• [OT] How Canada could dominate the US if they merged

    From Rhino@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 20 16:01:52 2025
    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best. I expect the territories, given their small
    populations, would remain territories. Can you imagine Puerto Rico
    sitting still for Nunavut - or "North Nunavut" and "South Nunavut"
    becoming full states while Puerto Rico remains a territory? I'm also
    bemused by the idea that the US would adopt English-French bilingualism
    simply because Quebec had joined the Union. The idea that Trump would
    seek to learn French thoroughly as part of the deal is laughable. I'm
    not aware of Trump speaking a word of *Spanish* which is far more
    pervasive in the US than French so what chance is there that he would
    find the time to learn French?

    The political consequences would be interesting too. Let's say the 10
    provinces become states and the territories stay territories. Given the
    general left-leaning nature of our (Canadian) society - alas! - I'd
    expect most of the 20 new Senators would be Democrats and a lot of the
    new members of the House would also be Democrats. That would be a great
    gift to the Democratic Party which would obviously please the Democrats
    to no end and put the Republicans into convulsions.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From suzeeq@21:1/5 to Rhino on Thu Mar 20 13:13:32 2025
    On 3/20/2025 1:01 PM, Rhino wrote:
    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best. I expect the territories, given their small
    populations, would remain territories. Can you imagine Puerto Rico
    sitting still for Nunavut - or "North Nunavut" and "South Nunavut"
    becoming full states while Puerto Rico remains a territory? I'm also
    bemused by the idea that the US would adopt English-French bilingualism simply because Quebec had joined the Union. The idea that Trump would
    seek to learn French thoroughly as part of the deal is laughable. I'm
    not aware of Trump speaking a word of *Spanish* which is far more
    pervasive in the US than French so what chance is there that he would
    find the time to learn French?

    The political consequences would be interesting too. Let's say the 10 provinces become states and the territories stay territories. Given the general left-leaning nature of our (Canadian) society - alas! - I'd
    expect most of the 20 new Senators would be Democrats and a lot of the
    new members of the House would also be Democrats. That would be a great
    gift to the Democratic Party which would obviously please the Democrats
    to no end and put the Republicans into convulsions.

    Yeah, he hasn't given any thought as to how Canadian political
    demographics would affect Cpmgress. Unless he entends that they won't
    have the right to vote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BTR1701@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 20 21:03:44 2025
    On Mar 20, 2025 at 1:01:52 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best. I expect the territories, given their small
    populations, would remain territories. Can you imagine Puerto Rico
    sitting still for Nunavut - or "North Nunavut" and "South Nunavut"
    becoming full states while Puerto Rico remains a territory?

    For all the press that the "statehood for Puerto Rico" crowd gets, there's a very significant portion of PR's population that wants nothing to do with
    being a U.S. state. They'd much prefer to part ways with the U.S. altogether and be their own country. But that side doesn't help Democrats with Senate votes, House seats, and Electrical College votes, so the media mostly ignores them.

    (Another reason the defeat of Kammie was good for the country is that she was
    a big proponent of giving DC statehood. That idea is thankfully now as dead as it can be.)

    I'm also bemused by the idea that the US would adopt English-French bilingualism
    simply because Quebec had joined the Union. The idea that Trump would
    seek to learn French thoroughly as part of the deal is laughable. I'm
    not aware of Trump speaking a word of *Spanish* which is far more
    pervasive in the US than French so what chance is there that he would
    find the time to learn French?

    He wouldn't. And Quebec would quickly find out that all their laws about banning English from signage and whatnot would be unconstitutional, so over time, French would probably start to fade away there.

    The political consequences would be interesting too. Let's say the 10 provinces become states and the territories stay territories. Given the general left-leaning nature of our (Canadian) society - alas! - I'd
    expect most of the 20 new Senators would be Democrats and a lot of the
    new members of the House would also be Democrats. That would be a great
    gift to the Democratic Party which would obviously please the Democrats
    to no end and put the Republicans into convulsions.

