Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Dominus Atheos]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

[The Romulan Republic]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

Perhaps, but...

Let's imagine (however admittedly unlikely), a hypothetical in which it turned out that Russian interference altered the result of the election- clear, proven voter fraud whereby Hillary Clinton actually was the rightful winner.

Is there a Constitutional procedure for "It turns out we got the winner wrong, but we don't find out until months later"? If so, please quote the relevant passage. Because its certainly utterly unprecedented.

If it were at all ambiguous, you'd have no basis for overturning the outcome of the election at all. But if it were, somehow, proven...

Then she would have rightfully won. So why shouldn't she serve out her term?

Edit: I wouldn't expect it to happen, of course. But its hard not to see it as what would be right.

[Flagg]

Just throwing this out there:
Presidential pardons extend to anyone (as the constitution has been interpreted forever) except possibly for a President to pardone themselves (and I've illustrated a way it might be possible, but that would go to SOCTUS) and must be recognized by every state in the Union, since federal laws trump ( ) state laws.

[bilateralrope]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

Perhaps, but...

Let's imagine (however admittedly unlikely), a hypothetical in which it turned out that Russian interference altered the result of the election- clear, proven voter fraud whereby Hillary Clinton actually was the rightful winner.

Is there a Constitutional procedure for "It turns out we got the winner wrong, but we don't find out until months later"? If so, please quote the relevant passage. Because its certainly utterly unprecedented.

If it were at all ambiguous, you'd have no basis for overturning the outcome of the election at all. But if it were, somehow, proven...

Then she would have rightfully won. So why shouldn't she serve out her term?

Edit: I wouldn't expect it to happen, of course. But its hard not to see it as what would be right.

It's not the nationwide vote that decides the president. It's when the electoral colleges vote. So what I'd expect to happen depends on how the states that were interfered with treat faithless electors:
- If the state lets the faithless electors vote stand, then Trump remains president as those electors aren't required to vote the way the nationwide vote tells them to.
- If the state penalizes a faithless elector, but does not change their vote, Trump remains president. The question of if the elector(s) should be punished remains one for the courts.
- If the state forces the elector to vote who they are pledged for, and it can be proven that an election without tampering they would have been pledged to someone else, then that might get interesting if there are enough to flip the result.

[Flagg]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

Perhaps, but...

Let's imagine (however admittedly unlikely), a hypothetical in which it turned out that Russian interference altered the result of the election- clear, proven voter fraud whereby Hillary Clinton actually was the rightful winner.

Is there a Constitutional procedure for "It turns out we got the winner wrong, but we don't find out until months later"? If so, please quote the relevant passage. Because its certainly utterly unprecedented.

If it were at all ambiguous, you'd have no basis for overturning the outcome of the election at all. But if it were, somehow, proven...

Then she would have rightfully won. So why shouldn't she serve out her term?

Edit: I wouldn't expect it to happen, of course. But its hard not to see it as what would be right.

It's not the nationwide vote that decides the president. It's when the electoral colleges vote. So what I'd expect to happen depends on how the states that were interfered with treat faithless electors:
- If the state lets the faithless electors vote stand, then Trump remains president as those electors aren't required to vote the way the nationwide vote tells them to.
- If the state penalizes a faithless elector, but does not change their vote, Trump remains president. The question of if the elector(s) should be punished remains one for the courts.
- If the state forces the elector to vote who they are pledged for, and it can be proven that an election without tampering they would have been pledged to someone else, then that might get interesting if there are enough to flip the result.

No. Just no. The election has been certified and barring an impeachment removing President Cockroach from office, he will be President until at least January 2021. We don't get do-overs in this country when it comes to Presidential elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

Perhaps, but...

Let's imagine (however admittedly unlikely), a hypothetical in which it turned out that Russian interference altered the result of the election- clear, proven voter fraud whereby Hillary Clinton actually was the rightful winner.

Is there a Constitutional procedure for "It turns out we got the winner wrong, but we don't find out until months later"? If so, please quote the relevant passage. Because its certainly utterly unprecedented.

If it were at all ambiguous, you'd have no basis for overturning the outcome of the election at all. But if it were, somehow, proven...

Then she would have rightfully won. So why shouldn't she serve out her term?

Edit: I wouldn't expect it to happen, of course. But its hard not to see it as what would be right.

