Derek 2.0

So your assumption here is that despite saying otherwise, Rona actually plans (or planned) to run for the leadership? You ability of projection is most impressive

I know, and I just stated a NATO standard pertaining to exactly that.........and despite said standards the use of European aircraft with European weapons would add significant upfront costs to a Canadian purchase, in the form of either integrating our current inventory of American weapons with the European aircraft or purchasing new European weapons..........this will preclude European aircraft on costs alone. The last European (see British) fighter Canada purchased were Vampires in the 1940s.......and for good reason. I didn't see the post........with regards to it though, it has already been spoken to in this thread several weeks ago....

The chain of command is simple: local community government, the Province and then the Feds.........The Federal Government won't send the army in until the Alberta Solicitor General, on behalf of Premier Notely, requests it.......soldiers from Edmonton, with helicopters, could have been there in hours, not only to help the several hundred firefighters (see Notely's cuts to the fire fighting budget) on the ground, but provide relief to the tens of thousands stuck on the highway. The question, who is responsible for the feet dragging in the response? The effect on helicopters is negligible, any ground effects from the fire are countered with a longer bucket line and flying at differing altitudes.....fixed wing just needs a bird dog for route survey and trajectory of the drop...no big deal.......the slashing of the budget, resulting in a reduced number of aerial contracts (who go elsewhere), will have had a far greater effect on an aerial response than the fire/weather itself..... I think the forests will have regrown long before we ever see another NDP government in Alberta....

Interesting video.........on the link, two clips of Trudeau's response, the first video contains Trudeau warming up the crowd with a star wars reference then pivoting to a Canadian city burning down.........the second video is from CBC, which edit out Trudeau's star wars reference.......I don't think the North Korean media even covers for their Dear Leader as much as Pravda CBC does.

I'll offer some insight.........the scrub-pine forests of Northern Alberta are serotinous, reliant upon fire to spread their seeds...........forest fires are apart of nature and have been occurring long before there were governments to blame in the manner you are doing.......such events are very much so natural disasters...fore if they weren't, pine trees would have long since died off (what with having no way to germinate)......... If you must blame someone, blame the various levels of Government that were slow to react to this natural disaster......as cited above, the Alberta government's slashing of the forest fire fighting budget earlier this year is damning, and Notely should resign.

I don't know about weird, more along the lines of Trump starting to do to the Democrats and Clinton what he did to the Republicans...........in this case channeling Bernie Sanders and his own brand of populism...... As to the impact of NAFTA being torn up........simple, revisit the 1970s and early 1980s, the last time we had a Trudeau, and the economic impact a weak, isolated Canadian economy had on our standard of living and nation as a whole.........

Of course not, but we should question why the Provincial and Federal Government didn't bring outside resources to bear sooner (there is a major army base 4-5 hours drive South in Edmonton), in the case of the GoA further fire fighters and forestry workers to fight the fires and RCMP to evacuate the city faster, and with regards to the Trudeau Government, the armed forces..................we as a country are really lucky that we didn't see a major loss of life along the evacuation route. Its a disgrace that "evil oil companies" like Syncrude and Shell, combined with private citizens, are currently providing more relief to a city's worth of Canadians then the Governments of Alberta and Canada.

Funding cuts? The question should be posed to the Federal and Provincial governments though.

What infighting? She's stated she is not interested in the job, so the infighting will be over what?

Yes and no........All NATO member countries (and aligned countries) use the standard ejector racks (STANAG 3575 AA) with their aircraft, and in turn, said munitions makers in said countries design their missiles, bombs, fuel tanks, targeting and electronic warfare pods etc to fit said racks.......that is said standards........ ........but said munitions need to be integrated with each aircraft. As it stands, the RCAF's current inventory of munitions for our Hornets is only fully integrated with American aircraft.......precluding the European aircraft from being able to operate most of our current munitions absent said (American) munitions being integrated onto said aircraft..........or we purchase European munitions to go with European aircraft. Presently, Canadian subsidiaries of American aerial munitions makers produce portions of their products in Canada......the same can't be said of European arms makers (namely French and Italian)........ So any replacement of the Hornets, on cost grounds alone, would be American (The only American produced aircraft that costs more than the above mentioned European aircraft is the F-15), this is further compounded with the reality that a Canadian purchase of an F-35, F-16 or Super Hornet could utilize our current munitions that we already own...............and only one of the above mentioned American aircraft, based on our membership in the program, would see the FMS fees waived.....hence but one aircraft, that is already contracted with over 30 companies in Canada, has a distinct advantage

Says you..........I might have agreed to "infighting" if the so called front-runners were all regional candidates and held support in only said regions and/or were divided into Reform/PC/Socred/Libertarian camps etc.........but as indicated in your poll, and granted it is but one poll, that is clearly not the case.......... ........As to "advantage", I would assume said poll results could be due to name recognition over the others........or that ~2/3rds of Conservatives want one of Ambrose, Mackay or O'Leary.

