BeaverFever

It’s not “speculation” its a 50-yr old joke among conservatives that was never taken seriously or meant to be until the age of the internet crackpot came along and right wing nutjobs started believing it along all their other crazy batshit conspiracies. JT neither looks like Castro nor is a “wannabe dictator” not that such a thing would be hereditary anyway.

No Your comparison is way off 1) The Canadian coverage includes all “medically necessary” services for virtually 100% of the population whereas US coverage excludes nearly 30 million who are completely uninsured and and about 60 million more who are considered “underinsured” with very limited coverage 2) Even Americans with health insurance are still massively out of pocket if they have any serious or substantial costs over and above what they pay for insurance. For example the most common type of insurance in USA is 80/20 insurance where the plan covers 80% and the patient covers 20% That may sound reasonable until you realize that a stay in intensive care at a US hospital can easily cost $10,000 PER DAY. Not to mention deductibles, co-pays, exclusions and various limits on any number of treatments So despite paying tens of thousands for COVERAGE you’re also out tens of thousands more for ACTUAL CARE 3) The US system price-gouges for example hospitals famously charge patients up to $20 for aspirin …not for a bottle of aspirin but for ONE aspirin pill It’s no wonder healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA while healthcare related bankruptcy is unheard of in Canada

Well Canadian system is not perfect but Fraser Institute is a known right wing propaganda think tank. For example while wait times have definitely increased Fraser Institute doesn’t want you to know that referrals for time sensitive treatments and serious conditions like cancer treatments have much much shorter wait time than non- urgent referrals for things like cataract surgery or knee replacements And that there is no wait time for preventative care like family doctors or emergency care like when you’re hit by a car. Meanwhile the wait times for Americans who can’t afford healthcare is the rest of their lives The stats are in: Canadians have better outcomes than Americans for most medically preventable fatalities In general, in Canada illnesses are identified sooner, treated sooner and Canadians have better recovery rates and fewer post-procedure fatalities. And that’s reflected in better overall population statistics like infant mortality, childbirth mortality rate

Well it’s ONE columnist’s opinion not the entire paper’s opinion. And FYI, 34 states already have anti-price gouging laws and there has long been a limited federal law allowing the government to prohibit price-gouging and hoarding during war and emergencies so the end-of-world hysteria ginned up by the right and apparently subscribed to by this columnist is just another overreaction. Clearly “the corporatist establishment” is not happy with these laws.

Timely editorial in the Globe and Mail: It’s about time Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets a revamp Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a Milan-based correspondent for Defense News. After years of underfunding, it is high time that Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets the revamp it desperately needs to effectively defend its skies against unmanned aerial systems. This rapidly evolving technology, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft that can fly without a human pilot. Drone threats come in many shapes and sizes, including miniature ones – dubbed “mini” and “micro” aerial vehicles in defence jargon – which weigh less than 250 grams. The wide-scale deployment of these weapons in the Ukraine war has military experts warning of the serious threat they pose to civil and military targets, as their low-altitude flights allow them to operate outside traditional radar coverage and go undetected by existing air defence systems. “We’re seeing the pervasive use of micro and mini drones on the battlefield in Ukraine and every major military is taking note – they are cheap, fast and the technology is evolving on the time scale of months rather than years,” Jae Daniel, co-founder of AIM Defence, a Melbourne-based anti-drone company, told me. The Canadian military seems to be paying attention. Concerns about the country’s military readiness to confront new threats from adversaries were voiced by the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jennie Carignan, during a press conference after her appointment ceremony in July. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is increasingly conducting exercises with a focus on countering these unmanned systems. One official told me at a recent training event in Romania that they view small drones as one of the most significant current threats in military conflicts. Canada recently became the fifth NATO country to test above-the-horizon lasers to defeat drone threats in open space as part of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program’s Counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems contest in Suffield, Alta. Dubbed the Sandbox, the three-week initiative was organized by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to accelerate the testing of a variety of counterdrone technologies. Three prior editions have been held at Defence Research and Development Canada’s Suffield Research Centre, as it possesses one of the world’s largest outdoor laboratories, with about 500 square kilometres of terrain, essential for conducting these types of demonstrations. Participants hailing from Canada, Australia, the United States, Israel and Britain competed for three monetary prizes based on their performance and growth potential as assessed by the DND and the CAF. “This was the first time that directed energy [weaponry] was allowed to enter the Sandbox – prior years have focused on more traditional defeat technologies, such as jamming and bullets,” said Jessica Glenn, the other co-founder of AIM Defence, which took home the $1-million first prize. Fractl:1 was the system brought by AIM, which integrates a high-power laser with the company’s own AI tracking system, able to precisely target specific parts of the drone and neutralize it from more than a kilometre away. “During the testing, a provided ‘Red Team’ flew a range of drone types, including first-person-view, fixed-wing and quadcopter drones, in different patterns and with different payloads – some of these were representative of real-world engagements and others were designed to safely push the edges of Fractl,” Ms. Glenn said. The joint second-place prize went to Canadian company DARIT Technologies and the University of Toronto’s Prandtl Dynamics, which both won $375,000. High-energy lasers are optical devices that produce a very focused beam of light, through which they can destroy an unmanned aerial vehicle’s electronics. These systems have gained interest in recent years owing to their lower cost and their ability to mitigate threats more quickly than other counterdrone technologies on the market. According to Matt Ceh, who was the lead defence scientist at this year’s contest, Canada is increasingly exploring this type of equipment, as lasers “can provide a solution that minimizes collateral damage when compared to guns.” While investments in both research and development in the counterdrone sector should have been made years ago, these types of events and the expansion of the IDEaS program are a good indication that Ottawa is taking drone threats seriously. In order to be a technologically advanced fighting force, as highlighted in the latest national defence policy, the DND and the CAF must double down on efforts to match the pace of drone proliferation. This begins by dedicating greater funding to the maturing industry and committing to acquiring effective weapons. Dr. Daniel said his company is hopeful that their win will represent the beginning of a long-term partnership with the Canadian military. Ultimately, what will be paramount is for the DND to translate this testing and interest into concrete orders to acquire a variety of counterdrones systems. Only then will Canada be ready to protect soldiers from the imminent threat posed by drones. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-about-time-canadas-lagging-counterdrone-industry-gets-a-revamp/?login=true

