Politics

Even on his campaign, that is what he ran on. It would not work on a national stage. And ceratinl would not work against the dictators of the world. Gary was heavily outmatched when it came to foreign affairs, and if I remember correctly, he really, REALLY fumbled some really basic foreign policy questions in interviews.

Found an example:


For what it's worth, I thought the Aleppo/Syria stuff was very overblown.

Why would the Governor of New Mexico be in on the weeds of what was going on with the US/Syria? That's all stuff that he would have been briefed on prior to taking office, and been able to appoint the appropriate people to advise him on.

Also, he wasn't running on being a master of international relations. His campaign was very focused on domestic improvements and doing just enough to keep the peace/not make a mess out of things internationally. He certainly could have handled the question better, but I didn't think it was 'disqualifying', given the focus of his campaign up to that point (and who he was running against).



The bigger concern with Gary was his insane, "I'll use the same open door strategy that worked in a southwestern state with 2.1 million people for an entire country that has 340-350 million people. I don't see how it could go wrong or possibly be any different!" stance.

That was stupid and whomever advised him to keep saying it in the manner he did should have been fired.
 
For what it's worth, I thought the Aleppo/Syria stuff was very overblown.

Why would the Governor of New Mexico be in on the weeds of what was going on with the US/Syria? That's all stuff that he would have been briefed on prior to taking office, and been able to appoint the appropriate people to advise him on.

Also, he wasn't running on being a master of international relations. His campaign was very focused on domestic improvements and doing just enough to keep the peace/not make a mess out of things internationally. He certainly could have handled the question better, but I didn't think it was 'disqualifying', given the focus of his campaign up to that point (and who he was running against).



The bigger concern with Gary was his insane, "I'll use the same open door strategy that worked in a southwestern state with 2.1 million people for an entire country that has 340-350 million people. I don't see how it could go wrong or possibly be any different!" stance.

That was stupid and whomever advised him to keep saying it in the manner he did should have been fired.
Agree with all of this. But really the primary purpose of the President is foreign policy. Gary had no clue there.
 
For what it's worth, I thought the Aleppo/Syria stuff was very overblown.

Why would the Governor of New Mexico be in on the weeds of what was going on with the US/Syria? That's all stuff that he would have been briefed on prior to taking office, and been able to appoint the appropriate people to advise him on.
Disagree on this. I remember when that happened, and I myself was very knowledgeable on the issue. Granted, I am unusual in my news consumption and knowledge of geopolitical happenings, but an aspiring American President should be, too. If you aren't the type to keep up with geopolitics and be competent on the issues, you have no place being President of the most powerful nation in history.

I still wanted the guy to be President just to change the status quo, but that moment definitely soured me on him as a serious candidate for office.


Also, he wasn't running on being a master of international relations. His campaign was very focused on domestic improvements and doing just enough to keep the peace/not make a mess out of things internationally. He certainly could have handled the question better, but I didn't think it was 'disqualifying', given the focus of his campaign up to that point (and who he was running against).
Again, disagree. I understand what you are saying, but foreign relations don't get put on hold because the President wants to fix the homefront. The world will not pause for our spring cleaning, on the contrary, China and Russia would seize the moment.


The bigger concern with Gary was his insane, "I'll use the same open door strategy that worked in a southwestern state with 2.1 million people for an entire country that has 340-350 million people. I don't see how it could go wrong or possibly be any different!" stance.

That was stupid and whomever advised him to keep saying it in the manner he did should have been fired
Agreed here.
 
Disagree on this. I remember when that happened, and I myself was very knowledgeable on the issue. Granted, I am unusual in my news consumption and knowledge of geopolitical happenings, but an aspiring American President should be, too. If you aren't the type to keep up with geopolitics and be competent on the issues, you have no place being President of the most powerful nation in history.

I still wanted the guy to be President just to change the status quo, but that moment definitely soured me on him as a serious candidate for office.



Again, disagree. I understand what you are saying, but foreign relations don't get put on hold because the President wants to fix the homefront. The world will not pause for our spring cleaning, on the contrary, China and Russia would seize the moment.



