U.S. Annexing Canada (split fm Liberal Minority thread)

[The Bread Guy]

To be fair, when someone retires from public office, should they keep their security clearance or their personal security detail?

On that last bit, former senior Trump officials got extra protection under Trump 1.0 because of threats from Iran. Biden maintained that protection, but that’s been cut off too by Trump 2.0.

On his clearance, I’m told some folks would hang onto them if they were possible sources of advice/counsel to other administrations. Given the feelings involved, that surprises me less.

Bill Clinton gets a secret service protection detail for life seeing as he is a former president. But should Hillarycontinue to get one now that she isn't holding a government post? Should she keep her security clearance?

Should Trump’s wife have had Secret Service coverage between terms 45 & 47? Should the widows of dead presidents get Secret Service coverage? If yes, them yes for HC. Her clearance? As above, depends on whether she may be asked for advice/counsel. Won’t be surprised to see her’s pulled (assuming she still has it).

 

[Czech_pivo]

On that last bit, former senior Trump officials got extra protection under Trump 1.0 because of threats from Iran. Biden maintained that protection, but that’s been cut off too by Trump 2.0.

On his clearance, I’m told some folks would hang onto them if they were possible sources of advice/counsel to other administrations. Given the feelings involved, that surprises me less.




Should Trump’s wife have had Secret Service coverage between terms 45 & 47? Should the widows of dead presidents get Secret Service coverage? If yes, them yes for HC. Her clearance? As above, depends on whether she may be asked for advice/counsel. Won’t be surprised to see her’s pulled (assuming she still has it).

The larger the circle, the greater the chance that it breaks.
I’m talking in terms of security clearance and access to information.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Details can be scaled to the assessed threat. It could be as little as a bodyguard trained driver.

Personal body guard and driver for half a century for a first lady? No way. Let them pay for one if they want one.

Not really following the drama with working people having their security cut. Sounds like something Trump would do.

 

[brihard]

Personal body guard and driver for half a century for a first lady? No way. Let them pay for one if they want one.

Not really following the drama with working people having their security cut. Sounds like something Trump would do.

Most of having a protective detail is deterrence. There are a ton of easily deterred wingnuts out there. Every President or PM has people who want to harm or kill them and would if it was low risk. Some of those would go after family members. It’s not a lot of resources in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to the damage to the nation’s politics if a spouse of a former head of government gets whacked.

 

[RangerRay]

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, Trump…these are recent examples of presidents getting shot despite all the security they have.

Folks like Bolton, Pompey and Milley have targets on them because of their work for the government. That Trump would pull their security, and do so publicly, because they dared to be critical of him is just one more demonstration that he’s a thin-skinned whiny little b——.

 

[QV]

All your examples are presidents, not public servants. I assume the threat is far lower for the public servants, and maybe even negligible altogether now.

Working to undermine or jail the person who will decide your level of government service is not advisable.

 

[Quirky]

This is a plausible outline of US Operations to take Canada...

Courtesy of r/imaginarymaps

Trudeau hightails it to the UK. Classic.

 

[Rifleman62]

Are you saying some poor RCMP officers will have to put up with Trudeau for a couple of decades?

 

[Remius]

Are you saying some poor RCMP officers will have to put up with Trudeau for a couple of decades?

Given how far some people are willing to go these days I would say yes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884733076305023206

 

[OldSolduer]

I have but one thing to say about the whole 51st state thing:

Over 50 years ago I swore an oath to defend this country. That oath still stands.
I spent 38 years in the CAF, my brother over 25 and my son - well you know what happened. We didn't do that so we could join the USA, sell it or hand it over.

I am in complete agreement with the Premier of Ontario - Canada is not for sale.

 

[JLB50]

I have but one thing to say about the whole 51st state thing:

Over 50 years ago I swore an oath to defend this country. That oath still stands.
I spent 38 years in the CAF, my brother over 25 and my son - well you know what happened. We didn't do that so we could join the USA, sell it or hand it over.

I am in complete agreement with the Premier of Ontario - Canada is not for sale.

I trust that the majority of Canadians are in agreement with you. I am…1,000%.

 

[Baz]

I think there is a non-zero chance that the EU will en-masse pull out of NATO and immediately replace it with an EU military, followed swiftly by “asking” the US to leave and “nationalizing” their defence production.

I’m not sure that the US administration understands the nuance that the primary reason it spends money on NATO isn’t to defend Europe, but rather to control it’s defence thinking. And gives it some very useful forward bases. And provides leverage for “buy American.”

