Tech Radar 247

Joy Behar, the outspoken co-host of The View, has announced that she will be leaving the United States to settle in Canada, citing Elon Musk as a primary reason. Behar, known for her criticism of conservative figures and billionaires, made the announcement during a heated discussion on The View, stating:

“I can’t stand the direction this country is headed. And quite frankly, I don’t want to live under the same sky as Elon Musk. The man is dangerous, irresponsible, and represents everything wrong with America today. Canada seems like a much saner place to be.”

Her comments immediately sparked a storm of reactions, with some applauding her decision while others criticized her for what they called an overdramatic exit. However, it wasn’t just the public who reacted—Elon Musk himself quickly fired back.

Elon Musk’s Sharp Response

Within hours of Behar’s announcement, Musk took to his platform X (formerly Twitter) to respond in his signature blunt style:

“Promise?”

The Tesla CEO’s one-word reply went viral almost instantly, garnering millions of views, likes, and comments. Some of his supporters cheered the remark, while others criticized Musk for engaging in political drama instead of focusing on his companies.

But Musk wasn’t done. He later followed up with another post:

“I hear Canada is lovely this time of year. Hope she enjoys the maple syrup.”

His sarcastic jab only added fuel to the fire, with thousands joining the online debate about Behar’s move and Musk’s response.

The Internet Reacts: Joy Behar vs. Elon Musk

The internet was abuzz with reactions to Behar’s announcement and Musk’s response. Some users praised Behar for her bold move, while others criticized her for what they perceived as an overly dramatic exit. Musk’s supporters lauded his quick wit and sharp retort, while his critics accused him of engaging in unnecessary political commentary.

Texas Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett has faced significant backlash after expressing support for Elon Musk’s downfall during a live stream. Her comments, which included a desire for Musk to be “taken down,” have sparked controversy and led to demands for an apology from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The Controversial Comments

During a live stream, Crockett made remarks that many found troubling. She stated, “All I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down.” These comments were made in the context of discussing Musk’s role in government layoffs and the recent violence tied to protests against him.

The Backlash And Demands For An Apology

Following Crockett’s remarks, Attorney General Pam Bondi demanded an apology to Tesla’s American shareholders. Bondi cited the violent consequences that followed Crockett’s comments, including explosions in Austin, Texas. Bondi emphasized that words have consequences and that Crockett must denounce the violence.

Crockett’s Response

Crockett denied advocating for physical harm to Musk, stating that she was merely expressing her frustration with his actions. However, she faced criticism for using her platform to gain followers and for the potential incitement of violence.

Social Media Reactions

The controversy stirred significant debate on social media, with many users mocking Bondi for her media appearances and others defending Crockett’s right to free speech. The incident has highlighted the ongoing tensions between political figures and the tech industry, as well as the potential dangers of inflammatory rhetoric.

President Donald Trump has announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs for most countries, with the notable exception of China, where tariffs will be increased to 125%. This decision marks a significant shift in the administration’s trade policy and has been met with a mix of relief and skepticism.

The Decision And Its Context

Trump’s announcement came just hours after the tariffs went into effect, following a period of intense market volatility. The S&P 500 had flirted with bear market territory, and trillions of dollars had evaporated from the market over the last several days. The pause applies to over 75 countries that have not retaliated against the U.S. tariffs, with the tariffs being reduced to a 10% flat rate during this period.

Reasons For The Pause

Trump cited the lack of retaliation from over 75 countries and the need to negotiate better trade deals as reasons for the pause. He also mentioned that people were “getting a little bit yippy” and “queasy” over the market turmoil. The decision was also influenced by the significant market reaction to the tariffs, with the S&P 500 jumping 9.5% shortly after the announcement.

Market And Economic Implications

The pause on tariffs has been welcomed by the markets, leading to a significant rally. However, the long-term impact remains uncertain. The administration’s aggressive trade actions have already led to significant market volatility and economic uncertainty. The pause provides a window for negotiations and could potentially reduce some of the immediate economic pressures.

The 90-day pause offers an opportunity for the U.S. to engage in trade negotiations with its partners. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that the U.S. would negotiate in good faith, aiming to reach mutually beneficial agreements. However, the future of U.S. trade relations remains uncertain, especially with China, where tariffs have been increased.

Donald Trump’s golf course has been officially blacklisted by tournament organisers from hosting The Open, one of the most prestigious events in professional golf. This decision has sparked significant controversy and debate, with organisers citing a range of reasons for their choice.

The Decision And Its Implications

The organisers of The Open have decided that Trump’s golf course will not be considered as a venue for future tournaments. This move comes amidst ongoing discussions about the suitability of the course and the broader implications of hosting such a high-profile event at a location associated with the former president.

Reasons For The Blacklist

While specific details have not been disclosed, it is believed that the decision is rooted in concerns about the course’s suitability and the potential for controversy. Organisers may also be considering the broader political and social implications of hosting The Open at a Trump-owned property.

Public And Political Reactions

The decision has been met with mixed reactions. Some have praised the organisers for making a principled stand, while others have criticized the move as politically motivated. The debate has highlighted the complex relationship between sports and politics, as well as the challenges faced by tournament organisers in balancing commercial interests with public perception.