Agreed here.

All that I'm saying is... I would rather have a President who says, "you know what, I'll level with you.. at this moment I have no idea what is going on there and it's honestly not a top priority for me. Making your lives better and fixing our broken government is what I'm laser focused on. I'll tell you what though, if you elect me, I promise that I'll appoint a Secretary of Defense/War and Secretary of State who are subject matter experts and they will ensure that I'm brought up to speed immediately and given the best possible options to choose from" over someone who says, "oh, I know all about that... yes, I'm very familiar... if you elect me it'll be solved within 48 hours. I'm not gonna tell you how though, because you have to vote me in to see how. Trust me, I'm smart... very smart... some would say the smartest, yes yes. I'll also fix Obamacare, pinky swear... don't ask me how though, you have to vote to find that out!"



Point is... there isn't a person on this planet who is capable of being in the weeds on every social, domestic and foreign issue going on at a given point in time. Anyone who runs for office pretending to be is lying. That's why we have Departments and Secretaries to head those departments and hundreds and thousands of specialists within those departments to get way in the weeds and filter that information up.


I get it though, it pissed off people who wanted to hear the, "of course I have a plan, and I'll have it fixed lickity split!" lie answer. Gary should have spent more time learning how to lie better and less time trying to fix his fiscally reckless state and get their house in order.

For me, I wasn't 'happy' to hear that answer... but, I also didn't think it was disqualifying for the reasons given above.

I honestly wish more politicians would say, "I don't have an answer for you on that particular international issue right now, because my primary focus is on (insert 3-5 really important things). I promise that when I take office that I'll appoint someone who is an expert on that issue though, and that all my decisions will be thoughtful and based on appropriate amounts of information given to me to inform that decision"
 
Last edited:
All that I'm saying is... I would rather have a President who says, "you know what, I'll level with you.. at this moment I have no idea what is going on there and it's honestly not a top priority for me. Making your lives better and fixing our broken government is what I'm laser focused on. I'll tell you what though, if you elect me, I promise that I'll appoint a Secretary of Defense/War and Secretary of State who are subject matter experts and they will ensure that I'm brought up to speed immediately and given the best possible options to choose from" over someone who says, "oh, I know all about that... yes, I'm very familiar... if you elect me it'll be solved within 48 hours. I'm not gonna tell you how though, because you have to vote me in to see how. Trust me, I'm smart... very smart... some would say the smartest, yes yes. I'll also fix Obamacare, pinky swear... don't ask me how though, you have to vote to find that out!"



Point is... there isn't a person on this planet who is capable of being in the weeds on every social, domestic and foreign issue going on at a given point in time. Anyone who runs for office pretending to be is lying. That's why we have Departments and Secretaries to head those departments and hundreds and thousands of specialists within those departments to get way in the weeds and filter that information up.


I get it though, it pissed off people who wanted to hear the, "of course I have a plan, and I'll have it fixed lickity split!" lie answer. Gary should have spent more time learning how to lie better and less time trying to fix his fiscally reckless state and get their house in order.
I get what you're saying, and I would be more inclined to agree with you if it was a more obscure issue. But at the time, that was very prominent in the news, and his lack of any answer indicated he didn't even read the news. I find that disqualifying for a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that question was a softball that should have been able to produce some kind of qualifying answer for serious candidate.
 
I get what you're saying, and I would be more inclined to agree with you if it was a more obscure issue. But at the time, that was very prominent in the news, and his lack of any answer indicated he didn't even read the news. I find that disqualifying for a presidential candidate. In my opinion, that question was a softball that should have been able to produce some kind of qualifying answer for serious candidate.

If the question had been about something domestic, I'd agree. Like if they had asked for his position on Social Security and he said, "social what? I've never heard of the program you're talking about"... that would be crazy.

