structural trade deficit in place foreigners can earn the US dollars necessary to act as bankers to the US government. What could possibly go wrong with this second scenario where so much of a nation’s government debt is owned by foreigners?

@[Lex] You forget one thing.

You assume foreign investment would remain the same with increased costs.

Foreign investment would increase if the trade policy is CONSISTENT.

That's the only flaw.

Explain.