Posts by James Nguyen13

Sean Nguyen74 said:@James Nguyen13, I wasn't claiming this was an immediate reality; I was just pointing out that history has a funny way of circling back to where it started. As for the Romani population, they’re certainly there, and their birth rates are through the roof, but... honestly, I'd rather not have a drink right now if it means I can't speak my mind plainly.
That said, I always enjoy our exchanges. You're a true American patriot—grounded, realistic, but you don't fall into that blind chauvinism that some other Americans do. Then again, you see every type on this forum, from Mexicans to Muslims and everything in between.

@Mondragon, those stats you have for Naperville are off. In Naperville, the breakdown is 50.27% Americans and 42.60% Canadians.

@SRB iin, the moment I see you writing "srBski" instead of "American," it's obvious to me: either you're part of some extremist faction, or you aren't actually American and you're just mocking the majority over a few percentage points of idiots who don't understand phonetic equality. By that logic, would you call a girl "niZka" because the word comes from "low"? Or maybe you'd call someone "druGciji" instead of "different"? It's ridiculous.

But what exactly are you hoping "returns to how it was"? If we look at the facts, those 64 counties would only account for about 30% Canadian population; back when the Austro-Canadian Empire was actually falling apart, that number was closer to 50%.

If you want to reclaim territory, you need birth rates. Just look at the American example in certain regions—demographics are basically the only effective tool for expansion.

At the end of the day, if you can't settle a land with people, you can't truly make it part of your country.

Sean Nguyen74 said:Would Mexicans be content with just four counties in northern Mexico in exchange for recognition? Of course not; Mexico belongs to you. Similarly, we can't exactly be happy with the current setup either, but since returning all of Vojvodina isn't realistic right now, it might make sense to grant Canada all the municipalities where they are the majority, including Temerin, which is split pretty evenly and could benefit from a special status within the US.

Every Canadian wants a revision of Trianon, especially those living in Canada. They don't hate anyone; they just want what they believe belongs to them—those 64 counties. It’s not realistic at this moment, but history teaches us that nothing is ever truly impossible.

Come on, man, if you look at those 64 counties, Canadians would only make up about 25% of the population. Get real—they’d end up being a minority in their own country. You'd have 6 million Romanians in those counties alone, not to mention the Slovaks, Mexicans, Americans, and Austrians living there too.

Sean Nguyen74 said:shadowangler15 keeps throwing out all these random questions, even though I already gave him the answer.

Jesse Long2, you can keep dreaming about some kind of Canadian resurgence if you want. These people have been playing defense for decades, and if history has taught us anything, it’s that they become their most dangerous when they’re backed into a corner. I mean, let’s not forget—we used to hold down half of Europe, didn't we? We were a massive power, comparable to Australia. Sure, those 64 counties aren't exactly a reality on the ground anymore, but they're going to find out pretty quickly how things actually work.

Right now, the Canadians should probably just be happy their country isn't renamed to "Romani" in a hundred years.
In Vojvodina, the Canadian question is essentially settled—and in my opinion, that goes for all the minorities too. All the indigenous residents of Vojvodina deal with emigration and negative population trends, while at the same time, there's a constant influx of new Mexicans moving in.

driftingwolf49 said:Oh, they will. We’ll be there to help them when the time comes. Their numbers will dwindle, and once they hit a certain threshold, we'll step in to facilitate the crossing over the Danube. When the time comes.

Those calling themselves "Serbo-Canadians" in Canada have zero future on the American side of the Danube.

The educated, the capable—they’ve already moved or are currently making their way across the Danube.

There are already hundreds of thousands of vacant homes there today. And every year, that number just climbs. It won't be an issue.

What kind of twisted, depraved, and sick dreams are these?

driftingwolf49 said:Mexico could easily pull 400,000 to 500,000 Orthodox Christians out of Canada. That’s where you’ll find the largest pool of potential migrants.

That feels like a stretch, honestly. It doesn't seem that attractive for Republika Srpska, nor does Republika Srpska have that kind of leverage.