The Syrian Civil War though? Why would/should the Governor of New Mexico running on the Libertarian ticket have a carefully thought out plan to deal with that 6+ months prior to stepping into office? That's definitely one of those things that you can appoint a kickass Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense/War to brief you on after getting elected/prior to stepping into office.

I would have almost been worried if he said that he had an elaborate plan for dealing with Syria/al-Assad... I'd have been like, "what the fuck, dude is suppose to be governing New Mexico" (which is something I say to myself all the time when watching political ads out here... we've got state reps running on plans to, "Fight Trump!"... YOU'RE A STATE REP, NOT FEDERAL! You're probably never going to meet Trump, let alone be in the position to fight anything he does at the Federal level)
 
If the question had been about something domestic, I'd agree. If they had asked for his position on Social Security and he said, "social what? I've never heard of the program you're talking about"... that would be crazy.

The Syrian Civil War though? Why would/should the Governor of New Mexico have a carefully thought out plan to deal with that? That's definitely one of those things that you can appoint a kickass Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense/War to brief you on after getting elected/prior to stepping into office.

I would have almost been worried if he said that he had an elaborate plan for dealing with Syria/al-Assad... I'd have been like, "what the fuck, dude is suppose to be governing New Mexico" (which is something I say to myself all the time when watching political ads out here... we've got state reps running on plans to, "Fight Trump!"... YOU'RE A STATE REP, NOT FEDERAL!)
We will have to agree to disagree. My stance remains that any individual that can't keep up with basic foreign affairs is disqualified to run the most powerful nation in history.
 
We will have to agree to disagree. My stance remains that any individual that can't keep up with basic foreign affairs is disqualified to run the most powerful nation in history.

Fair enough, and way more people seem to want the lie so you're probably right.
 
If the question had been about something domestic, I'd agree. Like if they had asked for his position on Social Security and he said, "social what? I've never heard of the program you're talking about"... that would be crazy.

The Syrian Civil War though? Why would/should the Governor of New Mexico running on the Libertarian ticket have a carefully thought out plan to deal with that 6+ months prior to stepping into office? That's definitely one of those things that you can appoint a kickass Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense/War to brief you on after getting elected/prior to stepping into office.

I would have almost been worried if he said that he had an elaborate plan for dealing with Syria/al-Assad... I'd have been like, "what the fuck, dude is suppose to be governing New Mexico" (which is something I say to myself all the time when watching political ads out here... we've got state reps running on plans to, "Fight Trump!"... YOU'RE A STATE REP, NOT FEDERAL! You're probably never going to meet Trump, let alone be in the position to fight anything he does at the Federal level)
Because he's running for President, FFS. A Governor of New Mexico should not have a carefully thought-out plan about Middle East wars and strife, but a viable presidential candidate damn well better. That's the price of admission.
 
Because he's running for President, FFS. A Governor of New Mexico should not have a carefully thought-out plan about Middle East wars and strife, but a viable presidential candidate damn well better. That's the price of admission.

Did you ever listen to him speak?

He openly admitted that his wildest dream wasn't to win the Presidency. It was simply to get to 5% in the polls so that the Libertarian party would get 'minor party status' and access to Federal Election Commission matching funding and a place on the national debate stage. If he got to the debate stage, he could present a Presidential message.

No, I would not expect someone who is running under that pretext to have carefully thought out plans for every international issue... not when their entire campaign is predicated around issues they are familiar with and touting their proven track record as a state Governor.


Whatever though, all of this is epitome of pointlessness. Have a good night everyone.
 

Chinese-Made Rental Cars Recorded Norwegian Soldiers Entering Military Gate Codes​

1000020977.jpg
The Deepal S07’s central screen turns four exterior-camera feeds into a tidy little surveillance suite, exactly the sort of convenience that becomes a counterintelligence migraine at a military gate. Source: Westco Motors, Cairns, Australia

The Norwegian Home Guard soldiers were bored. They started poking through the menus in their rental cars during Exercise Hovedstad and found that the machines had been keeping a diary.