I see, so claims of bias by then minority parties make him the "worse Speaker in Canadian history"..............excuse me, but I would have thought a Speaker that denied an emergency debate over Canada obtaining nuclear weapons, with the Cuban missile crisis dominating the news of the day, as perhaps eking out the title......... None the less, Scheer (or Rempel) weren't included in said polling, so as it stands its likely a moot point.

As noted in your link, the rule change requires only 100 riding association delegates to pass.........not a huge hurdle, the bigger question is if she's interested.......to date, all her public statements would suggest that she isn't. As to infighting, of the potential leaders polled in your link, I would question if there would be "infighting" (Her support is representative across the country) and as polled leads the field, when included, in nearly every other category, with only O'Leary and to a lesser degree Mackay anywhere close.......to date, the only two declared candidates don't come anywhere near her in their own provinces..... .......The only "problem" with said poll, Ambrose, Mackay and O'Leary haven't entered the race........

So much as I expected, your own biased hyperbole.......I thought you had something like he was on the take or some past unannounced scandal/backroom dealings....

I think that actual data from the poll is interesting.......Outside of the East Coast, in a race with Ambrose in it, Mackay is a distant third.....with Ambrose finding comparative numbers with O'Leary in Ontario and a healthy lead in Quebec, that should dispel the suggestion by some that a Western Tory leader will divide the party again.......inversely, O' Leary blows the doors off Kenney in the West, with similar numbers in the Ontario. Without Ambrose, Mackay's numbers rebound in the West, largely besting everyone else on the field, with O'Leary a close second everywhere else........... Though I'd be interested in post next months convention numbers, including if the motion passes allowing Ambrose to run (if she wants to), for party unity and popularity, it should clearly be draft one of Rona/Peter/Kevin......

If he does run, yes I personally would consider him.........but that doesn't explain why you claim him to be the worse Speaker of the House in all of Canadian history, well lacking in personal integrity........is this just team A vs team B partisan attack, or do you have anything concrete? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually interested in why you proclaim the above......

How is that? I wouldn't have thought any Speakers had anything on Marcel Lambert during the Bomarc debate.............regardless, assuming Scheer is the most biased Speaker since the dawn of time in his four year stint, assuming said bias is toward the Tories, how would that preclude him from the leadership of the CPC?

Sure it can, if the current moniker slithers into a different direction after the "review" is complete, the Trudeau Liberals will simply zig-zag into another meme on subject of the future of the Canadian Armed Forces.........because its 2016

Are you stating the cited Liberal Defense review doesn't encompass defense funding? As said, its cited clearly from the document. I didn't take any "liberty", the Liberals themselves have stated said review should be completed by early next year.... in time for the next budget..........so why are the Trudeau Liberals making cuts in this years budget that will impact programs into the 2020s (if not longer)? Waldo, I'd advise you pull up your socks and sharpen your pencil.......you're embarrassing yourself

Yeah, thats what I was wondering.....how a thirty something Speaker of the House had the least "integrity in all of Canadian history"

Excellent, thanks for the confirmation........to add further as found on page 24 in the review itself and the related question ( bottom of Page 25 of the review) for said section: Clearly, this Government, despite being in only the early stages of said review, feels the DND warrants over $3 billion dollars in cuts from currently ongoing programs, in some case, programs started by the previous Liberal Government and continued by the Tories.... ............Absent the review, what does this Government base its decision to cut funding from the DND on? As you've pointed out numerous times, this Government has only been in power for ~6 months........they felt the need to conduct this review, why not see it through? Why the need to cut funding from ongoing DND programs, programs that for the most part (absent the Hornet replacements) have drawn little negative attention and only now has it been suggested they are facing delays? What delays are the Cyclone now facing? Or the upgrades to the Halifax class? Or the new personal gear for the army (I would think a Government intent on sending troops to Iraq and even Peacekeeping would maintain basic life saving gear for the army)........What of FWSAR? Are the reports true that the Trudeau Liberals are now looking to privatize SAR in Canada? There appears to be bookoo movement on a file the Liberals said they were going to review first............hence my point from the start of this thread, said review is nothing but theater......

You're wrong, its now, as cited by Waldo, money held in "reserve"........

Are you suggesting said defense review doesn't encompass conversations on funding levels for the military? Ergo, if said review includes funding, Liberal cuts to the the department of defense, even prior to the completion of said review, are on topic.........

I'm not the one playing word games..........as cited, and quoted by you, that is this Government......removing funding from the military prior to the the findings of their own defense review............such predetermined outcomes give little credence to the merits of said review........a one year freeze, until the review was completed, might have made sense..........but punting into early next decade......that is clearly a cut.

Where is the thread drift? Is this topic not on this Government's defense spending? Would not reports of this Government cutting funds to the military be on topic?