    Yes, which is why taking Canada even as just one big state is a bad idea because it would give the Senate two more Dem senators and god knows how many Dem House seats. I have no idea why Trump or any of the other conservatives
    who cheer for this would even entertain the idea. I suspect they're only doing it to troll you maplebacks into an angry froth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian J. Ball@21:1/5 to Rhino on Thu Mar 20 14:22:09 2025
    On 3/20/25 1:01 PM, Rhino wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best.

    Canada has roughly the same population as California - either it's
    brought in as a single "state" (sans the territories), or not at all.

    And "not at all" is the only realistic answer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rhino@21:1/5 to Ian J. Ball on Thu Mar 20 18:09:46 2025
    On 2025-03-20 5:22 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
    On 3/20/25 1:01 PM, Rhino wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best.

    Canada has roughly the same population as California - either it's
    brought in as a single "state" (sans the territories), or not at all.

    Why? I don't ask to be argumentative, just to understand your reasoning.

    Wouldn't you find it strange to have a single new state that is (geographically) bigger than all your other states put together?
    (Actually, that's not quite true: the three territories are enormous and contribute dramatically to the size of the country. If you're excluding
    the territories from the new state of Canada, we wouldn't be bigger than
    the rest of your country put together - but we would be bigger than your current biggest state by a lot.

    Mind you, for many years Texas was the biggest state and finally got
    pushed into second place once Alaska got statehood. The USA has lots of experience at growing....

    And "not at all" is the only realistic answer.




    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rhino@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 20 18:32:27 2025
    On 2025-03-20 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
    On Mar 20, 2025 at 1:01:52 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdDzJTmybw [4 minutes]

    I give him credit for recognizing that it would make no sense to make
    all of Canada a single state but the idea that each province *and*
    territory would become its own state - or even TWO states - seems
    improbable at best. I expect the territories, given their small
    populations, would remain territories. Can you imagine Puerto Rico
    sitting still for Nunavut - or "North Nunavut" and "South Nunavut"
    becoming full states while Puerto Rico remains a territory?

    For all the press that the "statehood for Puerto Rico" crowd gets, there's a very significant portion of PR's population that wants nothing to do with being a U.S. state. They'd much prefer to part ways with the U.S. altogether and be their own country. But that side doesn't help Democrats with Senate votes, House seats, and Electrical College votes, so the media mostly ignores them.

    (Another reason the defeat of Kammie was good for the country is that she was a big proponent of giving DC statehood. That idea is thankfully now as dead as
    it can be.)

    Now you've got Trump pushing for Canadian statehood which might well
    mean two more Democratic senators, which is the same benefit Kammie
    strove for....

    I'm also bemused by the idea that the US would adopt English-French
    bilingualism
    simply because Quebec had joined the Union. The idea that Trump would
    seek to learn French thoroughly as part of the deal is laughable. I'm
    not aware of Trump speaking a word of *Spanish* which is far more
    pervasive in the US than French so what chance is there that he would
    find the time to learn French?

    He wouldn't. And Quebec would quickly find out that all their laws about banning English from signage and whatnot would be unconstitutional, so over time, French would probably start to fade away there.

    English signage isn't actually prohibited but it must be smaller than
    the French. Also store owners - and, I expect government employees -
    have to greet customers in French before they can speak to them in
    English, even if the only French they know is "bonjour" (good day). I
    expect THAT would be found unconstitutional as well. [Frankly, I can't *imagine* Quebec willingly joining the US. A lot of their politics
    throughout my life has been about avoiding losing their language and
    culture in a sea of English so joining the US would completely undermine
    that. The only way I could see them swallowing a merger is if they were guaranteed the right to retain all their laws - they've actually got a different legal system than the rest of the country - including all the language/cultural legislation that they already have.]

    By the way, don't some of your states retain "unique" features not
    shared by other states? I know Utah had to give up polygamy to get their statehood but I have vague recollections that some states have
    differences from the others, although I can't think of a specific
    offhand....