The paradox being that territory is not captured until a human being sets foot on it and claims it, which an effective drone force will make all but impossible. Eventually, someone will come up with something to overcome that and put the infantry back in the game

Well if you’re too stupid to understand things and need them spelled out for you here you go: The line that says “Vought continued, saying, “He’s been at our organization, he’s raised money for our organization, he’s blessed it. … He’s very supportive of what we do.” demonstrates that Trump’s been at their organization, he’s raised money for their organization, he’s blessed it. … He’s very supportive of what they do. The line where JD Vance promotes Project 2025 leader’s book demonstrates that he supports Project 2025 The line where 140 people involved with P2025 have close ties to Trump and served in his last administration demonstrates that Trump has close ties to P2025 The line that says Republicans call Trump’s move to distance himself from Project 2025 ‘preposterous’ demonstrates that Trump’s move to distance himself from Project 2025 is ‘preposterous’ And so on. It’s pretty self-explanatory But honestly if you’re that dumb and need that much explaining then my posts are only going to get longer My point has been explained quite clearly, unfortunately you often have trouble following the plot. So here it is spelled out for you Whether or not Trump officially and formally endorses P2025 or not, a Trump administration will end up enacting many P2025 policies. He clearly has endorsed the 140 people involved in it when they served in his last administration and will likely serve in his next one. The P2025 people are insisting publicly he’s on board and Trump’s disavowal of it has been vague, mild in its criticism, and self-contradictory. Sure he has. Look at his acrobatics on abortion. Since 2016 he’s claimed to be the staunchest anti-abortionist in the country. Then just recently he flip-flopped and said it should be up to individual states and Republicans running for election should stay silent on abortion if it’s going to cost them votes. He understands when ideas are unpopular it doesn’t mean you abandon them, you just don’t publicly endorse them and campaign on them. Trump doesn’t have to come out and publicly back P2025 or campaign on it in order for it to be implemented. He just has to sit back and let it happen once he appoints P2025 people to his cabinet and they start doing the things they’re currently promising to do What a bad analogy and faulty argument. A random assortment of people who happen to have similar private religious beliefs are not comparable to a specific group of Trump associates who have come together to publicly state that they expect to be appointed to the Trump administration and then publish a manifesto on how they will use those appointments to takeover the entire US government. And to state the Trump has privately supported them. BTW, Trump hasn’t disavowed the claim that he will appoint some or all of them to his government even now that their agenda is public. And if Trump hasn’t privately endorsed it like they claim why doesn’t he call them liars? He loves attacking people but he just can’t bring himself to criticize these people or even clarify if he will appoint any of them to his administration That’s a dead giveaway that he’s hiding something As I’ve said repeatedly now, Trump himself doesn’t necessarily have to believe in P2025, he only has to be willing to let the P2025 people carry out their agenda under his administration, at least as a compromise he’s willing to make to guarantee the support of certain conservative groups. Considering one of those agenda items is to completely purge the entire federal public service of independent and non-partisan professionals and replace them with diehard MAGA zealots and Trump loyalists whose pledge of loyalty is to Trump the man rather than the office of POTUS, it’s not likely that a known megalomaniac like Trump would be opposed. What’s bullshit? It’s a FACT that Trump has not called them liars, even though they claim he has privately endorsed them and he claims otherwise. It’s also a fact that Trump has not declared that he won’t appoint any of them to his next administration It’s also a fact that Trump had made contradictory claims, saying he hasn’t read it, but also saying that there are parts of it he likes and parts that he doesn’t like, which isn’t possible unless he’s read it Its also a fact that Trump lied and claimed not to know any of the P2025 people when in fact he knows nearly 150 of them Its also a fact that claiming not to know anything about it isn’t the same as criticizing it or denouncing it, which he hasn’t done Furthermore his claims to STILL not know anything about it even after all the P2025 furor is highly dubious. We know he’s by nature an intellectually incurious man but for him to claim he still hasn’t bothered to look in to something that’s become so controversial for his campaign is dubious He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth again, as he always does, so his followers can believe whatever version of reality suits them at the moment. Everyone who hasn’t drunk the MAGA kool-aid knows Trump’s a habitual liar whose words are absolutely worthless. So no, his vague and contradictory claims do not mean it’s end of story. LOL you just finished admitting that you didn’t know what my point was. Again, nobody is claiming Trump authored P2025 or that it’s his personal wish list. The point is that he clearly has had at least general awareness of it and at the very least is open to allowing it or elements of it to be implemented under his administration. Ample evidence of the above point has been provided. You simply suffer from severe confirmation bias where the only evidence you’ll accept is evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs. The only counter argument you’ve presented is citing the words of Trump, one of the most infamous political liars of all time Until Trump condemns P2025 and its authors in specific and unmistakable terms and vows to never rehire any of his 140 acolytes who are involved in it, he remains suspect.