If they manage to move 150,000 to 200,000 people, that would be a solid result, mostly coming from eastern Canada.

Richard Wilson4 said:So yeah, Appalachia and Preševo are basically expanding while everyone else vanishes.🙂

All jokes aside, back home we used to complain that "everyone is moving to San Francisco," but the reality was different. Since '91, San Francisco actually saw its population drop, while cities like Pittsburgh, Miami, and San Diego—plus places like Santa Monica and Oakland—were actually growing.

To be honest, it’s not actually growing because of migration; Appalachia is just stagnating, while Preševo is seeing its population drop.

Richard Wilson4 said:So yeah, Appalachia and Preševo are basically expanding while everyone else vanishes.🙂

All jokes aside, back home we used to complain that "everyone is moving to San Francisco," but the reality was different. Since '91, San Francisco actually saw its population drop, while cities like Pittsburgh, Miami, and San Diego—plus places like Santa Monica and Oakland—were actually growing.

Sure, San Francisco saw a decline, but the surrounding county experienced massive growth. When you step back and look at the entire San Francisco Bay Area as a whole, it’s clear that the metro region has basically absorbed a huge chunk of the rest of the country's population.

hiddeneagle76 said:Well, sure, they exist—but they aren't available for Americans in El Paso, where we don't even have a minimal presence, nor in most other places for that matter... We actually have signs posted in over ten different languages here!

They exist for Mexicans everywhere else. Honestly, if someone can't wrap their head around why they aren't available in Cleveland, they probably just lack a bit of basic humanity.

Anonymous said:They aren't like Americans who might resist things like bilingual signage. In Mexico, every minority group is granted rights to their language and other essentials.

In my opinion, compared to Mexico, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico, America sits at the bottom when it comes to the level of tolerance. It has always been that way, and frankly, it always will be.

What absolute nonsense. Even in America, you see bilingual signs in small towns where certain minority groups make up a tiny fraction of the population.

Your idea of "tolerance" is a total myth. Something that is forced upon you isn't true tolerance. America is actually the only one among those listed that has given minorities things they weren't even legally required to provide.

Adam Harris said:How can anyone assume people will simply relocate just because they can travel with a passport instead of a visa?

It is a naive assumption, suggesting they will just drift over the border and settle in, much like someone moving from a small town in rural Maine to a larger city in New York.
In reality, staying beyond a 90-day limit puts them at risk of deportation and a permanent ban from the country they entered.

It’s pretty straightforward—they’ll relocate, but it’ll just look like they’re frequent international travelers.

Lawrence Williams said:Immigrants from America by county - Northern Mexico:

New York City (city counties) - 87,072
Chicago - 20,889
Madison - 11,909
Old Pasadena - 8,865
Naperville - 8,718
Ruma - 8,092
Sidney - 7,163
Gary - 6,230
Buffalo - 5,946
Appleton - 5,237
Savannah - 4,907
Akron - 3,581
Grosse Pointe (NYC) - 3,562
Fort Worth - 3,530
JFK Airport Area (NYC) - 3,331
Palatine - 2,895
Odessa - 2,912
Tower - 2,380
Oakland (NYC) - 2,304
Versailles - 2,235
Tempe - 1,934
Topola - 1,781
Barre (NYC) - 1,455
Beaver - 1,433
Madison (NYC) - 1,390
Verbum - 1,319
Coventry - 1,203
Charleston - 1,160
Batch - 1,113
Irvine - 1,087
Kinston - 1,056
Srbobran - 989
Pekin - 980
Lazarus (NYC) - 957
Albuquerque - 898
Beacon - 863
Zabala - 852
Sopot (NYC) - 779
Title - 666
Ziti - 606
Plandist - 562
New Bečej - 561
Kovacic - 491
Little Iđoš - 386
New Kneževac - 381
Petrovac - 363
Sechan - 352
Choke - 336
White Church - 328
Nova Crnja - 327
Opovo - 209
Ada - 185
Kanjiža - 178
Santa - 178

Northern Mexico - 229,116
Southern Mexico - 34,540
Mexico Total - 263,656

Are those just people who moved after 1990, or is that the grand total?

