Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

New American States

Will Alberta, Saskatwchewan, mainland BC join the US?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Alberta, Saskatchewan, mainland BC join the US?

    • I live in AB, SK. Yes, possible
      0
    • I live in AB, SK. No, never
      2
    • I live in BC. Yes, possible
      1
    • I live in BC. No, never
      0
    • I don't live in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan but I am intrigued, curious.
      4
    • This is a stupid question
      7


Recommended Posts

Donald Trump is the kind of President/guy to propose/do/manage such a deal - out of the box thinking.

Given the choice, would people in Alberta/Saskatchewan - most of BC - choose to join the US?

 

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Donald Trump is the kind of President/guy to propose/do/manage such a deal - out of the box thinking.

2. Given the choice, would people in Alberta/Saskatchewan - most of BC - choose to join the US?

 

1. Propose ?  Yes.  Manage ?  No way.  Even Doug Ford got behind Trudeau when Trump went after us.  
Wow, this is so far off the map... maybe you should go back to thinking in the box.

2. Why are you splitting up BC in this crazy scenario ?  No... being insignificant prairie states with less power in the central government is a no-go and healthcare would be gone since they couldn't afford to give universal coverage to people moving up from Montana.

Real head-scratcher, August...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 3:14 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some Canadians don't wait for statehood...they just move to the United States....problem solved.

You guys figured out how to change a flag from 48 stars to 50.

I reckon that you'll manage to make it look good at 53 stars.

========

The CBC will refer to "Anschluss". The NPR will refer to "merging". Radio-Canada will refer to "Québec". I'll refer to Donald Trump thinking out of the box.

Go figure.  

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, August1991 said:

You guys figured out how to change a flag from 48 stars to 50.

I reckon that you'll manage to make it look good at 53 stars.

========

The CBC will refer to "Anschluss". The NPR will refer to "merging". Radio-Canada will refer to "Québec". I'll refer to Donald Trump thinking out of the box.

Go figure.  

And Canadians will say, "Fuck you!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 12:19 PM, Zeitgeist said:

And Canadians will say, "F**k you!"

Which Canadians? What is "Canada"?

Many people living in Canada do not speak English. It is not their mother tongue.

=====

Does this mean that any language is Canadian?

Zeitgeist, our federal government has only two official languages - but it has no official culture.

In Canada, we live in a bilingual, multicultural federal state.

It works. We're civilized. Unlike Norway/Sweden - even the USA, we've done this for ages. 

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Which Canadians? What is "Canada"?

Many people living in Canada do not speak English. It is not their mother tongue.

 

Indeed...perhaps he should have included (quote) "va te faire foutre" for dealing with the hated Americans.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Which Canadians? What is "Canada"?

In Canada, we live in a bilingual, multicultural federal state. It works. We're civilized.

Those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Those people.

Those people?

In Canada, you can argue with a federal bureaucrat, in French or English, when paying taxes.

French and English are Official Languages in federal government dealings (and with the New Brunswick government).

We have no Official Culture - we live in a bilingual, federal, multicultural State.

======

And let me repeat, to Swedes/Danes and Americans, the Canadian model works.

Why?

Our politicians are guys like Pearson/Harper/Bernier who try to learn the other language.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is almost no benefit for prosperous regions to join larger nations. The number of countries in the world has been growing over the last several decades, not declining, as regions separate so they can have their own sovereign governments that better look after their own interests. As long as there are reasonable trade relations in place between nations, and migration/employment between nations is not too heavily impeded, people everywhere benefit from many smaller nations rather than fewer larger nations. 

Some provinces or regions of Canada could perhaps one day separate from Canada. But join the US? No. Not unless the future is a far meaner and darker time than today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Zeitgeist, our federal government has only two official languages - but it has no official culture.

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

2. We have no Official Culture - we live in a bilingual, federal, multicultural State.

3. Our politicians are guys like Pearson/Harper/Bernier who try to learn the other language.

1. 2. The idea of a "National" culture is actually heavily tied to technology, as in printing and map-making from the post-middle ages period.  So it's really only several centuries old which is just a tick of the clock.  I point this out because there is an apparent assumption that national identity is born into humans.  Tribal identity may be - at least it's more natural and pervasive - but national identity is itself tied to federalism and central control which is almost modern.

