What is your present favorability rating of Donald Trump's executive actions?
Absolutely Favor
6.2% (8)
6.2% (8)
Mostly Favor
9.2% (12)
9.2% (12)
Barely Favor
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Neutral
3.1% (4)
3.1% (4)
Barely Disfavor
0.8% (1)
0.8% (1)
Mostly Disfavor
20% (26)
20% (26)
Absolutely Disfavor
58.5% (76)
58.5% (76)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Donald Trump Executive Actions General

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Epyc Wynn:
President Trump hits majority disapproval in record time, Gallup finds

At least every president after Donald Trump will look better by comparison. Unless our democracy falls to Trumpist Fascism in which case this is the first in a long line of horrible people.

So 51% disapproval from United States citizens in 8 days; at least America will have a booming new salt industry thanks to him.

Is it by the same people who gave Clinton 91% of winning?

inu-kun:

Epyc Wynn:
President Trump hits majority disapproval in record time, Gallup finds

At least every president after Donald Trump will look better by comparison. Unless our democracy falls to Trumpist Fascism in which case this is the first in a long line of horrible people.

So 51% disapproval from United States citizens in 8 days; at least America will have a booming new salt industry thanks to him.

Is it by the same people who gave Clinton 91% of winning?

Probability isnt the same as percentiles.

inu-kun:

Epyc Wynn:
President Trump hits majority disapproval in record time, Gallup finds

At least every president after Donald Trump will look better by comparison. Unless our democracy falls to Trumpist Fascism in which case this is the first in a long line of horrible people.

So 51% disapproval from United States citizens in 8 days; at least America will have a booming new salt industry thanks to him.

Is it by the same people who gave Clinton 91% of winning?

A: not the same type of statistic, this is based on survey, not calculating probability

B: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/update-incidents-hateful-harassment-election-day-now-number-701 trump supporters quite clearly disregard all laws and norms when voicing even their most abhorrant opinions, so i'd dare say they wouldn't lie on a survey

CyanCat47:

inu-kun:

Epyc Wynn:
President Trump hits majority disapproval in record time, Gallup finds

At least every president after Donald Trump will look better by comparison. Unless our democracy falls to Trumpist Fascism in which case this is the first in a long line of horrible people.

So 51% disapproval from United States citizens in 8 days; at least America will have a booming new salt industry thanks to him.

Is it by the same people who gave Clinton 91% of winning?

A: not the same type of statistic, this is based on survey, not calculating probability

B: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/18/update-incidents-hateful-harassment-election-day-now-number-701 trump supporters quite clearly disregard all laws and norms when voicing even their most abhorrant opinions, so i'd dare say they wouldn't lie on a survey

1. Hmmm, unless they polled every person in the USA it is based on probability.

2. Yay demonizing! Something tells me if every Trump supporter would have done a hate crime the number would be several orders higher.

inu-kun:
1. Hmmm, unless they polled every person in the USA it is based on probability.

Indeed. I would expect that based on the survey we can put Trumps disapproval rating amongst the general populace is in some interval around 51% with a 95% probability. This is still disregarding that these surveys might not be entirely a-select since, as some believe, those who approve of Trump are less likely to respond to polling phone calls.

That said, we shouldn't pretend that these polls are entirely inaccurate and cannot be used to estimate Trumps popularity at all. Trumps popularity is measured the same way as that of Obama was and mostly the same way as those of earlier presidents, like Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan were. If he significantly underperforms compared to them we can take that as a sign that he isn't as popular as them. This is congruent with other signs of impopularity, like the protests, his poor score in terms of the popular vote, the low turnout to his inauguration, and the boatloads of people being publicly rather negative about him.

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
1. Hmmm, unless they polled every person in the USA it is based on probability.

Indeed. I would expect that based on the survey we can put Trumps disapproval rating amongst the general populace is in some interval around 51% with a 95% probability. This is still disregarding that these surveys might not be entirely a-select since, as some believe, those who approve of Trump are less likely to respond to polling phone calls.

That said, we shouldn't pretend that these polls are entirely inaccurate and cannot be used to estimate Trumps popularity at all. Trumps popularity is measured the same way as that of Obama was and mostly the same way as those of earlier presidents, like Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan were. If he significantly underperforms compared to them we can take that as a sign that he isn't as popular as them. This is congruent with other signs of impopularity, like the protests, his poor score in terms of the popular vote, the low turnout to his inauguration, and the boatloads of people being publicly rather negative about him.