The stored video showed soldiers climbing in and out of the cars and where they drove. It revealed whom they collected and how long they stayed. The footage also showed troops entering codes at military gates and doors. Some of those gates also required keycards, small comfort to any security officer watching his door codes play back on a dashboard.


The first confirmed threat was never Beijing. It was the next renter.


The recordings were deleted after the exercise. Nobody has publicly established whether rental fleets wipe these systems between customers, or what happens when the renter is a tourist who never thinks to check.


Were the soldiers merely the first people curious enough to look?


There is no public evidence that the recordings went to China, and whether the footage ever left the vehicles is unknown. The confirmed reporting is ugly enough without dressing speculation in a trench coat.


The Car Had Been Taking Notes​


About 5,000 Home Guard soldiers took part in Exercise Hovedstad from September 14 through 18 around Oslo and Akershus. The mission included securing Oslo’s Gardermoen airport during a wartime scenario and protecting allied reception, the machinery required to receive reinforcements when the horizon gets crowded.


Lt. Fredrik Blanck, who participated in the exercise, told Dagens Næringsliv that the stored video revealed the soldiers’ movements and pickups. At least two vehicles were Deepals, a brand made by Chinese automaker Changan.


The exact models and recording configurations were not disclosed. A Deepal S07 manual shows how the system can work: once enabled, its built-in digital video recorder saves exterior-camera footage for playback through the central screen.


The cars came through Hertz Norway, a franchise operated by First Rent A Car Norway. First Rent A Car Norway’s ownership chain ends with China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, which also owns Volvo Cars.


Changan and Geely are separate companies.


Volvo Cars denies that Chinese ownership creates a security risk and says data cannot be shared with Geely without a legal basis. None of it changes what the soldiers discovered inside the cars, waiting behind the glass like a stack of surveillance photographs left on the passenger seat.


A modern rental car is an intelligence-gathering platform wearing cupholders. Before anyone drives it to a gate, somebody needs to know what it records and how to shut the recording down.


Safeguards on Paper, Footage on the Screen​


Norway’s military signed the framework rental agreement in 2024. It runs from June 2024 through May 2028 and carries a ceiling of 350 million Norwegian kroner. First Rent A Car Norway is the primary supplier. Call it a procurement story with cameras attached.


In a written answer to parliament, dated September 28, 2026, Defense Minister Tore O. Sandvik said procurement and security officials had assessed the agreement. They knew the ownership structure and judged it irrelevant to how the vehicles would be used. Sandvik said the contract contained protections for data handling. He also said restrictions on sensor-equipped vehicles could be imposed in sensitive areas.


Ten days later, the footage story broke.


The safeguards sat in the contract while rented cameras rolled through a military exercise recording the people the paper was supposed to protect, a bureaucratic scarecrow guarding the field with its pockets full of compliance language as the crows carried away the gate codes.


In September 2024, reporting on Chinese vehicles at Norwegian bases found no restrictions on their presence, including at Ørland, home to Norway’s F-35s. Two years passed between the warning and the discovery.


Before the incident became public, military spokesman Brage Steinson Wiik-Hansen said in September that Norway maintained no general ban on vehicles made by manufacturers from particular countries. After the story broke, Sandvik acknowledged a real vulnerability and said there was every reason to take precautions.


The ownership chart was the easy part of the question. The operational problems concern default recording settings and fleet-reset procedures. A clause promising careful data handling offers little comfort when soldiers can pull up sensitive footage from the dashboard.





The Law Stays Home​


President Donald Trump told the Detroit Economic Club in January that Chinese automakers building American plants and hiring American workers would be “great,” according to Automotive News. “Let China come in,” he said, a position he repeated during a September 11 interview.


The Commerce Department has already drawn a harder line. Its connected-vehicle rule bars Chinese- or Russian-controlled manufacturers from selling connected vehicles in the United States beginning with model year 2027, including vehicles assembled here. Covered software prohibitions begin with model year 2027. Hardware restrictions start with model year 2030, or January 1, 2029, for units without a model year. The rule covers passenger vehicles under 10,001 pounds.


Washington’s wall stops at the water’s edge.


