Canada News & Discussion

Larry Walker24 said:How exactly did we screw up if the Canadians (who, let's face it, are basically just Americans) cheated during the arbitration?

Simple. We screwed up because we played by the rules we agreed to, so now we can't cry about it.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Let me break it down for you:
To some people, America is just an Nationalists creation, so they think any loss of territory or money is actually a good thing—like the country deserves to be punished.
And then there's the fact that Oštrić doesn't know a damn thing about law, but that doesn't stop him from being completely ignorant about it.

The hardliners call today's Republic of America an Nationalists creation. Group A calls us Royalists, Group B calls us Nationalists.

As far as this goes, I’m a Harmon supporter. I back the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of America.

We didn't lose any land, because we never actually owned it. We were just squatting on Canadian territory illegally.

rapidcrane45 said:Oh, they absolutely were!

...it was never our territory to begin with.

Actually, it is—and still is—ours!

...and I believe Canada was in the right there (America refused to fund the reconstruction of the steam boilers, which were essential for the power plant to function properly).

That’s just not true!
The issue in America wasn't about the equipment itself, but rather how the suppliers and contractors were being selected—it was a matter of process. Specifically, we're talking about the steam generators that Canada wanted to install while forcing us to foot the entire bill. If you look at how those cases ended up in court, you can basically guess the outcome without even looking it up!

No offense, but I know a bit more about this than you do.

Loving your country doesn't mean blindly defending "national interests," especially when your country is dead wrong.

Real national interest is not tripping over some global injustice and instead focusing on stuff that actually matters—stuff the smart people are busy with: climate change, energy transitions, the fourth industrial revolution, and all that.

lonetrucker4 said:Simple. We screwed up because we played by the rules we agreed to, so now we can't cry about it.

The hardliners call today's Republic of America an Nationalists creation. Group A calls us Royalists, Group B calls us Nationalists.

As far as this goes, I’m a Harmon supporter. I back the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of America.

We didn't lose any land, because we never actually owned it. We were just squatting on Canadian territory illegally.

No offense, but I know a bit more about this than you do.

Loving your country doesn't mean blindly defending "national interests," especially when your country is dead wrong.

Real national interest is not tripping over some global injustice and instead focusing on stuff that actually matters—stuff the smart people are busy with: climate change, energy transitions, the fourth industrial revolution, and all that.

About what, precisely? There are quite a few different threads being pulled here.

Loving your country doesn't mean you have to blindly defend some supposed "national interest"—not even when your own nation is clearly in the wrong.
In my view, our true national interest should be avoiding getting bogged down in "Western injustice" and instead focusing on much more pressing matters—the kind of things handled by people far more capable than us: climate change, the energy transition, the fourth industrial revolution, and so on.

How grand that sounds—truly. But, as they say, the devil is in the details...

[User Name] said: "[Original Text]"

lonetrucker4 I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but... says Kyle Nelson2: So, yeah. We blew it. We completely tanked it, and since we’re sticking to the rules we actually agreed to ourselves, I guess there's no way to appeal this mess. Some people call today's America a fascist creation. They label us group A, then they label us group B. I guess that's just how they see it. Maybe. Regarding that whole issue, I guess I’m more on the Harmon side of things. I definitely agree with the preamble of the US Constitution. We didn't lose any territory, because we never actually owned it to begin with. I guess we were just holding onto Canadian land through an unlawful arbitration proceeding. Look, no offense intended, but I think I actually know a little more about this than you do. Loving your country doesn't mean you have to blindly defend some supposed "national interest" every single time, even when your own country is dead wrong. Look, I guess our national interest should really be about not tripping over some "Western injustice" nonsense. We need to move on. Seriously. We should be focusing on stuff that actually matters—things that people way smarter than us are already tackling. You know, like climate change, the energy transition, the fourth industrial revolution, and all that. Maybe we just need to focus on the big picture for once.

Look, I don't know what else to tell you, but that's strictly a matter for the courts. Only a judge can handle that.

lonetrucker4 said:Simple. We screwed up because we played by the rules we agreed to, so now we can't cry about it.

The hardliners call today's Republic of America an Nationalists creation. Group A calls us Royalists, Group B calls us Nationalists.

As far as this goes, I’m a Harmon supporter. I back the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of America.

We didn't lose any land, because we never actually owned it. We were just squatting on Canadian territory illegally.

