5 ms·

[flagged]

gps_sama 2y ago
The archive link that references Shotwell is dead. What was that pointing to? The Heritage Foundation can say whatever they want about SpaceX-- just because they can say it, that doesn't mean that SpaceX as an entity is onboard with the position Project 2025 paints for them.
- kidme5 2y ago
  Main points from the link: Trump has been pitching a reboot of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative using Elon's Starlink. At least publically since his reelection campaign: "the United States will build a missile defense shield to intercept nuclear weapons" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-plans-plant-flag-28516928 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-pla... It's also in Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation docs. SpaceX was founded in 2002 with help of a CIA agent named Mike Griffin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career ) who funneled them funding (lots of citations at end of https://archive.ph/D2zIG https://archive.ph/D2zIG ). Griffin worked for In-Q-Tel and also was the Deputy of Technology for the Strategic Defense Initiative, later started the Space Development Agency (SDA) which is to become Trump's SDI in 2025.
- vatueil 2y ago
  There's a user on reddit with a bunch of alts that keeps spamming the conspiracy theory that SpaceX is a front by the military and intelligence agencies to funnel money into building a missile defense shield. They like to point to an AI chat with Twitter/X's Grok as proof. It's true that some people connected to SpaceX were also interested in missile defense, but that's hardly unusual given that we're talking about the intersection between defense and the aerospace industry. To the extent that SpaceX enables missile defense it's in the same way they enable any other space endeavor, as a natural consequence of lowering the cost of lifting payloads to orbit.
georgeg23 2y ago
sadly him playing games with the nuclear balance leave us all underlings in his game.
readthenotes1 2y ago
I wouldn't be surprised is Project 2025 wasn't the Steele Dossier if 2024... No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical
- 1986 2y ago
  It's nothing like the Steele dossier, Heritage Foundation and others behind it have put their names all over Project 2025. Heritage is in the copyright block of the site footer!
- rurp 2y ago
  It's completely different from the Steele Dossier. Project 2025 was written by dozens of former Trump administration officials and surrogates, by an organization he has previously outsourced policy to, and largely aligns with what he and his top advisors have said they want to do. He even praised the project before it became well known. But now the name has become toxic so he's trying to distance himself from it, but he hasn't disavowed much of the content. > No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical. Yes, and Trump has been vocal about wanting to change that. There's no conspiracy here, just listen to what he says.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical It won't be when they fire all the career civil servants and replace them with stooges as they've said over and over they want to do.

[flagged]

The archive link that references Shotwell is dead. What was that pointing to? The Heritage Foundation can say whatever they want about SpaceX-- just because they can say it, that doesn't mean that SpaceX as an entity is onboard with the position Project 2025 paints for them.

kidme5 2y ago
Main points from the link: Trump has been pitching a reboot of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative using Elon's Starlink. At least publically since his reelection campaign: "the United States will build a missile defense shield to intercept nuclear weapons" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-plans-plant-flag-28516928 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-pla... It's also in Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation docs. SpaceX was founded in 2002 with help of a CIA agent named Mike Griffin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career ) who funneled them funding (lots of citations at end of https://archive.ph/D2zIG https://archive.ph/D2zIG ). Griffin worked for In-Q-Tel and also was the Deputy of Technology for the Strategic Defense Initiative, later started the Space Development Agency (SDA) which is to become Trump's SDI in 2025.
vatueil 2y ago
There's a user on reddit with a bunch of alts that keeps spamming the conspiracy theory that SpaceX is a front by the military and intelligence agencies to funnel money into building a missile defense shield. They like to point to an AI chat with Twitter/X's Grok as proof. It's true that some people connected to SpaceX were also interested in missile defense, but that's hardly unusual given that we're talking about the intersection between defense and the aerospace industry. To the extent that SpaceX enables missile defense it's in the same way they enable any other space endeavor, as a natural consequence of lowering the cost of lifting payloads to orbit.

georgeg23 2y ago

sadly him playing games with the nuclear balance leave us all underlings in his game.

readthenotes1 2y ago

I wouldn't be surprised is Project 2025 wasn't the Steele Dossier if 2024... No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical

1986 2y ago
It's nothing like the Steele dossier, Heritage Foundation and others behind it have put their names all over Project 2025. Heritage is in the copyright block of the site footer!
rurp 2y ago
It's completely different from the Steele Dossier. Project 2025 was written by dozens of former Trump administration officials and surrogates, by an organization he has previously outsourced policy to, and largely aligns with what he and his top advisors have said they want to do. He even praised the project before it became well known. But now the name has become toxic so he's trying to distance himself from it, but he hasn't disavowed much of the content. > No matter, the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical. Yes, and Trump has been vocal about wanting to change that. There's no conspiracy here, just listen to what he says.
vel0city 2y ago
> the FAA (and rest of bureaucracy) is supposed to be apolitical It won't be when they fire all the career civil servants and replace them with stooges as they've said over and over they want to do.