When Presidents appoint people to their administration they don’t just pick names out of a phonebook or put an ad in the newspaper asking the public to submit resumes. And Presidential appointments aren’t for jobs with prescribed tasks like bussing tables. Presidents hand-pick people for roles that have broad authority and discretion and they do primarily based on that candidates ideology and philosophy For example you wouldn’t appoint a KKK Grand Wizard to your cabinet to run government departments just because they had a qualified resume So when Trump picks P2025 people for his administration AGAIN, he is endorsing their stated published ideology. No 2 people on earth agree 100% on every small detail but obviously if he appoints any of these people he is accepting their general viewpoint and trusting them with a great deal of authority. I mean they put out an extremist manifesto which they claim he supports and he claims to disavow, but avoids criticizing…so what are we supposed to believe if he appoints them to his administration anyway?

LOL so Paul Ryan is a Pelosi stooge now. The twisted mind of a right wing extremist, on full display

That’s like a housewife saying “there is no association between myself and my husband’s multimillion dollar business”. Its technically true, but only to an extent. Obviously the housewife is going to protect her husband’s business if she were to become president Even if Trump has no interest in P2025, simply hiring any of those people and placing them in positions of power in his government is effectively endorsing the project, which those people will then carry out to the best of their abilities in their new government position In order to convincingly denounce P2025 Trump needs to denounce the people and groups behind it BY NAME which is something he loves to do, and vow not to hire any in his administration but of course he won’t do that.

Yes they do, and in fact I’ll wager you have no idea what my point is. Here’s the thing grandpa, the worse you’re losing the more you bullshit and pretend things are the opposite of reality. You”ll pretend the calling someone “Marxist” is totally different from calling someone a “communist” but that saying Trump should pay for his own security is no different from calling for him to be assassinated. You’ll say that an article whose headline says “baseless” 2000 mules has “no evidence” and shreds the sham documentary in every line is actually saying 2000 mules made a compelling argument with ample evidence. You’ll pretend the fact that a republican hack convicted of felony election fraud for Republicans is completely irrelevant to his credibility regarding current attempts of election fraud for Republicans. You’’ll make false claims with no evidence that “the left” openly admired Hitler and it was mostly Republicans who opposed him when in reality the opposite is true. You’ll make claims that the BudLight boycott was not Konservative Kancel Kulture but justified because “they knew conservatives would eventually hear about it and wouldn’t like it”. Recently I saw you arguing with another member that capitalist countries like ours are basically unregulated. You just turn into a shit-shoveling machine whenever you got nothing. 1) Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything and often contradicts himself 2) Trump has extensive ties to nearly 150 people involved in the project, especially its leaders and funders, many if not most of whom were in his previous administration and are widely expected to be in his next one if he’s elected 3) The leaders of project 20205 keep saying Trump has approved, that they are in coordination with Trump’s team and while Trump disavows, he doesn’t call them liars or attack them or even call them out by name, which is something he loves to do. . Don’t you find that strange? Nope it’s more solid than those They’re miles long because there’s miles of evidence, genius.

Back on topic: In undercover interview, Project 2025 architect gets candid on the initiative’s radical goals and connections to Trump In an undercover interview with reporters from the British non-profit organization Centre for Climate Reporting, Project 2025 architect and MAGA ally Russ Vought admitted to the project's strong ties to former President Donald Trump and provided a clear view into a possible second Trump term. Vought thought that he was meeting with relatives of wealthy potential donors; in reality, he was secretly being recorded in a Washington, D.C., hotel room. During the interview, Vought disavowed Trump’s distancing from Project 2025, candidly explained draconian policies he hopes Trump will implement in a second administration, praised Trump’s running mate JD Vance, and outlined the “second phase” of Project 2025. Vought, who is reportedly in line for a high-ranking position in a second Trump term, is a key architect of Project 2025 — the conservative movement’s extremist platform for a potential second Trump White House. The project extensively outlines potential approaches to governance for the next would-be Republican president, including replacing federal employees with extremists and Trump loyalists and attacking LGBTQ rights, abortion, contraception, and labor unions. Project 2025 describes extreme policies like dismantling the federal agency that tracks hurricanes, upending Medicare as we know it, enacting inflationary tariff policies, and dramatically raising taxes on everyday Americans. … Vought told the reporters that Trump’s distancing and disavowal of Project 2025 is only for the public. “I expect to hear ten more times from the rally the president distancing himself from the left’s boogeyman of Project 2025,” Vought said. “I’m not worried about it.” “He’s running against the brand. He is not running against any people. He is not running against any institutions,” Vought added. “It’s interesting, he’s in fact not even running opposing himself to a particular policy.” Vought continued, saying, “He’s been at our organization, he’s raised money for our organization, he’s blessed it. … He’s very supportive of what we do.” … Vought touted the secret plan for seizing control of independent government agencies and using the military to silence political dissent Vought explained part of his secretive 180-day playbook to take control of independent government bureaucracies. “Eighty percent of my time is working on the plans of what’s necessary to take control of these bureaucracies, and we are working doggedly on that,” Vought said. “Whether it’s destroying agencies’ notion of independence, that they’re independent from the president.” Vought also explained to the reporters his belief that Trump will be able to use the military to silence political dissent and protests. “George Floyd was obviously not about race. It was about destabilizing the Trump administration,” Vought said. “We put out, for instance, a 50-page paper designed for lawyers to know that the president has, you know, the ability to both, along the border and elsewhere, to maintain law and order with the military. And that’s something that is going to be important for him to remember and his lawyers to affirm.” .. https://www.mediamatters.org/russ-vought/undercover-interview-project-2025-architect-gets-candid-initiatives-radical-goals-and And then there’s the leaked Project 2025 training video they made for training new Trump administration staff and government officials after they’ve purged the government departments of all non-believers and infidels. 29 of 34 people in the video are former Trump administration employees Daily Show does a good job of actual hilarious commentary

