Trump doubles down on annexation threat, says Canada would be ‘cherished state’
-
-
Yep, donald thinks himself smert. Putin thinks he is a useful dumbass.
-
Yeah I remember. I’ve seen maybe one MAGA hat in the last few years, and the dude wearing it was absolutely ancient. they were all over the place during the last election. After the Jan 6 stuff Albertans started to think maybe he wasn’t that great after all. There’s still a lot of “lesser of two evils” sentiment around the guy but nobody wants to join the US anymore.
-
-
If I understand correctly Canada has a kind of similar worldview as Nordic countries. Traiding that to a right wing capitalist shit hole like US would be a no go.
-
It's horrifying that I could see Greenland being his Poland and Canada being his France.
-
Is that the same half that rose up to fight it at home? Because I must have missed that part.
-
I think Americans who don't agree with trump should raise the Canadian flag.
When someone go outside, beat people up, come home, they are mostly likely will beat whoever at home when they speak up.
Throughout last year, the US didn't stop supporting the war crimes of Israel, either by providing them with money, weapons, and sending American soldier to the area just in case. Canadian didn't say much and kept quiet. Now Trump picking up the legacy of the United States foreign policy back home.
Canada should make it clear that they are not taking these statements as joke and expell the US ambassador.
Just imagine if Indea or China or even Russia said the same.
What crazy is that, I didn't hear any statement so far from Canadian allies to denounce trump statement.
-
Better to make california the 13th province.
-
I'm amazed at how quickly the US has come close to being on the brink of becoming a rogue state.
-
-
The 51st state? Hard pass. Canada’s healthcare system alone would collapse under the weight of your insulin price gouging. Cherished state? More like a hostile takeover by a country that thinks avocado toast is a personality trait.
Those 25% tariffs? Cute. We survived your 2018 tantrum—maple syrup exports outlived your presidency. Funny how “trade imbalances” vanish when your golf resorts rely on Canadian lumber.
Defense spending critiques from a guy who tried to lease Alaska back to Russia? Bold move. Our border’s secure enough to keep your conspiracy theorists from storming Parliament Hill.
Stay mad about the poutine tariffs, though.
-
You used to be able to say "It's all about the oil" but in this case "It's all about the eggs"
-
Ah yes, sure, but you see with the magic of gerrymandering, they could bring them in but make sure all their votes collectively count about as much as 3 rednecks in Alabama, so don't you worry about this pesky little detail.
-
Internet Explorer meme
-
The more he focuses on this instead of ruining the lives of migrants, refugees, and queer people, the better. This is absurd enough to be funny instead of just stoking hate crimes.
-
-
No they fucking wouldn't. They would sit at home and watch the Superbowl and clap along like they are right now.
-
-
kinda. It depends a bit on how we handle some of the stuff. Firstly, despite saying he wants to make Canada a state, he could make it a territory that gets 0 votes, which is straight up bullshit but exactly how it works. If he does make it a state, there's still a lot of uncertainty.
Every state has gets 1 vote per representative. Senate has a fixed 100 members (2 per state). House currently has 435 members, divided by state population. If Canada is brought in as a single state, it would beat out California in size, but not by all that much. If we simply increased the house to accommodate the new state, Canada would have a bit over 52 electoral votes. If we add Canada's 52-ish electoral votes to Kamala's count, she still doesn't have the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Similarly, adding Canada's 52-ish votes to Hillary's count means she still loses. Literally giving Canada's votes to the Dem candidate does not affect the last few elections results in a meaningful way. In fact, it would change almost none of the elections we've had in the last, like, ever.
However, that assumes they simply give Canada new reps, rather than redistributing the current ones. If they did a redistribution, electoral votes would be taken from the largest states. Any states with 3 electoral votes can't have that reduced at all, and those with like 4-8 are unlikely to get the count reduced. Redistributing will affect California the most, followed by Texas, Florida, New York and so on. It's... harder to analyze how that shift would shake out, but I wager still not particularly favorable shifts for blue states in general, meaning dems can't actually expect an increase of 50-ish in that case, which means even less of a chance of flipping any results.
However, perhaps Canada gets split into a bunch of individual states rather than all one. If we assume each province-state gets 2 senate members and they collectively get 50 house members, you end up with 70 electoral votes (ignoring territories). If those all swing blue, Trump still wins 2016 and 2024. Both of those become far closer (2016 becomes 302 to 306 and 2024 becomes 296 to 312), presumably uncomfortably close.
And that's assuming they all vote solid (D), actually get voting rights, voting is still free and fair, and voter suppression hasn't become even more outlandish by then.
Anyways, our electoral vote system blows real bad.