It's not the nationwide vote that decides the president. It's when the electoral colleges vote. So what I'd expect to happen depends on how the states that were interfered with treat faithless electors:
- If the state lets the faithless electors vote stand, then Trump remains president as those electors aren't required to vote the way the nationwide vote tells them to.
- If the state penalizes a faithless elector, but does not change their vote, Trump remains president. The question of if the elector(s) should be punished remains one for the courts.
- If the state forces the elector to vote who they are pledged for, and it can be proven that an election without tampering they would have been pledged to someone else, then that might get interesting if there are enough to flip the result.

Yeah, it would have to be looked at state by state.

Although come to think of it, I wonder if the Electoral College makes it easier to monkey with the results, because you can cause a huge swing in the outcome just by tampering with a small number of votes in a few key states.

Honestly, we badly need two Constitutional Amendments to reform our electoral process.

The first is an abolishment of the Electoral College, moving us to a nation-wide popular vote.

The second is a requirement that all elections in the United States, as well as all voter registration, must be done on paper, not electronic machines.

[Simon_Jester]

The compromise I support is "President Paul Ryan". Assuming that the election is somehow overturned, as house speaker Paul Ryan would be the next in line. At least he's not a crazed moron or christian supremacist.

And it exactly follows the Constitution, which is probably important.

Perhaps, but...

Let's imagine (however admittedly unlikely), a hypothetical in which it turned out that Russian interference altered the result of the election- clear, proven voter fraud whereby Hillary Clinton actually was the rightful winner.

Is there a Constitutional procedure for "It turns out we got the winner wrong, but we don't find out until months later"? If so, please quote the relevant passage. Because its certainly utterly unprecedented.

There is no such procedure.

Arguably from a certain point of view, this used to be why the president wasn't sworn in until mid-March, but once it became physically possible to count all the votes and add up all the counts within a few days thanks to modern communications, we changed that. Because I don't think anyone even seriously considered a situation where an election would be so close that a very plausible accusation of foreign-aided cheating would decide it.

Just throwing this out there:
Presidential pardons extend to anyone (as the constitution has been interpreted forever) except possibly for a President to pardone themselves (and I've illustrated a way it might be possible, but that would go to SOCTUS) and must be recognized by every state in the Union, since federal laws trump ( ) state laws.

Thing is, the relevant language is: "The President shall... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"

A lot of the interpretation of what that means, and to what extent it is honored, and what we mean by "a case of impeachment" hinges on very specific details. The only time it's been put to the test was when Ford pardoned Nixon, and that was NOT an uncontroversial act on his part, to put it mildly.

If Trump tries to pardon himself, or for that matter even if Pence tries to pardon Trump, it's going to touch off what other countries would call 'a constitutional crisis.'

[The Romulan Republic]

Adding such a procedure, then, can be added to the list of Constitutional Amendments we badly need to reform our electoral process, along with scrapping Citizens United, abolishing the Electoral College in favour of a nation-wide popular vote, automatic voter registration, and mandating that all voting and voting registration be done on paper, not computers.

[Lord Revan]

Adding such a procedure, then, can be added to the list of Constitutional Amendments we badly need to reform our electoral process, along with scrapping Citizens United, abolishing the Electoral College in favour of a nation-wide popular vote, automatic voter registration, and mandating that all voting and voting registration be done on paper, not computers.

nation wide popular vote will never get past the senate unless you forcefully abolish the states before hand (since I dout it's really possible to abolish the federal system without force), regardless of party affliation states that have low population would never approve of a nation wide popular vote, I mean even here in Finland there's issues of certain areas having too much say in national votes and Finland isn't a federal state, where as US states have fairly high level of autonomy.

What I think you should do is remove the "human factor" from the Electoral College votes, have them be points each candidate gets rather then a person that a certain person votes for a certain candidate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except that that doesn't remove the fundamental injustice of the EC, which is that it allows the will of the voters to be overturned by a small minority.

And the EC doesn't even really benefit small states, especially. A solidly Democratic or Republican state under the EC doesn't matter much. The vote of anyone who isn't a Republican in Wyoming, or who isn't a Democrat in Hawaii, is virtually worthless, except as a symbolic gesture.

The only states that benefit from the EC are swing states, which are not necessarily numerous enough to block a Constitutional Amendment, even if craven enough to do so.

For the record, I am a swing state voter, so I am arguing to reduce the power of my own vote in order to ensure more democratic elections. I want my vote to be worth the same as everyone else's, not more.

[Lord Revan]

Except that that doesn't remove the fundamental injustice of the EC, which is that it allows the will of the voters to be overturned by a small minority.

