No -

1 - This would open the door to changes in the U.S. Constitution. Almost any changes would be bad.
2 - The larger a population and area a country governs, the worse it governs. This would expand the scope of a single government.

Frustrated conservatives in Canada might like this because they may end up in a less socialist country, or at least, would hope for that. Frustrated liberals in the U.S. might like this because it would open the possibility of neutering the U.S. Constitution that is a constant thorn in their side.

In real terms, the only way this would happen would be for the Canadian provinces and territories to leave Canada and apply to enter the U.S. as states or territories. Canada's population is smaller than California's. It would not be a merger with a new Constitution except in liberal fantasies. Even so, Canada would ensure socialists win every national election and control the House and Senate.

How about this instead? Canada can have the east coast from New Jersey up. (I kid, I kid.)

 

Changes to the Constitution? Are you kidding?

 

Won't happen.
Our current administration is more determined the U.S. becoming a spanish nation.

Sort of a North mexico.
Sorry Canada...you snooze you loose. No free stuff for you because you climbed a fence.

 

There's a world of difference between Spain and Mexico. Mexico is primarily a mestizo nation.

There's a big difference.

 

A merger would be great. The US would have new places to relocate our uneducated, unskilled, language challenged dependent denizens who are now languishing in the big cities. They might like a change of scenery and a chance to breathe that fresh, clean Canadian air. Ah, the call of the wild! It might also help reduce prison overcrowding as crime would also have a chance to spread out.

 

LOL ... yeah, our troubled urban population would all become lumberjacks.

Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories. That would be, what, 16 senators who would be mostly Democrats every time (or maybe they would openly call themselves socialists, yet caucus with the Democrats) and 16 electoral votes who would be blue every time? Even setting aside the liberal fantasy of using this as an excuse to destroy the U.S. Constitution and writing a socialist document in its place.

 

I'd rather go the other way. Break up the US into smaller countries.

 

I sincerely believe that if the founding fathers traveled through time and got up to speed on the current situation, that is exactly what they would advocate.

 

Just think how dumbed down your population will get when Al Sharpton and the entitlement crowd come knocking on your doors.

 

I was going to say "No," but then I changed my mind. "Hell no."

 

The NAU has been a conspiracy for a while. I say no thanks.

 

Go on.

We all know you secretly want the British Monarchy, back as your head of state.

Waylander :thumb:

 

That's a big HELL NO!!!!! Because then we'd have to deal with that imbecile Chuck!!! :thumb:

 

The western part of Canada is actually fairly conservative, minus some of the larger cities. The rural parts of Ontario and Quebec are also fairly conservative. It's the same argument/complaint you hear from a lot of Americans from states such as Illinois; take away the huge voting bloc of the liberal city(s), and the remainder is overwhelmingly conservative, no matter what the voting results "show".

On the plus side, it would finally give the U.S. a chance to win another gold medal in hockey!

 

The western part of Canada is actually fairly conservative.

Sorry friend, I disagree. If gayness, Che Guevara shirts, drugs, and hatred for firearms had mass commensurate to their numbers, the entire west of Canada would sink into the sea.

 

LoL.
Uh... has anyone asked us Canadians what we think?:

As an Americanophile, and someone who's not very pleased with my country, I don't think it would be a good idea.

The US doesn't need the addition of a whole nation of liberals adding to that voter base.

 

Why would anyone want this ? I sure wouldn't

That article is funny. "Canadians put maple-leaf flags on their lapels or backpacks so as not to be mistaken for Americans. That’s easy enough to do, as we tend to marry, study, date, play, work, invest and travel alike."

Yea we are alike, but most people here do that so they wont be mistaken for Americans and treated like crap. No disrespect intended to you guys south of us but not every country in the world likes you (its more of a issue with your government than the people themselves). He!! a lot of Americans don't like their government so this needs no explanation.

"We would control more oil, water, arable land and resources than any jurisdiction on Earth, all protected by the world’s most powerful military." Canada and the US already control all those resources. The worlds most powerful military already protects that. NATO

How would it go ? Canada join the US and then they use our natural resources to pay off their debt ? Where would the benefit be to us ?

The worlds most powerful military ? (meaning Canada and the US military as one) To fight WHO ?
The Soviets aren't coming over the North Pole people. Russia doesn't have that kind of force projection and neither does China.