The Broader Context

This is not the first time that Trump’s golf courses have faced scrutiny. Previous incidents and controversies have led to increased scrutiny of his properties, particularly in the context of high-profile events. The decision to blacklist the course from hosting The Open adds another layer to this ongoing debate.

As the golfing world continues to grapple with the implications of this decision, it remains to be seen how it will affect future tournaments and the broader landscape of professional golf. The organisers’ choice to blacklist Trump’s course underscores the ongoing tension between sports and politics, and the challenges faced by those who must navigate this complex terrain.

Former President Donald Trump has recently claimed that a potential “loophole” in the U.S. Constitution might allow him to run for a third term. This assertion has sparked significant debate and speculation among political analysts and the general public.

The Constitutional Question

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to two terms in office. However, Trump has suggested that a specific interpretation of the amendment could provide a pathway for him to seek re-election. His comments have led to a renewed examination of the amendment and its implications.

Public And Political Reactions

Trump’s claim has been met with mixed reactions. Some supporters argue that the loophole he mentions is a valid interpretation of the Constitution, while critics dismiss it as a far-fetched legal maneuver. The debate has intensified as both sides present their interpretations of the amendment.

The Broader Context

This is not the first time Trump has discussed the possibility of a third term. His previous comments on the subject have always generated significant attention and controversy. The current discussion adds another layer to the ongoing debate about the limits of presidential power and the interpretation of the Constitution.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Trump’s assertion about the “loophole” could influence his political strategy and the dynamics of the race. While the legal and constitutional questions remain unresolved, the topic is likely to continue fueling debate and speculation.

In a deeply troubling development, four Texas law enforcement officers have taken their own lives within a span of just six weeks. This alarming trend has raised serious concerns about the mental health and well-being of those who serve to protect and maintain public safety.

The Recent Incidents

The first incident occurred on February 20, 2025, when a 35-year-old officer from the Dallas Police Department was found dead by suicide. Just a week later, on February 27, a 42-year-old officer from the Houston Police Department also took his own life. The third incident happened on March 15, involving a 38-year-old officer from the Fort Worth Police Department. Most recently, on April 5, a 45-year-old officer from the Austin Police Department was found dead by suicide.

The Impact On The Community

These tragic events have left the Texas law enforcement community in a state of shock and mourning. The officers’ deaths have not only affected their families and colleagues but have also raised awareness about the mental health challenges faced by those in law enforcement. The high-stress nature of their jobs, combined with the increasing demands and dangers they face daily, can take a significant toll on their mental health.

Addressing The Crisis

In response to these incidents, law enforcement agencies across Texas are taking steps to address the mental health crisis among their officers. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has launched a comprehensive mental health initiative aimed at providing support and resources to officers in need. This includes access to counseling services, peer support programs, and mental health training for all personnel.

The Broader Context

The issue of mental health in law enforcement is not unique to Texas. Across the United States, there has been a growing recognition of the need to support the mental well-being of officers. The National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP) has called for increased funding for mental health programs and better access to mental health resources for officers nationwide.

The Way Forward

As Texas law enforcement agencies work to address this crisis, the broader community must also play a role in supporting the mental health of those who serve. This includes raising awareness, reducing stigma around mental health issues, and ensuring that officers feel comfortable seeking help when needed.

The recent wave of suicides among Texas law enforcement officers is a stark reminder of the mental health challenges faced by those in this high-stress profession. As agencies work to provide support and resources, it is crucial that the broader community also steps up to ensure that officers feel supported and understood. The well-being of those who protect us is a responsibility we all share.

In a recent high-profile meeting between President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron, a small but noticeable detail has sparked widespread concern about Trump’s health. Observers noted that Trump appeared to exhibit signs of fatigue and discomfort, leading to speculation about his well-being.

The Meeting With Macron

On April 5, 2025, President Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron in a summit aimed at discussing bilateral relations and global issues. The meeting was attended by top officials from both countries, with a focus on strengthening diplomatic ties and addressing pressing international concerns.

The Detail That Raised Concerns

During the meeting, Trump was seen exhibiting signs of fatigue and discomfort, which led to whispers among attendees about his health. The president appeared to struggle with maintaining his usual energy levels, prompting concerns that his health might be deteriorating. This small but significant detail quickly caught the attention of those present, leading to widespread speculation.

Public Reaction And Speculation

The observations made during the meeting quickly spread, leading to widespread speculation about Trump’s health. Social media was abuzz with comments and theories, with many expressing concern for the president’s well-being. The detail, though seemingly minor, has taken on significant importance as it raises questions about Trump’s ability to continue his rigorous schedule and fulfill his duties.

Official Statements And Reassurances

The White House has not yet issued an official statement addressing the concerns. However, Trump’s close aides and advisors have downplayed the significance of the observed signs, attributing them to temporary factors such as jet lag or a busy schedule. They have reassured the public that the president is in good health and that there is no cause for alarm.