And the EC doesn't even really benefit small states, especially. A solidly Democratic or Republican state under the EC doesn't matter much. The vote of anyone who isn't a Republican in Wyoming, or who isn't a Democrat in Hawaii, is virtually worthless, except as a symbolic gesture.

The only states that benefit from the EC are swing states, which are not necessarily numerous enough to block a Constitutional Amendment, even if craven enough to do so.

For the record, I am a swing state voter, so I am arguing to reduce the power of my own vote in order to ensure more democratic elections. I want my vote to be worth the same as everyone else's, not more.

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

[houser2112]

The real problem with the Electoral College isn't (de facto) faithless electors, since those are relatively rare. The real problem is the combination of electoral votes being tied to representation in Congress, and total representation in Congress being fixed. I'd like to see the Wyoming Rule implemented to correct it.

[darkjedi521]

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

What about a 1 electoral vote per congressional district won, plus 2 votes for the overall state wide winner? It gives the minority areas of solidly one party states more influence, and keeps the incentive to win the entire state toon.

[Khaat]

Yo, Trump, this is how it's done:

"The terrorists will never defeat a united people who love freedom versus barbarism. All of Spain is with the families and their victims."

"They are assassins, simply criminals who are not going to terrorize us. All of Spain is Barcelona. Las Ramblas will return to be everyone's."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/europe/ba ... index.html

[Lost Soal]

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

What about a 1 electoral vote per congressional district won, plus 2 votes for the overall state wide winner? It gives the minority areas of solidly one party states more influence, and keeps the incentive to win the entire state toon.

You realise the side effect of making candidates need to win everywhere in a state is that the already obnoxiously long election season will become even longer.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except that that doesn't remove the fundamental injustice of the EC, which is that it allows the will of the voters to be overturned by a small minority.

And the EC doesn't even really benefit small states, especially. A solidly Democratic or Republican state under the EC doesn't matter much. The vote of anyone who isn't a Republican in Wyoming, or who isn't a Democrat in Hawaii, is virtually worthless, except as a symbolic gesture.

The only states that benefit from the EC are swing states, which are not necessarily numerous enough to block a Constitutional Amendment, even if craven enough to do so.

For the record, I am a swing state voter, so I am arguing to reduce the power of my own vote in order to ensure more democratic elections. I want my vote to be worth the same as everyone else's, not more.

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

"State's rights"- ever the cry of the oppressor in American history.

Their are many protections of the "rights" of states (though personally I am of the view that states no more have rights than corporations do- certainly not at the expense of the rights of actual people). Our Constitution is full of safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" (the existence of the Senate, for instance). I'm not proposing scraping any of those.

But why should "states' rights" allow a few small states (or, actually, a few swing states, regardless of size) to pick the leader of the entire country, over the will of the majority of voter?

[Civil War Man]

What about a 1 electoral vote per congressional district won, plus 2 votes for the overall state wide winner? It gives the minority areas of solidly one party states more influence, and keeps the incentive to win the entire state toon.

That's one of those ideas that's designed to sound reasonable on paper, but is actually just as bad as the status quo, if not worse. The pitch conveniently leaves out the reality that congressional districts are gerrymandered to Hell and back. Under that system, you can easily have states where one party gets over 50% of the vote, but the other party gets a majority of the state's electors because of the way they've drawn the boundaries, or one where a state wins all of the electors despite only barely getting a majority in the state overall.

[Lord Revan]

Except that that doesn't remove the fundamental injustice of the EC, which is that it allows the will of the voters to be overturned by a small minority.

And the EC doesn't even really benefit small states, especially. A solidly Democratic or Republican state under the EC doesn't matter much. The vote of anyone who isn't a Republican in Wyoming, or who isn't a Democrat in Hawaii, is virtually worthless, except as a symbolic gesture.

The only states that benefit from the EC are swing states, which are not necessarily numerous enough to block a Constitutional Amendment, even if craven enough to do so.

For the record, I am a swing state voter, so I am arguing to reduce the power of my own vote in order to ensure more democratic elections. I want my vote to be worth the same as everyone else's, not more.

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

"State's rights"- ever the cry of the oppressor in American history.

Their are many protections of the "rights" of states (though personally I am of the view that states no more have rights than corporations do- certainly not at the expense of the rights of actual people). Our Constitution is full of safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" (the existence of the Senate, for instance). I'm not proposing scraping any of those.

But why should "states' rights" allow a few small states (or, actually, a few swing states, regardless of size) to pick the leader of the entire country, over the will of the majority of voter?