If there was any possibility at all of Canada being invaded, it would probably come from the US anyways. No I'm not saying I think the US will invade Canada, just that you guys are the only ones close enough to do so. Even if we were not so close you would still have the hardware to do so.

Canada join the US ? NO
If shes is getting homesick she should just move back home !

 

There is no need.

I actually like Canadians. Canadians go to war every time we go to war. So do the Brits and Aussies. As liberal as those places are, they're way better than anywhere else.

Here's to the "Five Eyes".

 

Oh, and let's just say I was 100% wrong. Argue your case more eloquently than 'you don't know jack'.

You silly little bugger.

 

Fair enough. I travel throughout Western Canada for work. Mainly Alberta and Saskatchewan, with a fair bit of B.C., and around four trips a year to Manitoba. I drive, not fly, and the majority of my time is spent in the smaller towns and cities. I'm on the road around 120-130 days a year. Overwhelmingly, the customers I speak with are conservative. Redneck even. I see a lot more cans of Skoal than I do bottles of Evian.

Look at election results. The Reform Party was always considered a "western only" party because they were "too conservative". In the 2011 federal election, the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, out of a combined total of 56 seats, elected 51 conservatives. Only 5 of 51 went to the Liberals and NDP combined. Those 5 were elected in urban ridings.

As I say, fairly conservative.

 

Culturally and economically the U.S. and Canada have already merged. Although it would probably be in both nations' interests to merge politically, it won't happen.

 

I say no. If only because then we could never get rid of Justin Bieber. As of now we always have that chance.

 

A better argument.

First, as you well know, being a Canadian, there is currently discord within both the Liberals and NDP, in addition to exposed mismanagement and corruption within the former, and their normally staunch voter base is disaffected.

As one who also travels extensively, and has to interact across the social spectrum, I'm not seeing this Conservative base you're speaking of. Dipping into a can of Skoal is not a valid indication.

The small towns you speak of. Nelson, Coombs and the Gulf Islands are meccas of the extreme far left, and were seeded as such when draft dodgers and political extremists migrated in the hundreds form the US to Canada in the sixties. Coincidentally, there's a documentary about this just come out.

Small towns in Alberta, such as that outhouse Medicine Hat, are also dominated within their education system by far left policies. Those that have the outward affectations of being conservative; dusters, pickups... and cans of Skoal, may think they're conservative, but being inbred does not a Conservative make. There may be a more even balance of the two extremes in these areas, but by no means does this imply that the West is a Conservative haven.

The American general opinion that we're liberal dominated, from our views on the military, to health care to what constitutes being 'Canadian', is quite true.

 

A better argument.

First, as you well know, being a Canadian, there is currently discord within both the Liberals and NDP, in addition to exposed mismanagement and corruption within the former, and their normally staunch voter base is disaffected.

As one who also travels extensively, and has to interact across the social spectrum, I'm not seeing this Conservative base you're speaking of. Dipping into a can of Skoal is not a valid indication.

The small town's you speak of. Nelson, Coombs and the Gulf Islands are meccas of the extreme far left, and were seeded as such when draft dodgers and political extremists migrated in the hundreds form the US to Canada in the sixties. Coincidentally, there's a documentary about this just come out.

Small towns in Alberta, such as that outhouse Medicine Hat, are also dominated within their education system by far left policies. Those that have the outward affectations of being conservative; dusters, pickups... and cans of Skoal, may think they're conservative, but being inbred does not a Conservative make. There may be a more even balance of the two extremes in these areas, but by no means does this imply that the West is a Conservative haven.

The American general opinion that we're liberal dominated, from our views on the military, to health care to what constitutes being 'Canadian', is quite true.

I'll agree with the Liberals and NDP parties having problems, but election results even before their current problems show the same skewed results.

And for every far left town like Nelson, I would say there are two far right like Prince George or Castlegar, especially the further north you go.

As for attitudes regarding the military; any time I've seen any poll on the subject (We'll disregard the people I speak with personally as being biased), poll results always show support support for the military, be it in either a general, feel-good "do you support the military" kind of way, or in regards to more military funding. I'm referring to any local poll such as local papers or television, or even national polls broken down by region. I honestly cannot recall ever seing any other result. Even after 9/11, Western Canada was in favour of Canada going into Iraq, which we obviously didn't do, not just Afghanistan.