Depends on the polling method, the classic example is polling to people's homes not being very good in areas most homes do not have a land line, this can create a bias that can explain inaccuracies. So, for example, maybe the polling method is biased toward large cities, thus having higher numbers against Trump. It doesn't help the massive size and populace of the USA.

inu-kun:
Depends on the polling method, the classic example is polling to people's homes not being very good in areas most homes do not have a land line, this can create a bias that can explain inaccuracies. So, for example, maybe the polling method is biased toward large cities, thus having higher numbers against Trump. It doesn't help the massive size and populace of the USA.

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
Depends on the polling method, the classic example is polling to people's homes not being very good in areas most homes do not have a land line, this can create a bias that can explain inaccuracies. So, for example, maybe the polling method is biased toward large cities, thus having higher numbers against Trump. It doesn't help the massive size and populace of the USA.

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

erttheking:
... and I don't want to hear that Hitler comparisons aren't relevant. I don't want to fucking hear it.

Actually, the Hitler comparisons are wide of the mark.

He's got much more in common with Mussolini.

Zhukov:

erttheking:
... and I don't want to hear that Hitler comparisons aren't relevant. I don't want to fucking hear it.

Actually, the Hitler comparisons are wide of the mark.

He's got much more in common with Mussolini.

Very well. I'll keep that in mind.

erttheking:

Zhukov:

erttheking:
... and I don't want to hear that Hitler comparisons aren't relevant. I don't want to fucking hear it.

Actually, the Hitler comparisons are wide of the mark.

He's got much more in common with Mussolini.

Very well. I'll keep that in mind.

(It was a joke.)

I mean, it's also kinda true, but I was saying it in an attempt at humour.

Zhukov:

erttheking:

Zhukov:

Actually, the Hitler comparisons are wide of the mark.

He's got much more in common with Mussolini.

Very well. I'll keep that in mind.

(It was a joke.)

I mean, it's also kinda true, but I was saying it in an attempt at humour.

Ah. Heh. Gotcha. Sorry, it's Trump. The phrase "He's more like Mussolini" is something I can believe very easily.

"If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!"

"There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!"

"Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!"

"The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration. The two Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.""

~ Donald Jong Trump

Edit: For clarification all of the above was said within the last couple days on his official Twitter.

Here's an update involving Saudi Arabia that might actually explain why Iran was one of the countries on the 'banned' list.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-king-salman-abdulaziz-al-saud-agree-safe-zones-syria-yemen-a7553341.html

Oh, and the U.S. has carried out its first military operation in Yemen since Trump's inauguration, reporting they have killed fourteen enemy combatants. There are also reports seeping out that there were thirty civilian casualties on top of that, women and children included, but it's too early to confirm or disprove for certain. Certainly, if true, you'll never see the administration address it, unless it's to decry it as fake news. =P

That's part of what's going to make the next four years so frustrating. Trump has cried wolf on 'Fake News' so frequently by now, if ever something comes along that shines him or his government in a negative light but is actually untrue, his word alone is going to be all but useless, because it's already been established he'll shout 'Fake News' at everything, including 'Real But REALLY Inconvenient News.'

Independent: UN denounces Trump's travel ban as 'mean-spirited' and illegal under human rights law - 'Discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law

>be the roosevelt
>united states wants a united nations
>make the u.n. specifically to promote democratic values and global unity
>design u.n. human rights laws specifically for this purpose
>make one of those laws against discriminating based on nationality
>be donald trump
>"FUCK IT AM I RIGHT LET'S BAN THOSE MUSLIMS!"
>roosevelt's fw

image

Which is more surprising, that Donald Trump ignored the first amendment's freedom of religion or a human rights law against nationality discrimination?

How is he not subpoenaed over any of this yet?

Why is the Republican establishment failing to speak out against this? Are they afraid to stand against someone they supported in electing? Or maybe they just agree deep down but are afraid to admit it.