CRY ME FUCKING RIVER AND PLEASE REMEMBER I AM NOT AMERICAN! My political leaning is probably left of what you got just not without any paranoia!

I just said there's problems of rights of people in the low population areas being negleted here in Finland if we went By pure popular vote Oulu would be pretty much the only location North of Tampere where there would be enough population to have any repetensation and we aren't and have never been a federal republic.

Now think (I assume you're capable of that) how that would be in an actual Federal Republic like US where the ability of the central goverment to make sure people in those area don't become second class citizens is much weaker. Yes I'm well aware that the CSA used the "states rights" as defense to not abolish slavery but that was in 1860s over a century before either of us had been born as far as I know, for the greater good sacfices are needed either it's that some parts have more influence then their population suggests or you allow those regions to fall into anarchy since the locals feel they have no say in how they're being governed or are you really that naive to think that if the high population states had repensation equal to their actual population they wouldn't cancel any and all federal aid to those areas?

This isn't even a USA thing it's common sense for God's sake! Low population area MUST have influence above their population or you risk them either becoming deserted (and problem of the high population areas becoming even worse) or those area starting to ignore the central goverment or worse. Your plan would be fine if the population was more or less evenly spread so differences between low population and high population wouldn't be too high.

[Flagg]

Low populated areas in the US are adequately represented by the legislative branch of the US government without giving them more voting power to choose the executive. It's why we have a Senate. Given that the lowest populated states are generally the most conservative you end up with the situation we have now where the President (who we can safely call a Nazi sympathizer at this point) got over 3 million fewer votes than his competitor who has no Nazi sympathies.

And you admit a lack of knowledge of the US so kindly cut the shit. "State's rights" is still the cry of the racists in this country. It was the cry when segregation was forced to an end, and the cry against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It's been a dog whistle for "white power" since before Reagan used the term when he announced his candidacy for President in the same town 3 Civil Rights activists were murdered in during the 1960's. So you don't get to argue ignorance at the same time as you argue authority.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree that your electoral collage is in serious need to of re-adjustment (honestly first thing I'd do is get rid of the "winner gets all" system and have all state votes divided according what was truly voted so if a state voted 51% for 1 side and 49% for the other the votes would be divided according to that and not the 51% side getting all the votes), but you got remember that United States of America is a federal republic with fairly loose central goverment so trampling state's rights isn't really an option here.

"State's rights"- ever the cry of the oppressor in American history.

Their are many protections of the "rights" of states (though personally I am of the view that states no more have rights than corporations do- certainly not at the expense of the rights of actual people). Our Constitution is full of safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" (the existence of the Senate, for instance). I'm not proposing scraping any of those.

But why should "states' rights" allow a few small states (or, actually, a few swing states, regardless of size) to pick the leader of the entire country, over the will of the majority of voter?

CRY ME FUCKING RIVER AND PLEASE REMEMBER I AM NOT AMERICAN! My political leaning is probably left of what you got just not without any paranoia!

This is a needlessly hyperbolic and hostile response. My criticisms of states' rights ideology were not directed at you personally, but at the argument of "states' rights", its historical misuse, and its lack of applicability to this situation.

And I object strongly to the accusation of paranoia. Debate what I said, not a caricature of my personality.

And yeah, I know you're not an America. Which may be why you're apparently unaware of the full history of "states' rights" and how it has been used in this country.

I just said there's problems of rights of people in the low population areas being negleted here in Finland if we went By pure popular vote Oulu would be pretty much the only location North of Tampere where there would be enough population to have any repetensation and we aren't and have never been a federal republic.

Yes, and?

You're just repeating a false assumption- that the EC protects the right of low-population areas. I'm not convinced it does, I've explained why (their are other protections of the rights of the minority which do not allow the minority to dictate the Presidency of the entire country, and the EC in any case gives disproportionate power to swing states, not necessarily small states or their voters), and you have yet to respond to that.

Now think (I assume you're capable of that)

No need to be a patronizing ass hat. I thought we were having a reasonable, civil discussion. Apparently, you felt otherwise.

how that would be in an actual Federal Republic like US where the ability of the central goverment to make sure people in those area don't become second class citizens is much weaker. Yes I'm well aware that the CSA used the "states rights" as defense to not abolish slavery but that was in 1860s over a century before either of us had been born as far as I know, for the greater good sacfices are needed either it's that some parts have more influence then their population suggests or you allow those regions to fall into anarchy since the locals feel they have no say in how they're being governed or are you really that naive to think that if the high population states had repensation equal to their actual population they wouldn't cancel any and all federal aid to those areas?