LMAO what?? There is nothing “irrelevant” or “spam” about the abundance of articles that directly support the theme of this thread, which is that the former (and potentially future) Trump administration has close deep ties to project 2025. Your “tell” is that when you have no facts or evidence to support your claims you revert to bullshit mode, claiming articles say the exact opposite of what they actually say, that synonyms are jot synonyms and that article that are 100% relevant and on-topic are not. IPfft take your pick. Not only does he take credit for things that his administration had nothing to do with but he famously takes PERSONAL credit for work done by his staffers or the bureaucracy that he would obviously have had little direct involvement in. For example although routine annual military pay raises occur every year, Trump in 2018 randomly declared that he personally got them their first pay raise in ten years and “it was a big one” even though there was nothing unusual about the increase that year. Another example is the pay Paycheque Protection Program launched after the start of COVID. Trump took PERSONAL credit for it however the program’ was actively collaborative effort of various government departments and financial institutions involving many individuals and institutions from public and private sectors well beyond the President’s direct actions. He also regularly attempted to take personal credit for government response to various natural disasters, which in reality have little direct involvement from the White House eg Hurricane Florence, 2018 I will provide you with more evidence, which you will surely falsely call irrelevant spamming true to your form. First He PERSONALLY takes credit for things that people administration did that obviously a President wouldn’t be closely involved with Trump Takes Credit For Vaccine Created By Others, Including Immigrants …In the Oval Office, Trump said, “The vaccines – and by the way, don’t let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccine. . . . Don’t let him take credit for the vaccines, because the vaccines were me.” (Emphasis added.) The evidence shows Donald Trump had no role in creating the vaccines to fight Covid-19. There is nothing in the record that warrants him taking “credit” for the vaccines. A review of events shows immigrants and immigrant-led companies created the vaccines…. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/12/01/trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-created-by-others-including-immigrants/ 10 of the most questionable things Trump's claimed credit for https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/01/02/politics/donald-trump-took-credit-for-what Fact-checking what Trump has taken credit for https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fact-checking-what-trump-has-taken-credit-for/ ‘I did the insulin’: Trump tries to take credit for bill signed by Biden Trump takes credit for legislation signed by Obama https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-takes-credit-for-legislation-signed-by-obama-205384773596 Trump Claims Credit For Record Stock Market Using Bogus Reasoning Former President Donald Trump is attempting to take credit for a healthy stock market despite having been out of office for a full three years now. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-claims-credit-record-stock-221003729.html Followed recently by… Donald Trump No Longer Trying to Take Credit for Stock Market Former President Donald Trump laid blame for poor stock market performance on the current administration, despite previously taking credit for record highs under President Joe Biden's leadership. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-credit-stock-market-1934632 And on it goes I am so so so glad you asked There were so many examples to comb through I asked Chat GPT to list them for me Here you go CHAT GPT: Give examples of Trump White House staff attempting to make sense of incoherent instructions from president trump Response:: There are several reported instances where White House staff under President Trump had to interpret or clarify his sometimes vague or contradictory instructions. One notable example comes from the handling of policy statements and tweets related to U.S. military policy. Example 1: The Transgender Military Ban Announcement On July 26, 2017, President Trump unexpectedly announced on Twitter that the U.S. government would no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the military, citing potential costs and “disruption.” According to reports, many senior officials, including those in the Department of Defense, were caught off guard by the announcement. There was no prior consultation or clear directive given to the Pentagon or relevant agencies about how to implement the policy. Following the tweets, White House and Defense Department officials scrambled to understand the President’s intentions. The tweets were vague and did not provide specific guidance on how the ban would be implemented, what would happen to transgender individuals already serving, or how the policy would be enforced. Legal advisors and military officials had to assess the legality of the proposed ban and its implications on ongoing service members. This required significant interpretation and internal discussion, as the tweets lacked detail. The White House communications team had to develop a coherent narrative to explain the President’s decision, despite the lack of clear internal direction. They had to ensure that the messaging was consistent while awaiting formal policy guidance, which was eventually issued later.In this case, White House staff had to work intensively to turn a spontaneous and somewhat ambiguous public statement into actionable policy, navigating the challenges posed by the initial lack of coherence in the directive. Another example occurred in December 2018 when President Trump abruptly announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria via Twitter, which caught many of his advisers and military leaders off guard. Example 2: The Announcement of U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Syria On December 19, 2018, President Trump tweeted that the U.S. would be withdrawing all of its troops from Syria, declaring that ISIS had been defeated: • Trump’s Tweet: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” The tweet surprised many senior officials, including military leaders and key allies, who had not been fully briefed on the decision beforehand. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and other key figures reportedly opposed the withdrawal and believed that a continued U.S. presence was necessary to prevent a resurgence of ISIS and to protect Kurdish allies. The lack of prior planning and communication created significant confusion. White House staff and the Pentagon had to quickly develop a plan Another example involves President Trump’s approach to handling the 2018 California wildfires, particularly his statements about forest management and threats to withhold federal funding from California. Example 3: Threats to Withhold Federal Funding Over Forest Management During the devastating California wildfires in November 2018, President Trump made a series of statements and tweets criticizing California’s forest management practices and threatening to withhold federal funding if the state did not improve its efforts. • Trump’s Tweet: On November 10, 2018, President Trump tweeted, “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” Challenges for the White House Staff: • Factually Inaccurate Statements: The President’s statements were criticized for being factually inaccurate and overly simplistic. Many experts pointed out that the wildfires were exacerbated by a range of factors, including climate change, drought, and the fact that many of the fires occurred in areas that were not forests but rather grasslands and urban areas. White House staff had to navigate these inaccuracies while managing the public’s perception. • Clarifying and Walking Back Remarks: The White House communications team and other officials were put in a difficult position of having to clarify the President’s remarks. They needed to ensure that federal aid to California would continue despite the President’s threats, while not directly contradicting him. This involved softening the rhetoric and emphasizing that the administration was committed to helping victims of the wildfires. • Relations with California Officials: The President’s tweets strained relationships with California state officials, who were already dealing with a crisis. White House staff had to manage these tensions, often working behind the scenes to ensure that disaster response efforts were not hindered by the political dispute. They also had to work to reassure state and local officials that federal support would not be withdrawn despite the President’s public threats. • Public Communication: The communications team had to address public and media concerns about the potential withdrawal of federal aid. This involved multiple rounds of messaging to clarify the administration’s position and to reassure the public that federal assistance would continue. • Internal Friction: Internally, there was likely tension among the President’s advisers and between different agencies (such as FEMA and the Department of the Interior) as they tried to reconcile the President’s statements with the ongoing disaster response efforts. This example highlights how White House staff had to interpret and manage the fallout from President Trump’s off-the-cuff and often controversial statements, ensuring that the federal response to a major disaster remained effective and that public communication did not escalate the crisis further. Another notable example occurred during the controversy surrounding the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump’s contradictory statements about this issue often left White House staff scrambling to clarify his position. Example 4: The Helsinki Summit with Vladimir Putin (July 2018) During a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, President Trump appeared to side with Putin’s denial of Russian interference over the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies. When asked if he believed the U.S. intelligence community or Putin regarding Russian interference, Trump responded: • Trump’s Statement: “My people came to me, Dan Coats [Director of National Intelligence] came to me, and some others. They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.” This statement, effectively casting doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s findings, sparked immediate backlash from lawmakers, the public, and even some within his administration. Challenges for the White House Staff: • Immediate Backlash and Confusion: Trump’s remarks were widely criticized as undermining the credibility of U.S. intelligence agencies and seeming to support the Russian narrative. This put White House staff in a difficult position, as they had to address the criticism while maintaining the President’s support for the intelligence community. • Damage Control and Clarification: The day after the press conference, on July 17, 2018, Trump attempted to walk back his comments by claiming that he had misspoken. He said he meant to say, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia” instead of “would be.” White House staff had to quickly prepare this clarification and ensure that it was communicated effectively, though the damage had already been done. • Managing Relationships with Intelligence Officials: The President’s comments caused significant tension between the White House and the intelligence community. Staff had to work behind the scenes to reassure intelligence officials and the public that the administration still valued their work and trusted their assessments. • International Implications: Trump’s statements at the Helsinki Summit had serious international implications, particularly concerning U.S. relations with its allies and adversaries. White House staff and diplomats had to manage the fallout with NATO allies, who were concerned about the U.S. President appearing to side with Russia, a country seen as a major threat to Western security. • Internal Tension: Within the administration, Trump’s comments likely exacerbated existing tensions between those who supported a hardline stance against Russia and those who advocated for improved relations with Moscow. White House staff had to navigate these internal divisions while trying to present a unified front publicly. • Public Communication Strategy: The communications team had to balance defending the President while also mitigating the negative impact of his statements. This involved issuing carefully crafted statements and coordinating with other officials to emphasize that the U.S. remained committed to confronting Russian interference. This example underscores the challenges faced by White House staff when President Trump made statements that conflicted with established U.S. policy or intelligence assessments, requiring them to engage in significant damage control and clarification efforts. Another significant example occurred in March 2020 during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when President Trump made public statements promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for the virus. Example 5: Promoting Hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 Treatment Throughout March and April 2020, President Trump repeatedly promoted hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, as a potential “game changer” in the fight against COVID-19, despite limited evidence supporting its efficacy. During a press briefing on March 19, 2020, Trump stated: • Trump’s Statement: “I think it’s going to be very exciting. I think it could be a game changer, and maybe not. And maybe not. But I think it could be, based on what I see. It could be a game changer.” Challenges for the White House Staff: • Lack of Scientific Consensus: At the time of Trump’s statements, there was no solid scientific evidence that hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating COVID-19. In fact, subsequent studies suggested that the drug could have serious side effects, especially for patients with certain health conditions. White House staff, along with health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci, were put in a position where they had to temper expectations and emphasize that more research was needed. • Public and Media Reaction: The President’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine led to a surge in demand for the drug, causing shortages for patients who needed it for approved treatments, such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. The media and public health experts expressed concern about the President endorsing a treatment without sufficient evidence, leading to widespread confusion and debate. • Internal Friction: Within the administration, there were differing views on how to handle the President’s statements. Health officials, including those from the FDA and CDC, were cautious about endorsing unproven treatments, while some of Trump’s political advisors supported his optimistic stance. White House staff had to navigate these internal conflicts while trying to present a unified message. • Clarifying Public Health Messaging: White House staff and public health officials had to repeatedly clarify that hydroxychloroquine had not been proven to be effective against COVID-19 and that it should not be used outside of clinical trials or under medical supervision. This was particularly challenging given the President’s high-profile promotion of the drug. • International Repercussions: The promotion of hydroxychloroquine by the U.S. President had international implications, as other countries took notice and some followed suit in recommending or stockpiling the drug. This required U.S. officials, including those at the WHO and the State Department, to manage the global response and mitigate any potential harm from the widespread use of an unproven treatment. • Balancing the Narrative: The communications team had to balance the President’s optimism with the cautious approach of public health experts. This involved carefully crafting statements and press releases that acknowledged the potential of hydroxychloroquine while emphasizing the need for further study and caution. This example highlights the complex dynamics within the Trump White House, where staff often had to reconcile the President’s public statements with the best available scientific evidence, while also managing public expectations and ensuring that health messaging remained as accurate and clear as possible. No he didn’t. He didn’t campaign on many specifics to begin with. He campaigned on slogans like “make America green again” which he obviously didn’t. He didn’t declare China a currency manipulator like he promised or end the trade deficit with China as he promised. He didn’t invent magical health insurance that covered every person for everything and doesn’t cost anyone any money. He didn’t build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it. He didn’t “drain the swamp” and in fact his White House was cesspool of cronyism. He didn’t materially renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA, USMCA being more of a tweak than anything. He did not “bring back manufacturing jobs” to the USA like he promised…sure there were small but noticeable increases in specific sectors but not enough to actually change anything in the bigger picture like he had promised Most of the promises trump kept are promoting the fossil fuel industry because the political right in North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of the global fossil fuel industry. And tax cuts for the rich, he kept those promises too.