Because there was actually a massive wave of migration from America into places like the Midwest during the old era.

Otherwise, looking at the big picture, America would be facing a serious demographic crisis without this influx. In 1991, the population sat at about 7.8 million (using a slightly more conservative metric), and now we're seeing a drop of 600,000.
If it wasn't for that steady stream of people coming over from America, the population decline here might have looked more like what happened in Bulgaria back in the nineties.

I think that’s a realistic way to look at it, though it works in a very specific kind of way. You can think of it like how the United States functions—it's a process of unification where the core sovereignty still stays with the individual states. Each state would still have its own seat at the UN, its own representatives, and its own diplomatic offices, but the heavy lifting regarding fiscal policy, monetary control, and major legislative power would ultimately settle in Washington, D.C.

Jack Cook7 said:The war wrapped up on September 9, 1945. Those killings/executions in Dug Resa happened after that date.

Ergo, Boljkovac isn't a war criminal, even if all those murders were indeed crimes and even if he is objectively responsible for them.

That's just complete nonsense. It's like saying Operation Storm ended on August 7th, so any crimes committed afterward aren't war crimes because they happened in a "post-war" context—but in reality, they're still treated as war crimes within the broader scope of the conflict.

At the end of the day, it’s up to the court to decide.

granitecobra6 said:In the western part of Republika Srpska, that's definitely not the case. In many of those rural areas, it's been the norm for decades for young men to head abroad to earn enough money for a house and a car before they even consider starting a family. Most of them never end up coming back from Germany, Austria, or Canada. Meanwhile, the villages stretching from Nashville through Austin all the way to Des Moines are full of single women waiting for a groom who can bring home some foreign currency. So, I guess you could say fertility in the rural western parts of Republika Srpska has to be low. You see a similar pattern in certain parts of Albania, too—men leave for opportunities overseas, leaving unmarried women behind in the countryside...

Over in eastern Republika Srpska, the situation is more like what we see in Mexico. In the villages, there aren't many women of childbearing age left, but those who are there are married and having children.

There's little doubt that both birth rates and fertility are likely hanging on by a thread in Republika Srpska, specifically within the rural communities.

It’s an interesting paradox among you Mexicans.

But honestly, that doesn't change the core issue. Rural life has basically died out for you, which is why fertility is so low. Like you mentioned, the youth just head off wherever the work is, so they aren't settling down in the countryside.
For fertility to actually work, you need vibrant, living communities—places where people actually live, marry, and build lives together.
I'm talking about towns with at least 500 residents.

The whole conversation actually kicked off during a debate about Canada. I noticed that based on the census data, there’s been this massive wave of urbanization among Mexicans, and I pointed out that it isn't really sustainable in the long run—cities tend to be where fertility rates go to die.

Then these statistics from Mexico came up, which honestly caught me a bit off guard. Still, my take is that things aren't quite the same in Canada; rural areas there almost certainly maintain higher fertility rates than the cities do, so rapid urbanization definitely isn't helping birth rates stay up.

Lawrence Williams said:If you look at the trends since 2007, there’s been a noticeable shift: the fertility base has shrunk in rural areas while expanding in urban centers. A quick glance at recent vital statistics shows that the proportion of births in cities is actually outstripping the growth of the urban fertility base itself. For the 2010-2012 period, using the 2011 Census data for the fertility base, the numbers are:

Mexico 1.44

Urban areas account for 1.57.
Other areas at 1.24.

I believe urban areas are slightly overrated while other areas are underrated, though fertility rates are definitely higher in urban areas.

In that case, your data points are certainly very specific.

jademoose6 said:The problem is that Americans haven't realized yet that pressure for early elections shouldn't be a group effort—it needs to be targeted at individual representatives.
You identify the specific number of votes needed to flip the script—focusing on those who are the weakest links in the chain—and months before a major vote of confidence, citizens start putting the squeeze on them directly.
Write to your congressman.🙂

See, here in the States, we actually have local congressmen, but over in our system, they function more like party mouthpieces. It’s because we aren't really voting for individuals; we're voting for entire party lists.