Repeating the same false assumption again, which you have not justified. You seem to be simply taking it at face value that a) the EC protects the rights of small states, as opposed to swing states, and b) that it is a necessary mechanism to do so (despite the others that exist, and to which I have no objection).

It doesn't, and it isn't.

This isn't even a USA thing it's common sense for God's sake! Low population area MUST have influence above their population or you risk them either becoming deserted (and problem of the high population areas becoming even worse) or those area starting to ignore the central goverment or worse. Your plan would be fine if the population was more or less evenly spread so differences between low population and high population wouldn't be too high.

So...

Ignore my actual points. Just repeat your assertions in a more wordy and ranting manner. Then compensate for actual arguments with hostility and insults.

Edit: And by the way, the Confederacy is far from the most recent occasion on which "states' rights" was used to try to deny minority groups their civil rights. Just the most notable.

[Lord Revan]

Ok what you want me to call it then, do I have to switch to finnish here because you get offended by any english term that's even close explaining my point?!

My point is that changing the electoral collage to popular vote would never get past the senate so the only way to get it approved would be to flat out ignore the protests of those states and you might as well drop democracy totally if you start picking who gets to vote based on their political ideology.

the current US system is fucked and not working as intended, that much is clear to pretty much everyone here, but here's the thing you don't seem to get about the anti-hate speech laws here in europe is that they're not meant to make sure that conservatives don't get to vote, they're meant to maintain social stability. Any hate speech law that's ideologically motivated will create more problems then it solves, same with any voting system fixes.

I'd say the nazis could burn in hell but I'm not sure they'd allowed there and the filth they spew is illegal here for a reason (and probably will cause the True Finns (or what ever they're calling themselves) to commit political suicide). Still you must be careful that in your efforts to fight the nazis you don't become just as bad. Right wing, Left Wing is matters not once you go far enough either side they're just as bad. So the key and this might be hard to understand is not to go too far and make those who say "both sides are just as bad" an actual point rather then just meaningless propaganda.

EDIT:this was in response to Flagg.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I know I'm not a mod so my suggestions don't carry any weight, but might I suggest that we suspend or relocate the electoral college discussion? I feel it is a discussion that has already occurred multiple times on various threads the past few months, and it doesn't seem to me like any new arguments are being put forward, just repetition of the same ones that have already been hashed over. I mean, just in the past few months it has come up in threads about Queen Elizabeth II, Canadian parliament, and Stephen Colbert.

It's not that I think it's an uninteresting or unworthy topic if and of itself, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to Trump's internal policy as president at the moment. Why not turn the present thread's focus to the implications of, say, the president scrapping his infrastructure advisory council, not to mention the other recently disbanded councils? Now, there were already plenty of valid criticisms of the proposed infrastructure council, but this not only shifts away from yet another core campaign promise but de-facto rescinds one of his own executive orders issued a mere two months ago.

[Flagg]

Yo, Trump, this is how it's done:

"The terrorists will never defeat a united people who love freedom versus barbarism. All of Spain is with the families and their victims."

"They are assassins, simply criminals who are not going to terrorize us. All of Spain is Barcelona. Las Ramblas will return to be everyone's."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/europe/ba ... index.html

Trump's response isn't due to not knowing how it's done, it's due him playing to his base who turned out to vote for him precisely because he's a racist cockroach. I have no doubt that he's getting daily polling data which is why he first went with "both sides are wrong" to now actively taking the side of the terrorists who attacked Charlottesville on Saturday.

[Flagg]

I know I'm not a mod so my suggestions don't carry any weight, but might I suggest that we suspend or relocate the electoral college discussion? I feel it is a discussion that has already occurred multiple times on various threads the past few months, and it doesn't seem to me like any new arguments are being put forward, just repetition of the same ones that have already been hashed over. I mean, just in the past few months it has come up in threads about Queen Elizabeth II, Canadian parliament, and Stephen Colbert.

It's not that I think it's an uninteresting or unworthy topic if and of itself, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to Trump's internal policy as president at the moment. Why not turn the present thread's focus to the implications of, say, the president scrapping his infrastructure advisory council, not to mention the other recently disbanded councils? Now, there were already plenty of valid criticisms of the proposed infrastructure council, but this not only shifts away from yet another core campaign promise but de-facto rescinds one of his own executive orders issued a mere two months ago.

I agree.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed on moving the EC discussion to another thread.