SeventhSigil:

Oh, and the U.S. has carried out its first military operation in Yemen since Trump's inauguration, reporting they have killed fourteen enemy combatants. There are also reports seeping out that there were thirty civilian casualties on top of that, women and children included, but it's too early to confirm or disprove for certain. Certainly, if true, you'll never see the administration address it, unless it's to decry it as fake news. =P

Isn't this also a norm for the Obama administration?

inu-kun:

SeventhSigil:

Oh, and the U.S. has carried out its first military operation in Yemen since Trump's inauguration, reporting they have killed fourteen enemy combatants. There are also reports seeping out that there were thirty civilian casualties on top of that, women and children included, but it's too early to confirm or disprove for certain. Certainly, if true, you'll never see the administration address it, unless it's to decry it as fake news. =P

Isn't this also a norm for the Obama administration?

Civilian casualties and a government kind of 'ehhhhhing' around the issue? Absolutely.

But considering the new President is a man who suggested targeting noncombatants should be a matter of policy, rather than collateral damage due to carelessness or recklessness (Gotta go after their families, after all,) it's the potential difference between firing in a crowded room with your eyes closed, and specifically aiming for as many fleeing people as possible. =P

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
Depends on the polling method, the classic example is polling to people's homes not being very good in areas most homes do not have a land line, this can create a bias that can explain inaccuracies. So, for example, maybe the polling method is biased toward large cities, thus having higher numbers against Trump. It doesn't help the massive size and populace of the USA.

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

I mean, yeah? And due to how statistics work, their number will be accurate to ~3%, 95% of the time.

I'm not the only one who's taken statistics, right?

SeventhSigil:

Civilian casualties and a government kind of 'ehhhhhing' around the issue? Absolutely.

But considering the new President is a man who suggested targeting noncombatants should be a matter of policy, rather than collateral damage due to carelessness or recklessness (Gotta go after their families, after all,) it's the potential difference between firing in a crowded room with your eyes closed, and specifically aiming for as many fleeing people as possible. =P

The problem is showing connection between the command and the president, he can say what he wants but in the end it's the people in command of the operation that makes the call.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

I mean, yeah? And due to how statistics work, their number will be accurate to ~3%, 95% of the time.

I'm not the only one who's taken statistics, right?

Yes but it's 9000 out of 200M, I can try to work it out by probability but am pretty sure it doesn't amount to anything, a couple of months down the line and it can be pretty meaningful as results from the start of the term.

inu-kun:

SeventhSigil:

Civilian casualties and a government kind of 'ehhhhhing' around the issue? Absolutely.

But considering the new President is a man who suggested targeting noncombatants should be a matter of policy, rather than collateral damage due to carelessness or recklessness (Gotta go after their families, after all,) it's the potential difference between firing in a crowded room with your eyes closed, and specifically aiming for as many fleeing people as possible. =P

The problem is showing connection between the command and the president, he can say what he wants but in the end it's the people in command of the operation that makes the call.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

I mean, yeah? And due to how statistics work, their number will be accurate to ~3%, 95% of the time.

I'm not the only one who's taken statistics, right?

Yes but it's 9000 out of 200M, I can try to work it out by probability but am pretty sure it doesn't amount to anything, a couple of months down the line and it can be pretty meaningful as results from the start of the term.

To be fair, more than half the country did not even vote for Trump...more than half the country did not even vote at all...

Edit: Though to be fair against myself, I dont know the population of eligible voters compared to total s:

inu-kun:

SeventhSigil:

Civilian casualties and a government kind of 'ehhhhhing' around the issue? Absolutely.

But considering the new President is a man who suggested targeting noncombatants should be a matter of policy, rather than collateral damage due to carelessness or recklessness (Gotta go after their families, after all,) it's the potential difference between firing in a crowded room with your eyes closed, and specifically aiming for as many fleeing people as possible. =P

The problem is showing connection between the command and the president, he can say what he wants but in the end it's the people in command of the operation that makes the call.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

I mean, yeah? And due to how statistics work, their number will be accurate to ~3%, 95% of the time.

I'm not the only one who's taken statistics, right?

Yes but it's 9000 out of 200M, I can try to work it out by probability but am pretty sure it doesn't amount to anything, a couple of months down the line and it can be pretty meaningful as results from the start of the term.

That was actually pointed out to him during one of the Republican debates, when it was mentioned that because this pretty much fell under the category of a war crime, the military would be able to refuse his orders. His response was something along the lines of "They won't refuse. They're not gonna refuse. Believe me." with a dash of "I'm a leader, I've always been a leader. I've never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they're going to do it."