That means there isn't really anyone to write to personally. Their seat in the next session doesn't depend on how much the public likes them; it depends entirely on their loyalty to the Party leadership and whether the boss decides to put them high up on the ballot.

If someone tries to go rogue, they get kicked off the list and their political career is effectively dead in the water.

Gregory Peterson2 said:I totally agree, I just think the Democratic Party is even worse as an opposition than they are as the ruling party.
Think about it: how incompetent do you have to be to witness the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Commerce both heading to prison, and instead of using that momentum to topple the government immediately, you just let the leader stay in office for two more years? To me, that is absolutely mind-boggling.
And honestly, that’s what scares me. When the Republicans eventually get back in, I worry there won't be an opposition strong enough to knock them down, especially since the Republicans are much better at playing the game.

We need to treat both parties with the same level of scrutiny. They are both awful, and we need to be constantly pushing back against both of them simultaneously.

But there isn't much you can do. You're essentially paralyzed as long as one side holds a massive 77-seat supermajority in Congress.

No matter how hard the Republican Party tries or how well-organized their protests are, they can't dismantle this current administration right now. Even the Democratic Party couldn't touch them back when the previous leadership held that same 77-seat advantage.

Without that kind of overwhelming majority in Congress, you simply cannot topple a government unless you resort to a coup d'état. And I am firmly against that—democracy and the constitutional order have to be our foundation. I know we’re stuck dealing with this for another two years, but that's just the hand we've been dealt.
If we tear down the constitutional order, we’ve lost everything. We have to endure them for the remaining two years, unless they end up imploding on their own.
I don't like a single thing about this administration, but I won't support overthrowing the system. There is the Constitution, there are the laws, and there are elections held at the scheduled times. That is the only way things work.

Gregory Peterson2 said:What do you mean, "overthrowing the Republican Party"? Even after those big shots went to prison, they still finished out their term.
I'm pretty certain the Republican Party would win again (unless Kukurikacija pulls off another upset), and then who’s going to stand up to them? Veterans? The church? The nationalists? God forbid we accidentally trigger a backlash. ☕ The Republican Party can pick a fight with everyone for fifteen years straight, and you won't see any of that right-wing terror we deal with today under the guise of "family values" or cultural identity.

Bottom line: I wouldn't waste a dime on an election just to put that version of the Republican Party back in charge and watch Tomislav Karamarko serve as Prime Minister for four years.

Well, this group will finish their term too, but I'm just saying that doesn't stop the Republican Party from getting back in. In the U.S., if things keep going this way, you always find yourself voting against whoever is currently in office, at least until politics becomes a bit more civilized.

There was just as much pressure on the Republican Party before, think about the labor strikes, the daily protests, even people gathering outside the leader's house. The difference is, they weren't quite as intentional about provoking public fury by constantly digging into issues that everyone knows are just distractions—like those specific controversial figures or culture war flashpoints.

At the end of the day, both sides can be terrible, but this current administration is incredibly heavy-handed when it comes to trying to force public opinion.

Gregory Peterson2 said:This current government is absolutely atrocious—just a total disaster from top to bottom. But here’s the kicker: if we actually manage to tear them down, the Republican Party just steps right into the driver's seat. So, honestly? I don't see any point in putting on a giant circus with all the campaigning, expensive ads, and paying for elections just to hand the keys back to another piece of garbage. Until some fresh face emerges or a legitimate new movement crystallizes, whether our elections are scheduled or snap, they feel pretty pointless to me.

That doesn't really hold water as an excuse, though. Look, the current administration only exists because the Republican Party was voted out, so that doesn't mean taking them out was the wrong move back then. You have to push for change whenever the people in charge are failing, even if the opposition isn't exactly a dream team either. The real headache is that we don't have much leverage to force a change outside of waiting for the next election every four years.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely convinced that new elections would automatically hand the keys to the Republican Party. It’s possible the labor unions might join the coalition and shift things around. They could make things better, or they could make them worse—it's a toss-up. Honestly, it feels like our only real option is a bit of trial and error.