It’s become clear that the light infantry deployed to latvi will be tasked with light infantry duties they will not be converted to mech. The LTVs are not intended as combat vehicles they are a transportation alternative to the school bus, ATVs, and marching on foot

MQ-9 isn’t for counter-drone warfare either. Drone defence is still in it’s infancy and who knows what Canada will end up employing, if anything…for the time being they are working with allies though I agree on the modern battlefield against a near-peer enemy MQ9 probably isn’t going to last long, especially where the electromagnetic spectrum is contested. But they have their place in operations at home and abroad as an ISR platform and as a combat platform. The enemy isn’t always operating with every military capability at his disposal. Sometimes the enemy is just 2 a-holes and a radio hunkered in an OP with no support nearby. Sometimes the enemy is an illegal fishing boat off the Grand Banks or a Russian spy vessel disguised as a cargo ship in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or leaky oil tanker in the NWP or a Chinese “scientific research vessel”

NOBODY has ever said there was any threat of land invasion and nobody has ever said the purpose of the 11 MQ-9s is to attack land invaders In fact in an article I recently posted in here Eyre joked that if any army ever attempted a land invasion of the Arctic, the only capability anyone would need to launch at them would be search and rescue

Well at least I can agree that far right protesters are a threat to Canada. But MQ-9 is not the platform to surveil them and certainly we wouldn’t need so many of them. The CE-145C Vigilance is the aircraft we recently acquired for that job. As far as arctic goes I assume MQ-9 is for point surface surveillance and reconnaissance for specific targets of interest whereas P-8 along with satellites, ground-based radar and sonar nets would be for routine wide area surveillance.

Another lie, from a clueless and shameless liar like yourself. 1) she was already in politics at the time and 2) these two BOARD APPOINTMENTS wouldn’t be considered “getting into politics” anyway But of course with people like you truth, facts knowledge and understanding of any kind are irrelevant You’ll say anything about anyone based on nothing other than how you feel about that person.

All you complained about was the donation page not about a lack of platform. And as I just said there’s no suprpise that a playoff isn’t posted yet considering she only unexpectedly became the nominee a minute ago. Meanwhile you hypocritically have no concerns about Trump grubby outstretched hand whi has been out there for a decade now peddling everything from sleazy pimped out $400 gold sneakers to sleazy pimped out bibles with his name on them not to mention all the lies and fake lawsuits he files to raise his millions…money which he uses to pay himself and his family with BTW….