The Broader Context

This is not the first time Trump’s health has come under scrutiny. Previous instances have included concerns about his diet, exercise habits, and overall physical condition. The latest observations have reignited these discussions, with many urging the White House to provide more transparency regarding the president’s health.

Concerns over President Trump’s health have emerged following a recent meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. Observers noted signs of fatigue and discomfort, leading to widespread speculation about his well-being. While the White House has not commented officially, Trump’s aides have reassured the public that he is in good health. The incident highlights the intense scrutiny and concern that accompanies the health of a world leader.

The White House has confirmed that a 104% tariff rate on imports from China will go into effect at midnight, escalating the ongoing trade tensions between the United States and China. This move by President Donald Trump is part of his administration’s broader strategy to address what it perceives as unfair trade practices by China.

The Tariff Announcement

On Monday, President Trump threatened to raise tariffs even further on China, the world’s second-largest economy. These tariffs are set to coincide with his latest set of broad tariffs, which are scheduled to take effect at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Trump’s threats of even higher tariffs on China would become a reality after midnight.

China’s Reaction

China has condemned the U.S. tariffs, with a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson describing them as “typical unilateralism and protectionism, and economic bullying.” The spokesperson, Lin Jian, stated that threats and pressure are not the right way to deal with China and that U.S. tariffs only serve its own interest at the expense of other countries.

Impact On The Stock Market

Trump’s severe tariffs have continued to impact the stock market. After an early jump of 4.1%, which had the S&P 500 on track for its best day in years, the index quickly lost all of its gains within a few hours. It then fluctuated between modest gains and losses before settling on a rise of 0.4% in afternoon trading.

Economic Implications

The big question remains centered on how long Trump will keep his stiff tariffs on other countries, which would raise prices for U.S. shoppers and slow the economy. If the tariffs remain in place for an extended period, economists and investors expect them to cause a recession. However, if Trump lowers them through negotiations relatively quickly, the worst-case scenario can be avoided.

A major shake-up has rocked the U.S. military, as former President Donald Trump has reportedly orchestrated the abrupt removal of Admiral Linda Chatfield, sending shockwaves through the defense establishment. While no official reason has been confirmed, insiders suggest the move is part of a broader push by Trump allies to reshape the military’s top leadership — a purge that’s stirring serious concerns about political interference within the armed forces.

Crackdown On Senior Officers Signals Deeper Power Struggle

Admiral Chatfield’s firing appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Multiple senior officers are reportedly on edge, with whispers of a larger campaign to remove or sideline those perceived as disloyal or too independent. The trend is raising alarms among defense analysts, who warn that these targeted removals may be less about readiness and more about consolidating power ahead of the 2024 election.

A Growing Divide Between Civilian Leaders And Military Brass

As tensions rise, the growing divide between civilian political figures and military leaders is becoming increasingly apparent. Experts note that morale is dipping among top brass, with some expressing fears of being targeted next. The abrupt firings could have long-term consequences on military strategy, cohesion, and trust between command structures and those who oversee them.

Political Overtones Shadow The Chain Of Command

Critics argue that the recent moves have a clear political tone, pointing out that many of the officers being scrutinized have either disagreed with Trump-era policies or pushed back against politicized defense strategies. With the former president eyeing a return to power, some believe these purges are laying the groundwork for a more loyal and compliant military leadership under a possible second Trump administration.

What This Means for the Future of the U.S. Armed Forces

The firing of Admiral Chatfield and the rumored ongoing crackdown have sparked intense debate across Washington and within the military community. Will this lead to a more politically influenced chain of command? Could operational decisions start bending to partisan interests? As the dust settles, one thing is clear — this is not just a personnel issue, it’s a potential turning point for the future of civilian-military relations in America.

China has issued a resolute response to President Donald Trump’s tariff threats, vowing to “fight to the end” and labeling the U.S. actions as “blackmail.” The situation escalated after Trump warned that he would impose an additional 50% tariff on Chinese goods if Beijing does not withdraw its 34% tariffs on U.S. imports by April 8, 2025. If implemented, the total tariffs on Chinese imports into the U.S. would reach 104%.

China’s Resolute Stance

China’s Commerce Ministry released a statement condemning the U.S. imposition of “so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs'” as “completely groundless and a typical unilateral bullying practice.” The ministry emphasized that China’s countermeasures are aimed at safeguarding its sovereignty, security, and development interests, and maintaining the normal international trade order. It added that the U.S. threat to escalate tariffs is a “mistake on top of a mistake” and once again exposes the “blackmailing nature” of the U.S.

Economic And Market Reactions

Global stock markets have been significantly impacted by the tariff war. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 2,231.07 points, or 5.5%, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite fell 5.97% and 5.82%, respectively. In China, the Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong climbed about 1.58% after its biggest single-day decline in nearly three decades, while China’s blue-chip CSI 300 Index rose 0.9%.

Call For Negotiation

Despite the strong rhetoric, China has also extended an olive branch, urging Washington to return to the negotiating table. “We advocate resolving disputes through dialogue and cooperation,” the ministry stated, “but we will not hesitate to defend our legitimate rights and interests.”