Ironically Trump didn't run it by any of the departments so no one knew what he meant by the EO so everyone's been calling up the WH for the last few days asking for clarification.

oh look a wild deplorable appears and starts JAQing off, never seen that before

You are either:

a) trolling
b) too uninformed to be posting here
c) too stupid to be posting here

Every time a person/family comes up and asks for asylum, we should grant it and deport a Trump supporter/family to where they came from. Keep the population of both countries balanced. We can help those in need and the Trumpers can bootstrap themselves up and at the same time fix those countries. Win/win.

There's always Gitmo.

Also every one of these families deserves compensation for emotional damages.

The one thing businessdude reminded is of is the fact that I don't have him on ignore.

I have remedied that.

I've never said this non-sarcastically, but Angus King is a gentleman and a talented policy maker.

i haven't looked any real polls yet but my gut reaction is that the immigration issues in the news now are going to be good for Trump.

You have no idea of what it's like to be an immigrant, nor how stupid the whole notion is. Live in a place for 15 years as second class member of society and get back to me with your "good lord" bull****.

OMG:

Since Trump has advised Republicans to "... quit wasting their time on immigration until we elect more Republicans [in November]," I suppose we'll find out. I suspect Trump has seriously miscalculated, but I also thought he would never be elected President, so what do I know?

Last night on MSNBC, Kris Kornacke took a look at the latest polling data for ten key Senate races. (These are the races where the Democratic incumbent is believed to be facing the toughest challenge from a Republican opponent.) In order for the GOP to achieve Trump's wet dream - a filibuster-proof (60 seat) majority - they need a net gain of nine Republican seats. (With the election of Democrat Doug Jones last December, the Senate now has 51 Republican senators - a razor thin majority.)

Kornacke started off with two Dem senators, (i.e. Missouri's Claire McKaskill and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp), who may be in trouble. I can't remember McKaskill's number, but I think she was ahead (or behind) her opponent by less than 5 percent - well within the margin of error. The same was true of Heitkamp, although I believe she was trailing her opponent. Either way, it looks like two Democratic incumbents are in tough races.

West Virginia is interesting. Incumbent senator Joe Manchin, who the GOP is really hoping to knock off, may wind up in a three-way race as Don Blankenship - the former coal baron who was defeated in the Republican primary - is threatening to run as a third party candidate. Even without Blankenship in the race, Machin is running 5-7 percent ahead of his Republican opponent. (It will be interesting to see what happens when Trump starts showing up in "coal country" encouraging people to vote against Manchin.)

Florida is not a tight race. Republican Governor Rick Scott is taking on Bill Nelson. Nelson is presently polling at 50 percent to Scott's 40 percent. I can't remember all the rest of the races, but, IIRC, the Democratic incumbents were all ahead by double digits. So, at best, the GOP might pick up a maximum of 3-5 senate seats. That's not a filibuster proof majority. So Trump's dream of electing "a lot of Republicans" in the Senate, appears to be a pipe dream.

As for the House of Representatives, good luck there. Long time Republican consultant Mike Murphy believes "70 to 100" seats may be in play thanks to Trump's zero tolerance policy on immigration. If the Democrats pick up only half of that range, Trump will have to contend with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Trump appears to believe that playing the immigration issue hard is the key to a winning political strategy. If he turns out to be wrong, his wings will be clipped. If the GOP picks up only one or two Senate seats - and loses the House by a margin of 50+ seats - Republicans will turn on Trump. If the loss is bad enough, Trump will no longer be feared - he'll be loathed.

All of this is speculation on my part - more hope than certainty. Hopefully, the Dems will get their messaging right this time around the track. With the "gift" Trump has given them of separating children from their parents, you can already visualize the election TV ads. It's going to get nasty ...

I'm not entirely positive who you're lashing out at in this post, but I think your aim might be off.

Yeah that was my take also

i give angus king high marks in general but i was very disappointed to see him vote in favor of stripping away some of the dodd frank regulations/protections a few weeks ago

yup the good old msnbc polls. you know the ones that had hillary in a landslide till she lost. gl with them

You haven't been banned yet?

How about you post a link to an msnbc poll from the second half of October or into November showing Hillary winning in a landslide, or you can have a day off.

becky still around? Guess mods been busy with other things as of late.

She posts like once a month or something. A one-day ban does ****all.

The content is one thing, but isn't a username with 'heil hitler' a problem for the site?

lol mods

Not if you are good at math.

A+

Boston working overtime to maintain that title of “most secretly racist place in America”

That's truly unbelievable. Boston, great job with kids over the years guys.