Government cost-cutting blows $150M hole in army's equipment maintenance budget While the defence budget is increasing, almost half of the army's equipment is now unserviceable Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Aug 14, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 3 hours ago A Canadian soldier carries spent light anti-tank weapons following the conclusion of Exercise Steele Crescendo outside of Riga, Latvia in 2020. (NATO) The Liberal government's recent internal budget cutting exercise at the Department of National Defence (DND) has deprived the army's system for maintaining equipment and vehicles of up to $150 million, CBC News has learned. And when the preservation of older systems — the kind that might have to be pressed into service during an emergency — is factored in, the funding gap grows to $260 million, the army acknowledged in a written statement. The shortage of what DND calls national procurement funding is having an impact on the army's ability to respond to a crisis call from NATO or to domestic emergencies, such as the recent wildfires in Western Canada. The "overall serviceability of operational [army] fleets is, as of 10 June 2024, 52 per cent," Lt-Col. Sandra Lévesque said in a statement released to CBC News. CBC asked the department a series of questions about maintenance funding, equipment and training systems. That statement means 48 per cent of the army's equipment is unserviceable — a slight deterioration since last year. CBC News published a leaked document last spring that outlined the state of readiness across the entire military. At the time, the military's figures indicated that 46 per cent of the army's gear was considered "unserviceable." DND said the army's overall maintenance and upkeep budget amounts to $586 million this year. "This covers contracts and the overhead costs associated with industrial support as well as repairs; however, the fund allocation is approximately $150 million short of maintaining the current force's serviceability and roughly an additional $260 million short if considering obsolescence and long-term fleet management obligations," the statement said. "This shortfall will result in a lower serviceability of many Canadian Army fleets." Military told to cut $810M this year The latest federal budget, tabled last spring in the House of Commons, tasked DND with cutting internal spending by $810 million in the current fiscal year, and by $908 million per year in 2026–27 and beyond. In an internal department message, posted the day after the budget was tabled, now-former deputy minister of defence Bill Matthews and now-retired chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre told staff that the cuts would target "activities that have a history of underspending their approved funding, and ... initiatives to be delivered in future years." Defence Minister Bill Blair has insisted that any internal military budget cuts would target the bureaucracy, not military capabilities. Defence Minister Bill Blair has said that cuts to military spending will not affect operational capabilities. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press) Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, a former army commander who served one term as a Liberal MP, said there's a clear disconnect between what the minister promised and what's happening to the army. "The Armed Forces don't have the resources they need to do their jobs right now, let alone tomorrow," he said. "If the minister is under the assumption that they do have enough money to do everything they're supposed to do, he's either misinformed or he's not telling the truth." Defence analyst Richard Shimooka agreed and said he believes the budget shortfall is likely to have a disproportionate effect on the army's ability to respond to domestic emergencies. "They have focused all their energies in order to sustain the two thousand or so troops and the ancillary capabilities in Latvia," Shimooka said, referring to Canada's role in NATO's deterrence mission in eastern Europe. The budget woes, he said, are "going to have serious consequences" for the army if it's called on to respond to domestic crises like floods or fires, because those missions are considered lower-priority than overseas deployments. Members from the 41 Canadian Brigade Group (CBG), alongside Alberta Wildfire and local firefighters, participate in fire prevention operations in Drayton Valley, Alta. on May 14, 2023. (Master Cpl. Genevieve Lapointe, Canadian Forces Combat Camera, Canadian Armed Forces) "They're going to have to find savings somewhere," he added. Skimping on maintenance and upkeep, he said, could have "serious consequences" for the army's operational readiness. The military is getting more money from the federal government overall — a cash bump that's largely being swallowed by the purchase of new equipment. But the department has struggled to reconcile the additional cash with the need to cut elsewhere in its budget. At the end of June, Eyre told CBC News that the military did not have answers to crucial questions about how or where the cuts would shake out. All of this is taking place as Canada faces increasing pressure from allies to spend even more on defence than already planned. The country is also being asked to maintain more units at high readiness in case the situation in Europe deteriorates further and Russia's war with Ukraine spills over into neighbouring nations. The army is leading an effort to bulk up NATO forces in Latvia to a full brigade (roughly 4,300 troops or more) and has faced a number of challenges beyond the maintenance budget. It has reorganized its training for soldiers heading to Europe by eliminating a decades-long annual exercise where infantry, tanks, artillery and aircraft trained together. The training for deployed units will now be done in Latvia. The army has insisted the change is not a consequence of budget reductions. Canadian soldiers take part in NATO military exercises at a training ground in Kadaga, Latvia, on Sept. 13, 2021. (Roman Koksarov/The Associated Press) But Leslie said moving the training to Europe means the military no longer has to pay for contracts associated with the now-defunct training regime, including contracts for simulators and travel expenses for soldiers and equipment. "There is no doubt that the Armed Forces right now are in a state of crisis," he said. "And what is not helping the morale of the troops, air, land or sea or Special Forces, is people trying to insist that reductions in funding is not a budget cut. "If you reduce national procurement, if you reduce essential travel for the troops to get to training facilities, if you reduce the capacity of Canadian industry to build ammo, then by definition, you reduce the ability to train." The army has confirmed, meanwhile, that the renewal of an important simulator contract, under the Weapon Effects Simulation Modernization (WESM) project, is in limbo. The government had asked industry for information and had been expected to ask for proposals last fall, but nothing has happened so far. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-army-equipment-maintenance-1.7293634

As usual the only liar here is you. Your ENTIE post was: You go to her website and what do you see first? Why, her grubby outstretched hand, of course. What else would you expect to see from a greedy, empty headed b*tch? To you alleged point, since she only became the presidential candidate 10 seconds ago the platform is still being finalized.

When Melania and Trump started dating she was 28 and he was 52. Is that really such a big difference from 29-60? Oh you cult-followers and your man-crush hero fantasies: He's the smartest! He’s the strongest! He’s so handsome and dreamy!” LMAO And Melania clearly isn’t attracted to him she barely gives him the time of day, rejects him in public when he tries to hold her hand or put his arm around her, sleeps in a separate bedroom 🙄The vulgarity and depravity of MAGA Deplorables knows no limits *sigh* Every single living American politician and every single board member gets their appointments through personal connections in some fashion some of which are romantic. Brown didn’t have the power to appoint her, he used his influence to lobby for her. Appointments are always about influence, It’s how America has always been and Canada also. When you unapologetically support your rogues gallery of Republican miscreants I highly doubt it’s because you’ve so thoroughly examined all of their backgrounds and they’ve met you supposedly high ethical standards. LMAO You sound like you fellow dipshit deplorable @Delugewho tried to ridiculously claim it was a crass and unheard of outrage for Kamala to have a fundraising link on her campaign website homepage despite the fact Trump and every other politician whose ever had a website has done the exact same thing

