Should Canada join US?

[truthpls]

You guys know there is a conspiracy theory forum for this kind of nonsense, right?

You guys?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's the odd part of this conversation...

The people who are vocally the most concerned about "the dangers of globalism" seem to be on-board with this "Canada should just become part of the US" idea.

For anyone who's claiming to be anti-globalist, "country-mergers" should be the last thing they'd want.

And as I elaborated on in another thread...

If that were even to happen (it won't, but let's just pretend for the sake of debate)

Introducing Canada as a 51st state would be like having a "2nd California" in terms of electoral votes, congressional seats, and senate seats.

...many have voiced opposition to the concept of DC statehood and Puerto Rico statehood specifically because of how it would tip the balance of power in favor of the dems.

Yet, they're getting on-board with an idea of introducing a new blue state with 30 million people (and the 40+ blue electoral votes that would come with it)?

I do have a certain familiarity with Canada. I have family up there, my grandpa on my dad's side was born in Ontario, I visit friends and family up there semi-regularly. Don't mistake "they're fed up with Trudeau" with "that must mean there's a lot of people up there who are conservative by US standards". While there may be a few... make no mistake about it, by in large, Canadian conservatives are not like US conservatives. (and that would apply to a myriad of issues ranging from gun control to environment, to universal healthcare)

You may find some commonality on some select issues of "woke" and a few entitlement programs, but that'll be about it. Think "New England Republican" (your Larry Hogans, and Charlie Bakers, and Chris Sununu type republican supporters... y'know, the kind who will elect a moderate republican governor if given the option for fiscal reasons, but still solidly back the blue team in presidential elections)



In short, making a Canada a 51st state means Republicans (in their current state, and with their current platform) don't win the White House or House Majority again for a long long LOOONNNGGG time)

 

[Canuckster]

Grounded in reality would be preferable.

There are no "trillionaires". "post-nation state" is nonsense. This was all nonsense.

Of course there's trillionaires. they're the ones who collect interests on debt. And globalists are anti-nationalists, especially anti-western nationalism.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Here's the odd part of this conversation...

The people who are vocally the most concerned about "the dangers of globalism" seem to be on-board with this "Canada should just become part of the US" idea.

For anyone who's claiming to be anti-globalist, "country-mergers" should be the last thing they'd want.

And as I elaborated on in another thread...

If that were even to happen (it won't, but let's just pretend for the sake of debate)

Introducing Canada as a 51st state would be like having a "2nd California" in terms of electoral votes, congressional seats, and senate seats.

...many have voiced opposition to the concept of DC statehood and Puerto Rico statehood specifically because of how it would tip the balance of power in favor of the dems.

Yet, they're getting on-board with an idea of introducing a new blue state with 30 million people (and the 40+ blue electoral votes that would come with it)?

I do have a certain familiarity with Canada. I have family up there, my grandpa on my dad's side was born in Ontario, I visit friends and family up there semi-regularly. Don't mistake "they're fed up with Trudeau" with "that must mean there's a lot of people up there who are conservative by US standards". While there may be a few... make no mistake about it, by in large, Canadian conservatives are not like US conservatives. (and that would apply to a myriad of issues ranging from gun control to environment, to universal healthcare)

You may find some commonality on some select issues of "woke" and a few entitlement programs, but that'll be about it. Think "New England Republican" (your Larry Hogans, and Charlie Bakers, and Chris Sununu type republican supporters... y'know, the kind who will elect a moderate republican governor if given the option for fiscal reasons, but still solidly back the blue team in presidential elections)



In short, making a Canada a 51st state means Republicans (in their current state, and with their current platform) don't win the White House or House Majority again for a long long LOOONNNGGG time)

That's assuming we make them citizens. The smart thing is to make them US Nationals. That way they get to pay taxes and have some rights but they can't vote.

 

[truthpls]

Here's the odd part of this conversation...

The people who are vocally the most concerned about "the dangers of globalism" seem to be on-board with this "Canada should just become part of the US" idea.

Good point

For anyone who's claiming to be anti-globalist, "country-mergers" should be the last thing they'd want.

Especially when forced

And as I elaborated on in another thread...

If that were even to happen (it won't, but let's just pretend for the sake of debate)

Introducing Canada as a 51st state would be like having a "2nd California" in terms of electoral votes, congressional seats, and senate seats.

Unless they pulled a Puerto Rico type deal where whatever parts of Canada joined the US were not quite equal citizens. As for Quebec, the old thinking was that they would prefer to join France or Europe

...many have voiced opposition to the concept of DC statehood and Puerto Rico statehood specifically because of how it would tip the balance of power in favor of the dems.

From a US perspective that might be a concern. From a Canadian perspective, whatever pipe dreams some may have about Canada joining the US are not worth taking a second thought about because of all nations on earth Canada might think of joining if it were thinking at all about it, the US probably would not be in the top 10.