I'll give you the healthcare issue. We do love our healthcare, every province. However, Alberta -did- try and go even closer to the American system with the experiment of certain procedures available on a priority basis with "extra billing". And this was supported by a majority of Albertans. But as I'm sure you recall, the federal government quickly squashed that idea. Also, while not a lot of Canadians know too much about the ACA, the most common comment I personally hear about it is, "it's a cluster****". Not so much of the "well at least someone's trying to fix it" approach. I haven't seen polls on that issue here, so I really can't say what the most widely held opinion is.

I'll agree with your view on the American perception of Canadian political views. Given the extreme liberal bias of Canadian media, especially that of the CBC, it's not hard to see how someone could reach that conclusion. However, having that perception does not make it the reality. I firmly stand by my earlier position, and I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

NO!! The current situation is to the benefit of the US. Since I believe each and every action and decision our government makes should be based on that concept (sadly this rarely ever guides us anymore) there is no benefit to the merge for us.

As it stands now we have a large buffer country to our north filled with needed resources that is very willing to trade with us. In exchange they benefit from the security and wealth associated with having the US as a neighbor, trading partner and ally.

As has been mentioned before our nation rests at a precarious position politically. I fear the addition of more undue political influence from the north (the south has damaged us so much already) might tip the scale toward even more damaging progressive idiocy.

 

I would prefer to repartition the entire North American continent into nine separate nations.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

Vancouver could join the west coast cities from Seattle to the bay area. Quebec gets to be it's own country. Ontario (Toronto) joins with the other rust belt states surrounding the great lakes. The western provinces join with the Midwestern farming states.

The northeastern states of the US become their own country where then can continue to cheat at football, finances, and politics. The confederate south becomes their own nation again, except Florida joins with Cuba and the rest of the islands.

The Midwestern states and the Rockies and the great basin states become two big countries. Southern and central california joins with Mexico, along with most of AZ, NM, and west Texas desert.

 

Some issues are different by nature of the countries, but generally speaking, Dennis Kucinich would be mainstream in Canada, and Bill Clinton would be in the Conservative Party there. Canada is definitely well left of the United States. There could be specific exceptions.

However, it's an almost unfair comparison, because the United States was founded based on revolution from monarchy, with a Constitution written for the explicit purpose of having a weak, limited, divided federal government (note: weakness is even built into the word "federal," as it implies a federation of governments, not a single consolidated power).

Canada is notionally ruled by a hereditary queen (sometimes king) who was theoretically anointed by God to rule over Canadians. You can't really embrace the idea of government as a weak and limited servant if your government conversation involves hereditary rulers put on Earth by God to rule over you. And yes, I know "it's not really like that now," but the two governments come from extremely different root concepts. Polar opposites.

In other words ... if you have a personality type in which you value tradition, in the U.S., what that means is that you value the founding fathers and their desire to limit the federal government. In Canada, it means you are respectful toward the monarchy and nobility, the exact opposite mindset.

 

+1. I don't believe most Americans would give up the Constitution (except for Obama that is) or the historical nationalistic mindset that goes with it. Not sure how willing most Canadians would give up their monarchal ties.

 

This is a terrible idea, unless Canadians think that a merger with a bankrupt entity devoid of common sense is a good plan.

The US debt/GDP ratio is north of 100%. Canada is 30%. I can see where DC would like to acquire the added productive capacity to spit shine its numbers but it offeres no benefit to Canadians or non-government Americans.

 

The average conservative Canadian is still left of center by American standards.

 

Even if Canadians gave up the monarchy, they would not give up statism.

Monarchy and socialism are two sides of the same coin. The differences are superficial.

Either way, the people are children to be guided and protected, the government is the parents to be respected and obeyed.

Setting all that aside - a government cannot cover so many areas, cultures, lifestyles and types of people, and function well. The bigger and more varied a country, the more accustomed a government gets to ignoring segments. The United States is too big and too varied as it is.

 

Canucks are OK in my book but HELL NO we join countries.....hell no!

 

It's true that we have already spent trillions protecting their country, but if they became Americans they would add to the healthcare and retirement bills. Remember, they are used to being taken care of by their government. They do tax their lower income people a lot more than we do, though. That and the fact their country is still mostly wilderness is the only reason they are not as broke as the UK is.