Canadian military drones will face challenges operating in Arctic, RCAF report warns Potential problems include icy, remote runways, -35 C temperatures and limits on satellite coverage for the region. Get the latest from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen straight to your inbox Published Aug 13, 2024 • Last updated 10 hours ago • 3 minute read The Liberal government announced on Dec. 19 that Canada would buy 11 remotely piloted aircraft MQ-9B Reaper Drones from Aeronautical Systems, Inc. PHOTO BY GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS INC. /HANDOUT Canada plans to build a facility for its new drones in the Arctic, but will face more than its share of challenges in operating the aircraft in the far north, air force documents show. The Liberal government announced on Dec. 19 that Canada would buy 11 of the remotely piloted aircraft from a U.S. company for $2.5 billion. The new drones will be stationed at 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S., and 19 Wing Comox, B.C. Original plans called for the drones to have their own forward operating location in the Arctic for two of the aircraft as well as maintenance personnel, Royal Canadian Air Force officers told defence analysts in a September 2022 briefing. But that has since been changed and the robotic aircraft will now be located as needed at a forward operating base in the Arctic with other Royal Canadian Air Force planes. Those bases will receive new or upgraded hangars as part of efforts to modernize NORAD capabilities. What hasn’t changed are some of the challenges the drones will face in operating in the far north. Potential problems include icy, remote runways, -35 C temperatures and limits on satellite coverage for the region. The satellites are critical in transmitting flight instructions to the drones as well as for sending surveillance and other data from the aircraft. “Canada’s environment provides unique challenges,” the briefing pointed out. Additional challenges centre on the lack of experience among Canadian military personnel in operating larger drones, the documents noted. The drones will be able to carry different weapons, including 250- and 500-pound bombs as well as “low collateral damage” bombs, according to the briefing on the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) program. Canada is purchasing the General Atomics MQ-9B Reaper for operations both overseas and domestically. The drones could be used on international missions to conduct surveillance and attack targets, while at home they would have a role on sovereignty patrols, surveillance of large events and gathering information in support of responses to natural disasters, according to the briefing. The drones were originally expected to be delivered in 2025, but that will be delayed until 2028 as modifications are made to the aircraft to deal with Arctic conditions. “The need to operate at high northern latitudes, including in the Arctic, requires the use of satellites and aircraft antennas and communication components not previously integrated on the MQ-9,” National Defence spokeswoman Andrée-Anne Poulin explained in a previous email. “Similarly, additional testing and qualification work will be required to ensure the RPAS can be operated and maintained in Canadian climatic conditions.” Poulin said extra time was also needed so Canadian-made systems could be integrated into the drones. Uplands will also be the site for a new $65-million military facility to control the drone fleet. The Ottawa installation, to be ready by 2028, will be around 6,000 square metres in size. It will be home to almost 200 military personnel whose job will be to operate and control the drones flying from the bases in British Columbia and Nova Scotia as well as Arctic locations. The Canadian Forces and National Defence originally claimed to the Ottawa Citizen that the location in Ottawa for the new building was secret for security reasons. But that information was false. National Defence outlined details about the Uplands location in publicly available documents that are online. The department also held public consultations on the Uplands location as part of its environmental assessment for the site, government documents show. The publicly available records outline the construction of the building as well as a parking lot for employees who will work at the Uplands site. The documents indicate that the proposed size of the facility has increased. It was originally envisioned as a 4,000-square-metre building, according to the records, but will now be around 6,000 square metres. The new building will house six stations to control the drones and two simulators to support operations. It will accommodate 198 personnel. It is not clear why the RCAF and National Defence tried to mislead the Ottawa Citizen with false information.

Save your selective outrage. Have you not noticed the age difference between Trump and Melania? You also didn’t have a problem with Roy Moore and Matt Goetz’s Lolita obsessions or Giuliani’s penchant for dating significantly younger women. One of Newt Gingrich’s many wives was more than 2 decades younger…not sure if that the one he cheated on and divorced while she was dying of cancer, it’s hard to keep track. Anyway old men and younger wives/girlfrends is gross but common in California He used his influence to get her appointed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. But thats how it works everywhere for Republicans, Democrats, Americans and Canadians. Many board appointments are based on personal connections and little else as long as you have a prestigious title like doctor, lawyer, business leader etc. Having strong connections to rich and/or powerful people is often the most important qualification for a board position .

He doesn’t have any whit. My comment was that YOU (republicans collectively) want to “pwn the libs” Is that a joke? The guy can barely complete a sentence without launching into a rant about Biden, Hillary, Obama, Pelosi or the Democrats , socialists etc. Like all Republicans he is nothing without a Democrat/socialist boogeyman to rail against, they have nothing else to talk about. Even and especially when he was in power. Erratic behaviour and mental instability in a POTUS is not awesome it’s dangerous Especially when he’s surrounded by a cult of toadying sycophants and grifters who will only enable such behaviour instead of contain it. There is evidence his campaign team colluded with Russians that’s not even a question: they met several times with Russian representatives and intelligence assets to discuss the Hillary emails that Russia stole and Trump’s policy on Ukraine. And they lied about it. What they couldn’t find definitive evidence of is whether any of that collusion broke any US laws. Of course Trump actively obstructed the investigation and Bill Barr protected him from obstruction charges. .