Yet, they're getting on-board with an idea of introducing a new blue state with 30 million people (and the 40+ blue electoral votes that would come with it)?

Remember the Indians? They did not get what they were promised. I am not sure who seriously thinks Canada would trust the US in any serious way.

I do have a certain familiarity with Canada. I have family up there, my grandpa on my dad's side was born in Ontario, I visit friends and family up there semi-regularly. Don't mistake "they're fed up with Trudeau" with "that must mean there's a lot of people up there who are conservative by US standards". While there may be a few... make no mistake about it, by in large, Canadian conservatives are not like US conservatives. (and that would apply to a myriad of issues ranging from gun control to environment, to universal healthcare)

Universal healthcare has been going down the drain for a long time. The wait for a family doctor in many places is years. If you want a sex change or assisted suicide, or abortion it might be pretty quick.

You may find some commonality on some select issues of "woke" and a few entitlement programs, but that'll be about it.

I think the government and media are woke. Almost anyone I talk to is somewhat normal on many woke issues.

Think "New England Republican" (your Larry Hogans, and Charlie Bakers, and Chris Sununu type republican supporters... y'know, the kind who will elect a moderate republican governor if given the option for fiscal reasons, but still solidly back the blue team in presidential elections)

Spineless traitors and sell outs are a feature of politics all over the world I would think

In short, making a Canada a 51st state means Republicans (in their current state, and with their current platform) don't win the White House or House Majority again for a long long LOOONNNGGG time)

Possibly. However if Canada did vote to join the USA there might be big benefits like oodles of water for their desserts and cities, and more energy, and mineral wealth and etc that Republicans may benefit from to offset all that. Also, Canada has been so held down and repressed by false media and oppressive government so long, that a free Canada might not vote the way everyone predicts

 

[Pommer]

My apologies... I gotta stay in the present. Now I know this is gonna bore the hell outta Nithavela but there's a world war taking place between the old global trillionaire state and the new national billionaire state. The new national billionaire state, that has just retaken America, sees the world in captivity to the old global trillionaire state, and Canada, being it's closest geographical and cultural neighbour, must be freed from the old trillionaire state. America is not bullying Canada or the people of Canada, but like a lion she's roaring at the pack of international hyenas who failed to take her down but still own Canada, her closest neighbour. So I'm all for Canada, a post-nation state, being liberated from our international hyena captors.

Sounds like Mexico should pay for the wall between USA and Canada!

 

[Pommer]

That's assuming we make them citizens. The smart thing is to make them US Nationals. That way they get to pay taxes and have some rights but they can't vote.

Not any of the 40million of them?
Make it two tiered?

Just think of the fun when MAGA gets rid of the French road signs in Quebec!

 

[mindlight]

"Donald Trump once again suggested Canada give up being a sovereign nation and become America’s 51st state,"

Trump Wants Canada As '51st State,' But Canadians Say No Thanks

Our neighbors to the north made it clear on social media that they would rather not join the U.S.

www.huffpost.com

Endless wars, high incarceration rates, Biden/Clinton like leaders are some reasons many Canadians would not embrace being a vassal state of the US

Wouldn't this give the USA a permanent Democrat majority? Maybe Trump has not thought it through.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's assuming we make them citizens. The smart thing is to make them US Nationals. That way they get to pay taxes and have some rights but they can't vote.

If it were to happen (like I said, it won't...but for the sake of pretend), there's no way Canadians would take that deal absent getting those particular "citizenship perks"

This isn't a Puerto Rico situation where being a "US Territory" is, and has been, the status quo. We're talking about a nation that's enjoyed the benefits of operating their own sovereign country (with full representation) since the 1860's.

 

[BCP1928]

Here's the odd part of this conversation...

The people who are vocally the most concerned about "the dangers of globalism" seem to be on-board with this "Canada should just become part of the US" idea.

For anyone who's claiming to be anti-globalist, "country-mergers" should be the last thing they'd want.

And as I elaborated on in another thread...

If that were even to happen (it won't, but let's just pretend for the sake of debate)

Introducing Canada as a 51st state would be like having a "2nd California" in terms of electoral votes, congressional seats, and senate seats.

...many have voiced opposition to the concept of DC statehood and Puerto Rico statehood specifically because of how it would tip the balance of power in favor of the dems.

Yet, they're getting on-board with an idea of introducing a new blue state with 30 million people (and the 40+ blue electoral votes that would come with it)?