At this point it's too early to say which pull will win against what push. But Trump has made it pretty clear that he intended to enthusiastically push in that direction, meaning right now our best hope is that his push will be resisted by the armed forces, and that Trump won't be able to replace those who oppose the idea with people more, er, agreeable to it. =P

inu-kun:

altnameJag:
I mean, yeah? And due to how statistics work, their number will be accurate to ~3%, 95% of the time.

I'm not the only one who's taken statistics, right?

Yes but it's 9000 out of 200M, I can try to work it out by probability but am pretty sure it doesn't amount to anything, a couple of months down the line and it can be pretty meaningful as results from the start of the term.

The probability is that it has a 95% chance to be accurate to within +/- 3%. Welcome to statistics.

A summary of Donald Trump's actions from the U.S. Holocaust Museum:

image

And he just happens to get along with the fascist government of Russia.

Donald Trump fires Acting Attorney General Yates over resisting the immigration order and replaces her with Dana Boente.

She knew this would happen in advance but did it anyway because it is illegal.

A hero standing up for what is right and the true laws of the land.

Nixon was impeached when he fired his attorney general for refusing to obey an unlawful order.

The Saturday Night Massacre is the name of an event in which the U.S. President Richard Nixon's dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and as a result the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, which occurred during the Watergate scandal. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was a direct result of the Saturday Night Massacre.

Nixon 2.0: Fascist Edition

Epyc Wynn:
Donald Trump fires Acting Attorney General Yates over resisting the immigration order and replaces her with Dana Boente.

She knew this would happen in advance but did it anyway because it is illegal.

A hero standing up for what is right and the true laws of the land.

Nixon was impeached when he fired his attorney general for refusing to obey an unlawful order.

Carl Bernstein (as in, one half of the very prominent journalism duo that investigated Nixon) apparently chimed in with regards to Trump's move while on CNN, and has mentioned that Trump does seem to be within his rights to do this. (Dunno if it's because Yates was technically an Acting Attorney General, or what.) Considering both Bernstein's experience with the matter, I'm inclined to take his word for it from a legal standpoint, especially since Bernstein isn't a supporter of Trump by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Bernstein of course had some choice words for the move outside the strictly legal sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-presidency-carl-bernstein-nixon-attorney-general-yates-2017-1

"[Trump] has obstructed the most basic of American principles of what we stand for as a country in terms of immigration; a nation of immigrants. These are authoritarian pronouncements that he has been making for days now, and it's starting to haunt him."

If you were all to look at the sum total general pattern of Donald Trump's executive actions for the month of January, what end games/goals do you believe he is playing at?

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
Depends on the polling method, the classic example is polling to people's homes not being very good in areas most homes do not have a land line, this can create a bias that can explain inaccuracies. So, for example, maybe the polling method is biased toward large cities, thus having higher numbers against Trump. It doesn't help the massive size and populace of the USA.

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

...Only 9000?

Diminishing returns are very much a thing in statistics and a sample size of 9000 is more than sufficient for most purposes. The standard poll boasts 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error. To illustrate how diminishing returns work in this context, in order to achieve such margins with a population of 1000, you would need to poll 706 people.

For a population of 5000, you would need to poll 1622.
For 10000, you would need to poll 1936.
For 15000, you would have to poll 2070.
For 50000, you'd need to poll 2291 people.
Jumping all the way up to a million, and you'd need a sample size of 2395.
By 50,000,000, you'd need a sample size of 2400.
And after that, for all intents and purposes, you get that 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error with a sample size of 2401.

Provided proper sampling techniques, 9000 is a very respectable sample size (More than double what you'd need for 99% certainty with a similar margin of error) unless you're putting in the extra effort to get a 1% margin of error (under which circumstances you'd need a sample size of 9604 for 95% confidence and 16641 for a 99% confidence).

Asita:

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

Maybe it is, but actually it isn't. See here: http://www.gallup.com/201191/gallup-daily-tracking-work.aspx

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

...Only 9000?

Diminishing returns are very much a thing in statistics and a sample size of 9000 is more than sufficient for most purposes. The standard poll boasts 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error. To illustrate how diminishing returns work in this context, in order to achieve such margins with a population of 1000, you would need to poll 706 people.

For a population of 5000, you would need to poll 1622.
For 10000, you would need to poll 1936.
For 15000, you would have to poll 2070.
For 50000, you'd need to poll 2291 people.
Jumping all the way up to a million, and you'd need a sample size of 2395.
By 50,000,000, you'd need a sample size of 2400.
And after that, for all intents and purposes, you get that 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error with a sample size of 2401.