    The political consequences would be interesting too. Let's say the 10
    provinces become states and the territories stay territories. Given the
    general left-leaning nature of our (Canadian) society - alas! - I'd
    expect most of the 20 new Senators would be Democrats and a lot of the
    new members of the House would also be Democrats. That would be a great
    gift to the Democratic Party which would obviously please the Democrats
    to no end and put the Republicans into convulsions.

    Yes, which is why taking Canada even as just one big state is a bad idea because it would give the Senate two more Dem senators and god knows how many Dem House seats. I have no idea why Trump or any of the other conservatives who cheer for this would even entertain the idea. I suspect they're only doing
    it to troll you maplebacks into an angry froth.


    That's what a lot of the saner folks here are hoping. But our new PM is
    eager to agitate the froth because it's really helping his poll numbers.
    He's got a real shot at giving the Liberals a FOURTH consecutive term
    even though he's going to be even worse than Trudeau in practically
    every respect. Various media have said he's going to announce an
    election on Sunday; it will probably happen April 28 according to the
    current rumours. He's going to do everything he can to stoke up
    nationalism so that he can ride that into a new term for his party.
    Given that virtually all of the media is Team Liberal, the gullible
    maroons that voted for Trudeau in 2015, 2019, and 2021 are very likely
    to keep the Liberals in power *DESPITE* the massive harm they've done in
    the past 10 years.

    If Trump had just held off on tariff threats until we finally had our
    election, the Liberals would have been beaten to within an inch of their
    lives and we'd have a sensible government in power. (Or, if Trudeau had
    called an election - or been forced to have one when he was massively
    despised - we would also have a good government now with a strong
    mandate.) But timing matters and timing is *not* on our side right now.

    I'm as patriotic a Canadian as anyone but frankly, if the Liberals win
    the next election, I might actually favour a merger with the US just to
    make the insanity stop. But with my luck, we'd see a resurgence of the
    far-left Democrats and be no better off.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to no_offline_contact@example.com on Wed Mar 26 09:03:48 2025
    On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:01:52 -0400, Rhino
    <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    About the ONLY semi-plausible story I've seen involving a Canadian
    annexation of the United States was Arthur Hailey's 1962 novel "In
    High Places" which was a political thriller that ended in a US Soviet
    nuclear exchange that shall we say "evened" the population.

    I'm sure other novelists less prominent than Hailey have done that
    theme but I haven't seen or read them.

    My main concern right now is that it would take little effort for
    Trump to say something truly appalling that would heavily impact the
    April 28 Canadian federal election. Already his comments have led to a
    20+ point swing in the opinion polls

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to no_offline_contact@example.com on Wed Mar 26 09:07:51 2025
    On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:32:27 -0400, Rhino
    <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    English signage isn't actually prohibited but it must be smaller than
    the French. Also store owners - and, I expect government employees -
    have to greet customers in French before they can speak to them in
    English, even if the only French they know is "bonjour" (good day). I
    expect THAT would be found unconstitutional as well. [Frankly, I can't >*imagine* Quebec willingly joining the US. A lot of their politics
    throughout my life has been about avoiding losing their language and
    culture in a sea of English so joining the US would completely undermine >that. The only way I could see them swallowing a merger is if they were >guaranteed the right to retain all their laws - they've actually got a >different legal system than the rest of the country - including all the >language/cultural legislation that they already have.]

    They have a separate CIVIL code based on the pre-Napoleonic French
    civil code - they're bound by the Criminal Code of Canada same as the
    rest of us.

    What they definitely WOULD lose is preferential constituency counting
    which gives Quebec federal districts 20% less voters than BC and
    Alberta and thus about 10-15% more federal seats than their population
    would warrant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BTR1701@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 26 17:51:31 2025
    On Mar 20, 2025 at 1:01:52 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

    I found this video amusing for the rather naive assumptions the
    presenter makes about how a merger of Canada and the US might actually
    mean that Canada dominates the US after a merger:

    Here's Joy Reid maintaining her title as the Stupidest Woman in Media claiming that if the U.S. and Canadia went to war, the U.S. wouldn't stand a chance.

    https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1902938468088459499

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)