I do have a certain familiarity with Canada. I have family up there, my grandpa on my dad's side was born in Ontario, I visit friends and family up there semi-regularly. Don't mistake "they're fed up with Trudeau" with "that must mean there's a lot of people up there who are conservative by US standards". While there may be a few... make no mistake about it, by in large, Canadian conservatives are not like US conservatives. (and that would apply to a myriad of issues ranging from gun control to environment, to universal healthcare)

You may find some commonality on some select issues of "woke" and a few entitlement programs, but that'll be about it. Think "New England Republican" (your Larry Hogans, and Charlie Bakers, and Chris Sununu type republican supporters... y'know, the kind who will elect a moderate republican governor if given the option for fiscal reasons, but still solidly back the blue team in presidential elections)



In short, making a Canada a 51st state means Republicans (in their current state, and with their current platform) don't win the White House or House Majority again for a long long LOOONNNGGG time)

Perhaps we need to distinguish between economic globalism and political globalism. Economic globalism is already here but is for all practical purposes unregulated, except for those pressures that individual nations think they can sometimes bring to bear on it (Trump's goofy ideas about tariffs com to mind). In any case, the economic globalists don't want the regulatory oversight that political globalism might burden them with. All in all, they have managed to do a good job of convincing people that political globalism would be an existential threat to our National Sovereignty and our Christian Values.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Universal healthcare has been going down the drain for a long time. The wait for a family doctor in many places is years. If you want a sex change or assisted suicide, or abortion it might be pretty quick.

For whatever flaws it has, it's become a 3rd rail in the countries that have it.

There's a reason why the conservative parties in places like Canada and the UK won't touch it.

It's similar to how Social Security is here. Yes, the concept is antithetical to the "vision" of a hard-liner fiscal conservative, and yes people are aware of sustainability issues with it as it's currently structured, but they won't dare mess with it, and people running on the (R) ticket often times have to go out of their way to make extra assurances that they'll leave it alone in order to be a viable candidate. Just as Trump had to promise "we're not going to touch it" (and I believe those were his exact words)

I think the government and media are woke. Almost anyone I talk to is somewhat normal on many woke issues.

Depends on where you go, those views are more pervasive in the "big cities" than they are out in the rural areas and suburbia.

Spineless traitors and sell outs are a feature of politics all over the world I would think

They're not spineless traitors or sell-outs...they're pragmatists. If you want to win as a republican in those New England states (and be able to at least get some of the things you want on a fiscal front, you have to concede on certain issues, otherwise a Democratic victory in those states is practically a slam dunk.

It's basically the inverse of the 'Joe Manchin in West Virginia' situation.

Would Manchin, as a Democrat, have been able to win in a state like WV if he ran the exact same way as a Democrat in NY or Cali? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

So, it becomes a calculated trade-off.

When I hear people say things to the effect "They need to ditch RINOs like Larry Hogan and Chris Sununu and run some real conservatives", they're making the same calculation error the Democrats were making when they said "We need to primary Joe Manchin and get him out of the way so we can get a real progressive in that Senate seat"

I wanted to say to them: "NEWSFLASH: the only reason you were able to get Manchin elected with a (D) next to his name in a state like West Virginia in the first place was specifically because he wasn't super progressive"

It used to be fairly well understood that in heavily ideologically leaning states, it was better to take your wins where you can get them, and at least have someone who votes with the party 30% of the time rather than a person who will vote against them on everything.

Which is basically what happened in WV.

"We need to run Manchin out of town so we can run a real Democrat"

Well, they got their wish, Manchin saw what they were doing and stepped aside, they ran Glenn Elliot on the (D) ticket to try to backfill Manchin's seat.

Elliot got creamed at the polls by staunch conservative Jim Justice.

It seems as if people have forgotten about the regional component to politics in the US.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

If it were to happen (like I said, it won't...but for the sake of pretend), there's no way Canadians would take that deal absent getting those particular "citizenship perks"

This isn't a Puerto Rico situation where being a "US Territory" is, and has been, the status quo. We're talking about a nation that's enjoyed the benefits of operating their own sovereign country (with full representation) since the 1860's.

Yes, but the current President is a great deal maker, he makes only the best. And the military is being purged of disloyal members and unpopular ideas. We were able to take over Iraq and they were armed to the teeth and half a flat earth away. Canada is next door and has been effectively disarmed by their own government. What will they do? Attack us with politeness?

In other news, I know someone who is thinking of resigning their commission in the Navy before the next war or purge.

 

[truthpls]

Wouldn't this give the USA a permanent Democrat majority? Maybe Trump has not thought it through.

What would freed slaves of Canada actually do, I don't know. Freed in the way of actually having a vote that mattered and information that was not one sided etc. Probably close to a majority in Canada today respected what the trucker convoy tried to do. Yet the media does not reflect that. Most Canadians do not want Parliament shut down during a national crisis, yet we see it is shut down. Most Canadians probably did not want young kids exposed to drag shows, forced mask wearing, and etc WE could go on and on. Yet those things go on in Canada so most people simply assume that most Canadians agree.