Provided proper sampling techniques, 9000 is a very respectable sample size (More than double what you'd need for 99% certainty with a similar margin of error) unless you're putting in the extra effort to get a 1% margin of error (under which circumstances you'd need a sample size of 9604 for 95% confidence and 16641 for a 99% confidence).

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

inu-kun:

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

If you're polling for a national approval rating, I'm not sure how arbitrary state-based geographic lines are going to make a difference.

inu-kun:

Asita:

inu-kun:

Isn't 1000 people a day for the last 9 days means that only 9000 people were asked their thoughts since the start of his term?

...Only 9000?

Diminishing returns are very much a thing in statistics and a sample size of 9000 is more than sufficient for most purposes. The standard poll boasts 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error. To illustrate how diminishing returns work in this context, in order to achieve such margins with a population of 1000, you would need to poll 706 people.

For a population of 5000, you would need to poll 1622.
For 10000, you would need to poll 1936.
For 15000, you would have to poll 2070.
For 50000, you'd need to poll 2291 people.
Jumping all the way up to a million, and you'd need a sample size of 2395.
By 50,000,000, you'd need a sample size of 2400.
And after that, for all intents and purposes, you get that 95% certainty with a +/-2% margin of error with a sample size of 2401.

Provided proper sampling techniques, 9000 is a very respectable sample size (More than double what you'd need for 99% certainty with a similar margin of error) unless you're putting in the extra effort to get a 1% margin of error (under which circumstances you'd need a sample size of 9604 for 95% confidence and 16641 for a 99% confidence).

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

180 per state is fine, considering that this is a national poll, devised to figure out what the general opinion of the guy who's supposed to to govern the country is.

Let's not make this more granular and anisotropic than it is.

Contrary to what most people say about the US, there aren't that many "Blue states" or "Red states".

image

The US is actually pretty bloody purple. And for some reason, US politicians don't want Californian Republicans, or Texan Democrats to be able to have a say.

New York Daily News: "President Trump named in more than 50 federal lawsuits since taking office ranging from his business ties to his ban on Muslim countries."

By contrast, Obama was named in 11 lawsuits in his own first 11 days in office.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

If you're polling for a national approval rating, I'm not sure how arbitrary state-based geographic lines are going to make a difference.

The problem is that the average support can change by state (for example he might be more supported in border states), going with the parameter of average support being constant throughout the USA might lead to wrong results (like 2 slot machines with one being 0.25 chance of winning and the other half and thinking they both have the same probability).

Epyc Wynn:
New York Daily News: "President Trump named in more than 50 federal lawsuits since taking office ranging from his business ties to his ban on Muslim countries."

By contrast, Obama was named in 11 lawsuits in his own first 11 days in office.

The comment afterwards actually makes it less interesting.

inu-kun:

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

If you're polling for a national approval rating, I'm not sure how arbitrary state-based geographic lines are going to make a difference.

The problem is that the average support can change by state (for example he might be more supported in border states), going with the parameter of average support being constant throughout the USA might lead to wrong results (like 2 slot machines with one being 0.25 chance of winning and the other half and thinking they both have the same probability).

...It's a national poll, not an electoral college one.

inu-kun:

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Need to work out the Gaussian for this one, but the problem I'm thinking about is that the population is not homogeneous, if it was purely homogeneous than 9000 might be fine, but the polling method means that only 180 people represent each state.

If you're polling for a national approval rating, I'm not sure how arbitrary state-based geographic lines are going to make a difference.

The problem is that the average support can change by state (for example he might be more supported in border states), going with the parameter of average support being constant throughout the USA might lead to wrong results (like 2 slot machines with one being 0.25 chance of winning and the other half and thinking they both have the same probability).

Epyc Wynn:
New York Daily News: "President Trump named in more than 50 federal lawsuits since taking office ranging from his business ties to his ban on Muslim countries."

By contrast, Obama was named in 11 lawsuits in his own first 11 days in office.

The comment afterwards actually makes it less interesting.

Well it's not like I'm going to hate Trump without giving a fair perspective on him.

Holy crap. Apparently, Trump is planning to rework the "Countering Violence Extremism" program into the "Countering Islamic Extremism", and in the process, turn its focus away from white supremacist terrorists and instead ONLY focus on, well, Islamic terrorists.

Source

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here