That means that if you could drive from Province, through Bordeaux and Paris to Alsace in the 11th century you would be visiting a spectrum of cultures more closely related to their immediate neighbours than to each other. 

Now, the question is why a village on one side of the country would align with another one 5,000 km away.   Or why they wouldn't align with one on the other side of the world instead.  The old motivations of sticking with the tribe were subverted into serving the King of the country who shared language and territory and values, to defend against outsiders and promoting our worldview. 

Eventually that model became subverted by French philosophers and American nation builders into 'universal' values.  (This was as pretentious as it sounds, since nobody knew for sure if Saturn was letting people vote or not.) It took away a major reason for conflict, though, and on the backs of a new continent and technological advances a new world emerged.

The next subversion came from idealogues who found problems with the unequal results of the model and created autocratic states by harnessing the latent tribalism that still existed.  They couldn't compete with the liberal systems and eventually fell, and they continue to fall.  

Our current subversion is around Global capital and the same kinds of chaotic forces that brought us to the time of WW1.  Countries are heavily inter-dependent now, and competing for capital but also facing challenges to democracy and tribal re-awakenings once again.

'No official culture' is a blessing in such times, however it doesn't vaccinate us against tribalism.  Indeed our multi-cultural identity means we theoretically should be able to discuss cutting immigration without the baggage of racism, like so many other countries.  But we cant seem to do so.

Quote

As a bilingual/multicultural state we have the tools to skate by these four dead arguments and talk about what kind of immigration we want.  By even having such a discussion, we will put a stake in the ground as to our ability to be different from other countries.  I would like to say our two official languages can help us to talk, but I haven't seen that yet.

3.  Maybe putting impediments to success in front of politicians makes them stronger.  Can you imagine a bilingual Trump ?  I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I can see some Dem states considering joining Canada. 

 

I can't....Canadians can't escape Canada by constantly chirping and threatening to "join" the United States.    They just move there instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, August1991 said:

Those people?

In Canada, you can argue with a federal bureaucrat, in French or English, when paying taxes.

French and English are Official Languages in federal government dealings (and with the New Brunswick government).

We have no Official Culture - we live in a bilingual, federal, multicultural State.

======

And let me repeat, to Swedes/Danes and Americans, the Canadian model works.

Why?

Our politicians are guys like Pearson/Harper/Bernier who try to learn the other language.

Yes, those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit pussy footing it and petition for statehood already. What possible benefit arise from being a semi independent country? Your economy and culture are already fully integrated with us. If universal healthcare is what you want then maintain it under state law. Its not like the federal government  can change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Quit pussy footing it and petition for statehood already. What possible benefit arise from being a semi independent country? Your economy and culture are already fully integrated with us. If universal healthcare is what you want then maintain it under state law. Its not like the federal government  can change that. 

We don't want statehood or to "join" the US, at least not as a state within the U.S..  If you want to try to hash out a union or partnership, I think many Canadians would see benefits in that, and it wouldn't upend our systems, cultures, or national priorities.  There would be some compromise, but it would allow the new entity to adopt the best approaches from both countries without seriously impacting sovereignty.  Canadians enjoy the climate and economic opportunities in the U.S., but we are guarded about compromising our cultures and safety net, and I don't just mean healthcare, unemployment, and so forth.  I'm also talking about safety from the proliferation of guns (2nd amendment) and gun violence.  A border is necessary.  Canadians don't want the huge class divide and "other side of the tracks" phenomenon that maintains economically depressed areas, breeds resentment, and walls off the privileged through tax code, jerrymandering, and a politicized legal system.  Americans are free to maintain that kind of society, but we don't want it in Canada.  Having said that, if the price of being able to live and work anywhere in the U.S. is allowing Americans to do the same in Canada, I think most Canadians would be willing to take that risk if Americans pay taxes in Canada and respect our laws.  We would do the same in the U.S..  It's security for Americans who seek a long term haven in a safe society.  It creates long-term development opportunities for Americans in Canada.  It also widens economic opportunities for Canadians. 