 

[truthpls]

Yes, but the current President is a great deal maker, he makes only the best. And the military is being purged of disloyal members and unpopular ideas. We were able to take over Iraq and they were armed to the teeth and half a flat earth away. Canada is next door and has been effectively disarmed by their own government. What will they do? Attack us with politeness?

In other news, I know someone who is thinking of resigning their commission in the Navy before the next war or purge.

I would be careful about underestimating your enemies. If you threatened the existence of Canada in a real way, they would be enemies. Remember the US has not outright lost many wars. (they slurked away pretending a draw or etc) They lost the war with Canada in I think it was 1812! Outright. They ran back in fear with their tail between their legs. Britain used natives who had a fierce reputation and this threw terror into the US side and they were beaten.

Canada also could possibly pick up the phone and call in millions of people from China or elsewhere to establish bases here and increase trade etc. Canada could probably swing deals with Russia and Iran as well. Canada also probably could have nukes in weeks. The only arms available to Canada might not be the military they have. There is also the water the US needs...etc. If push came to shove, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs them I would guess, despite the words of Trump.

 

[trophy33]

Just FYI, Canada is in NATO. Attack on Canada would create an obligation of many countries to come to help them. Like the most of the EU, UK or Turkey. Canada does not stand against an aggressor alone.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Just FYI, Canada is in NATO. Attack on Canada would create an obligation of many countries to come to help them. Like the most of the EU, UK or Turkey. Canada does not stand alone against an aggressor.

The United States is also in NATO / OTAN.

 

[trophy33]

The United States is also in NATO / OTAN.

NATO is obligated to help the attacked member. If such member activates the treaty.

 

[truthpls]

For whatever flaws it has, it's become a 3rd rail in the countries that have it.

There's a reason why the conservative parties in places like Canada and the UK won't touch it.

Yet it is touched. More and more it is becoming private. If Canada faced 40 - 100% tariffs or whatever it could escalate to if Canada fought back, the social network would be in grave danger and a lot would change fast.

It's similar to how Social Security is here. Yes, the concept is antithetical to the "vision" of a hard-liner fiscal conservative, and yes people are aware of sustainability issues with it as it's currently structured, but they won't dare mess with it, and people running on the (R) ticket often times have to go out of their way to make extra assurances that they'll leave it alone in order to be a viable candidate. Just as Trump had to promise "we're not going to touch it" (and I believe those were his exact words)

People toch whatever they need to touch in an emergency and real hard times.

Depends on where you go, those views are more pervasive in the "big cities" than they are out in the rural areas and suburbia.

They're not spineless traitors or sell-outs...they're pragmatists. If you want to win as a republican in those New England states (and be able to at least get some of the things you want on a fiscal front, you have to concede on certain issues, otherwise a Democratic victory in those states is practically a slam dunk.

It's basically the inverse of the 'Joe Manchin in West Virginia' situation.

Would Manchin, as a Democrat, have been able to win in a state like WV if he ran the exact same way as a Democrat in NY or Cali? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

So, it becomes a calculated trade-off.

When I hear people say things to the effect "They need to ditch RINOs like Larry Hogan and Chris Sununu and run some real conservatives", they're making the same calculation error the Democrats were making when they said "We need to primary Joe Manchin and get him out of the way so we can get a real progressive in that Senate seat"

The intricacies of how lying deceivers get elected might be another thread. In Canada, they give billions to the media and it is in their back pocket. They also rig it so that a debate will not include people with the wrong views etc

It seems as if people have forgotten about the regional component to politics in the US.

Regardless of regional differences, on the issue of Canada joining the US I am not sure they care what internal bickering goes on in the states.

Here is a thought, what if the newest member of BRICS is Canada!? That might give them instant trade advantages and possibly add to that some military defence pacts. Voila.

 

[truthpls]

The United States is also in NATO / OTAN.

Maybe they will dump Nato and join Brics

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I would be careful about underestimating your enemies. If you threatened the existence of Canada in a real way, they would be enemies. Remember the US has not outright lost many wars. (they slurked away pretending a draw or etc) They lost the war with Canada in I think it was 1812! Outright. They ran back in fear with their tail between their legs. Britain used natives who had a fierce reputation and this threw terror into the US side and they were beaten.

Canada also could possibly pick up the phone and call in millions of people from China or elsewhere to establish bases here and increase trade etc. Canada could probably swing deals with Russia and Iran as well. Canada also probably could have nukes in weeks. The only arms available to Canada might not be the military they have. There is also the water the US needs...etc. If push came to shove, the US needs Canada more than Canada needs them I would guess, despite the words of Trump.

A more realistic scenario is Russia and the United States carving Canada up.

Yes, 1812, the United Kingdoms high point. Better get those muskets.