The EU deciding it wants some of it’s own brand of nationalism (MEGA, Make Europe Great Again, sounds so much cooler than MAGA) would leave Canada, and the UK, pretty much out in the cold.

I’m not sure another round of German (I mean European, but they pretty much run the place) nationalism is what the world really wants…

 

[Jarnhamar]

Are you saying some poor RCMP officers will have to put up with Trudeau for a couple of decades?

Don't forget Sophie.

 

[Furniture]

I think there is a non-zero chance that the EU will en-masse pull out of NATO and immediately replace it with an EU military, followed swiftly by “asking” the US to leave and “nationalizing” their defence production.

I’m not sure that the US administration understands the nuance that the primary reason it spends money on NATO isn’t to defend Europe, but rather to control it’s defence thinking. And gives it some very useful forward bases. And provides leverage for “buy American.”

The EU deciding it wants some of it’s own brand of nationalism (MEGA, Make Europe Great Again, sounds so much cooler than MAGA) would leave Canada, and the UK, pretty much out in the cold.

I’m not sure another round of German (I mean European, but they pretty much run the place) nationalism is what the world really wants…

I'm pretty sure that if the EU wanted to go that route, the UK, Canada and Australia would be courted pretty hard.

The UK because of it's still not inconsiderable influence, Canada because it's in NA, and Australia because it's in Asia. A small minded America is a small America in the long run.

 

[brihard]

I'm pretty sure that if the EU wanted to go that route, the UK, Canada and Australia would be courted pretty hard.

The UK because of it's still not inconsiderable influence, Canada because it's in NA, and Australia because it's in Asia. A small minded America is a small America in the long run.

I can think of about 225 reasons to aggressively court the UK into a European defence alliance.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think there is a non-zero chance that the EU will en-masse pull out of NATO and immediately replace it with an EU military, followed swiftly by “asking” the US to leave and “nationalizing” their defence production.

I’m not sure that the US administration understands the nuance that the primary reason it spends money on NATO isn’t to defend Europe, but rather to control it’s defence thinking. And gives it some very useful forward bases. And provides leverage for “buy American.”

The EU deciding it wants some of it’s own brand of nationalism (MEGA, Make Europe Great Again, sounds so much cooler than MAGA) would leave Canada, and the UK, pretty much out in the cold.

I’m not sure another round of German (I mean European, but they pretty much run the place) nationalism is what the world really wants…

The Treaty of Lisbon enters the chat...

Defence: is the EU creating a European army?​

While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has taken big steps to boost defence cooperation in the past few years.

Since 2016, there has been significant progress in the area of EU security and defence with several concrete EU initiatives to encourage cooperation and reinforce Europe’s capacity to defend itself. Read the overview of the latest developments.

High expectations for EU defence​

The vast majority of EU citizens (81%) are in favour of a common defence and security policy, with at least two thirds backing it in each country, according to 2022 data published by Eurobarometer. Some 93% agree that countries should act together to defend EU territory, while 85% think that co-operation on defence should be increased at EU level.

EU leaders realise that no EU country can tackle the current security threats in isolation. For example French President Macron called for a joint European military project in 2017, while former German chancellor Merkel said “we ought to work on the vision of one day establishing a proper European army” in her address to the European Parliament in November 2018. Moving towards a security and defence union has been one of the priorities of the von der Leyen Commission.

Defence: is the EU creating a European army? | Topics | European Parliament

While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has taken big steps to boost defence cooperation in the past few years.

www.europarl.europa.eu

EU measures to boost defence cooperation​

A common EU defence policy is provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 42(2) TEU). However, the treaty also clearly states the importance of national defence policy, including Nato membership or neutrality. The European Parliament has consistently supported more cooperation, increased investment and pooling of resources to create synergies at EU level to better protect Europeans.

Defence: is the EU creating a European army? | Topics | European Parliament

While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has taken big steps to boost defence cooperation in the past few years.

www.europarl.europa.eu

 

[OldSolduer]

Don't forget Sophie.

Maybe she'd be the better principle......

 

[RangerRay]

Sovereignty is something that has to be done, not a right.

Andrew Potter: Sovereignty is a verb

Somewhere along the line, Canadians decided their independence was something they had by right, not something that was fought and paid for at a very dear cost.

www.readtheline.ca

 

[OldSolduer]

Sovereignty is something that has to be done, not a right.

Andrew Potter: Sovereignty is a verb

Somewhere along the line, Canadians decided their independence was something they had by right, not something that was fought and paid for at a very dear cost.

www.readtheline.ca

Its cost over 110, 000 fallen.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.