As part of the deal the compromises are maintaining a form of Obamacare in the U.S. to prevent pressure on the Canadian economy from health care migrants; Canada increases military spending to reflect our economic ratio to the U.S. economy.  A border is maintained to allow both countries to set their own immigration, gun control and national security priorities.  Otherwise not much else changes.  Each country maintains its own domestic policies on the usual items: food and drug, environment, telecom, banks, monetary and fiscal policy, etc.  There are compelling reasons for Canada to maintain its sovereignty that also serve American interests.  Maintaining far-flung populations in our vast land is expensive, yet Canadians are willing to pay that price.  Between the two systems right now, U.S. or Canadian, I think many within both countries find a lot to admire about Canadian society.  Why mess with a success story?  Adopt some of the best policies of both systems in a union, yet allow both countries' citizens to choose their own destinies, which are fairly aligned but not one and the same.  If Americans live/work in Canada and decide they want voting rights and to become Canadian, they can apply to immigrate.  Canadians living and working in the U.S. can apply to emigrate to the U.S. in a similar fashion, should they wish to do so.

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 10:43 AM, Wilber said:

Yes, those people.

Those people?

IMHO, the great thing about Canada is that no federal PM - at least since Diefenbaker - can get elected unless she/he sorta speaks two languages.

====

Wilber, did Diefenbaker speak German?

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Those people?

IMHO, the great thing about Canada is that no federal PM - at least since Diefenbaker - can get elected unless she/he sorta speaks two languages.

====

Wilber, did Diefenbaker speak German?

I'm agreeing with you. By those people, I mean the ones you are talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 9:12 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I can't....Canadians can't escape Canada by constantly chirping and threatening to "join" the United States.    They just move there instead.

Freedom to choose...

But how to live together....

=====

b_c2004, you Americans are the best neighbours that I could ever imagine.

From Germany to France, Russia to Poland, China to Vietnam, Japan to Hawaii, you guys have never invaded us - except in 1812, over 200 years ago.

And when you guys dropped nuclear bombs - you didn't drop them on us. You have never threatened us/invaded/taken our territory - as Japan did in China, the Soviet Union did in Hungary/Finland/Poland.

Trump? Canada and America = we'll work it out.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from Ontario and I want Ontario to join the United States if even just Alberta leaves to the United States.

Alberta succession will be the End of our country with a chain reaction. Funding will be cut and life for a large part of the population will get harder. No one will be able to pay to keep Quebec in the Confederation and BC will be mostly cut off by Land. Ontario will be landlocked.

Ontario's cities are also partially integrated with American cities.

Edited by Carbon882

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Carbon882 said:

1. I am from Ontario and I want Ontario to join the United States if just Alberta leaves.

2. Alberta leaving will be the End of our country with a chain reaction.

3. BC will be mostly cut off by Land. Ontario will be landlocked.

4. Ontario's cities are also partially integrated with American cities.

1. Unclear.  Do you mean if more provinces than Alberta leave you don't want to join the US or if Alberta leaves you want to join the US regardless ?

2. What's this about Alberta leaving ?  Not happening soon.

3. Huh ?   By Alberta "leaving" do you mean leaving the planet ?  How deep do you expect the hole would be ?  

4. The only thing I can imagine you saying here is that there's a bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Unclear.  Do you mean if more provinces than Alberta leave you don't want to join the US or if Alberta leaves you want to join the US regardless ?

2. What's this about Alberta leaving ?  Not happening soon.

3. Huh ?   By Alberta "leaving" do you mean leaving the planet ?  How deep do you expect the hole would be ?  

4. The only thing I can imagine you saying here is that there's a bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

1. I meant if even just Alberta leaves. I corrected myself.

2. I read that the separatist movement in Alberta is gaining traction.

3. The United States border and a ocean of snow and tundra will be our only access to British Columbia. We can just pass threw the states anyways.

4. There is people in Windsor and Sualt ste. Marie and many towns that work in the United States but live in Canada. Compare to other province's we have a lot of personal interaction with the United States. Someone in a Article i read said that Windsor is a suburb to Detroit. 

Edited by Carbon882

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Carbon882 said:

1. The United States border and a ocean of snow and tundra will be our only access to British Columbia. We can just pass threw the states anyways.

2. There is people in Windsor and Sualt ste. Marie and many towns that work in the United States but live in Canada. Compare to other province's we have a lot of personal interaction with the United States. Someone in a Article i read said that Windsor is a suburb to Detroit. 

1. What ?  Why would the US allow "us" to pass through but not Alberta ?  Do you foresee a kind of totalitarian government there ?

2. They should be careful, I would say.  One little scritch of a penstroke and they are out of a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×