Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] How Canada could dominate the US if they merged
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:03:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vrhvrf$1mv3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrhs78$3gc63$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 22:03:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c7ef16e200883b944c8377ecf6dd3659";
	logging-data="56291"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Avo9XVYBaOnhuzXHAFkmJ"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BYwZLrGQfykLRwwVVXI4LWz+xRU=

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.