The Marine Corps prepositions equipment in Norway. Exercise Hovedstad trained the protection of allied reception, and Americans are among the allies Norway expects to receive. Yet an American service member landing overseas rents what the local counter offers, signs the glowing tablet and drives into a surveillance architecture Washington spent years fencing out at home, because the law stayed behind with the baggage carousel while the mission climbed into the car.


The American taxpayer pays for the wall at home and for the deployments beyond it.


The Motor Pool Came Up Short​


The troops kept driving the cars, including onto military property, because the unit lacked enough transportation. No commander loves that decision.


The commander could park the suspect vehicles and strand troops, or keep using them while accepting a risk nobody had properly measured. Procurement had already placed the keys in his hand.


The next reporting questions practically kick the door down. Officials have not said whether the exposed codes were changed or whether vehicle logs were preserved before deletion. Fleet-reset procedures remain undisclosed, and external transmission remains unproven.


Norway’s soldiers found the footage because boredom sent them wandering through a dashboard menu. Had nobody deleted it, the next renter would not have needed a cyber team or Beijing on speed dial.


The keys and a curious finger would have done the job.
 
not when their entire campaign is predicated around issues they are familiar with and touting their proven track record as a state Governor.
But we have had tons of Governors run and get elected President who were more than capable of having answers about foreign policy, which again, is the primary purpose of the Presidency after CEO/Chief law enforcement officer, per the Constitution. Thinking Aleppo was an acronym, as the spin was given, was a terrible optic for a supposed serious candidate. I still voted for him, so did you, but those types of gaffes sink bids. Like it did for Johnson.
 

Chinese-Made Rental Cars Recorded Norwegian Soldiers Entering Military Gate Codes​

View attachment 2036

Tesla, Rivian, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota/Lexus, and GM all have models that have similar surveillance systems in certain models, mostly created to record and prevent vandalism/fraud. In the Chinese model, it is advertised as having this system, just like its American counterparts.

So is this more a mistake by the government who allowed this? It reads like a Chinese boogeyman article.
 
Tesla, Rivian, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota/Lexus, and GM all have models that have similar surveillance systems in certain models, mostly created to record and prevent vandalism/fraud. In the Chinese model, it is advertised as having this system, just like its American counterparts.

So is this more a mistake by the government who allowed this? It reads like a Chinese boogeyman article.
Why wouldn't the CCP want their intelligence to use a world-wide network of cameras? All major Chinese corporations are an arm of the CCP. Why wouldn't they?

I have no verification that this is all true, but it fits perfectly with what is known about Chinese intelligence practices. I have zero trouble believing it. And if you don't think China is an aggressive and malignant force on the world stage, you are not paying attention.
 
Why wouldn't the CCP want their intelligence to use a world-wide network of cameras? All major Chinese corporations are an arm of the CCP. Why wouldn't they?

I have no verification that this is all true, but it fits perfectly with what is known about Chinese intelligence practices. I have zero trouble believing it. And if you don't think China is an aggressive and malignant force on the world stage, you are not paying attention.
Also, to be clear, we would do the same thing. There is nothing unusual about it. This is just a wake up call for governments that aren't paying attention.
 
Why wouldn't the CCP want their intelligence to use a world-wide network of cameras? All major Chinese corporations are an arm of the CCP. Why wouldn't they?

I have no verification that this is all true, but it fits perfectly with what is known about Chinese intelligence practices. I have zero trouble believing it. And if you don't think China is an aggressive and malignant force on the world stage, you are not paying attention.
You missed my point. Most EV manufacturers are adding this, to get, keep, and build upon the data, and while the fact that the Norwegians chose a Chinese brand, most likely because they are cheaper and have equal if not better batteries for the cost, is not lost on me, but the decision to allow the brand, knowing publicly that that model has that type of surveillance system was a product of poorer planning by the Norwegians than any nefarious Chinese plot, which is really what that piece is intimating, especially with adding the US ban.

Or did I miss something?
 
Back
Top