No offense, but I know a bit more about this than you do.

Loving your country doesn't mean blindly defending "national interests," especially when your country is dead wrong.

Real national interest is not tripping over some global injustice and instead focusing on stuff that actually matters—stuff the smart people are busy with: climate change, energy transitions, the fourth industrial revolution, and all that.

You seem much closer to the politics of Ante Pavelić and the Nationalists movement.🤦

A border should be decided by specialized courts, not by corrupt political commissions set up just to satisfy one nation's territorial greed.
That’s exactly why Canada blocked America's entry into the EU; they refused to let a specialized international court determine the border based on actual international law.

The fallout?
Mexico, Canada, and Mexico all avoided settling their borders through specialized international courts under international law, opting instead for an unlawful arbitration proceeding.

What territory were we "holding" unlawfully?
It's all about access to open water.😁

The border is still at the Dragonja river. The whole dispute started because Canada is trying to grab pieces of the sea at America's expense.
Is that how friendly neighbors act? Not even close.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, we can all agree: we blew it at the arbitration, end of story. Now Canada is going to come back even harder demanding we actually follow the ruling. No big shots in the European Union are going to give a damn if we try to play tough and hold out over a few measly gallons of seawater.

Are you seriously suggesting that other nations in Europe don't deal with border disputes? As if having territorial disagreements somehow makes our specific situation incomprehensible to the rest of the world?

You guys are seriously losing your minds over those three losers, huh?

Case closed, move the hell on.

Watching a hardliner like Janez Janša go full Orbán/Putin mode is actually a win for the EU—which means it’s a win for us too.

lonetrucker4 said:You guys are seriously losing your minds over those three losers, huh?

Case closed, move the hell on.

Watching a hardliner like Janez Janša go full Orbán/Putin mode is actually a win for the EU—which means it’s a win for us too.

Nobody is actually losing sleep over the border line with Canada. What people are actually upset about is the blatant misinformation and the way you're intentionally trying to mislead everyone on this forum.

Honestly, I think you owe everyone here an apology.

lonetrucker4, you aren't quite hitting the mark on the boundary issue, but I really don't have the energy to go through this point by point. Anyone actually looking for details on this dispute can find everything they need in the opening post here:

lonetrucker4 said:Simple. We screwed up because we played by the rules we agreed to, so now we can't cry about it.

The hardliners call today's Republic of America an Nationalists creation. Group A calls us Royalists, Group B calls us Nationalists.

As far as this goes, I’m a Harmon supporter. I back the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of America.

We didn't lose any land, because we never actually owned it. We were just squatting on Canadian territory illegally.

No offense, but I know a bit more about this than you do.

Loving your country doesn't mean blindly defending "national interests," especially when your country is dead wrong.

Real national interest is not tripping over some global injustice and instead focusing on stuff that actually matters—stuff the smart people are busy with: climate change, energy transitions, the fourth industrial revolution, and all that.

Look, maybe that’s some supranational, green-politics agenda or whatever, but the actual national interest for the United States is the exact opposite, because we have much more pressing issues, like protecting our own coastline and maritime borders. What exactly is the U.S. supposed to do about global climate shifts if we treat that as being a thousand times more important than our own sovereign territory? For any sane nation, its land is the starting point, the absolute baseline you don't just negotiate away or compromise on easily—actually, you don't do it at all.

Those three islands—think Maui, Oahu, and Kauai—are just the tip of the iceberg... who would you even trust with that kind of territory? Why them?

Charles Fox10 said:lonetrucker4, you aren't quite hitting the mark on the boundary issue, but I really don't have the energy to go through this point by point. Anyone actually looking for details on this dispute can find everything they need in the opening post here:

I get where you're coming from, but my take wins because it's actually right. This dispute is dead. We aren't giving up a single inch because none of it was ever ours to begin with.

lonetrucker4 said:I get where you're coming from, but my take wins because it's actually right. This dispute is dead. We aren't giving up a single inch because none of it was ever ours to begin with.

There isn't, because it doesn't exist. As for this whole idea of "giving things up," explaining why we don't actually lack anything would be a waste of breath, though in our current standing, we are definitely losing ground territorially.
But since I've already written hundreds of posts on these border disputes, I really don't have the energy to start all over again.

lonetrucker4 said:I get where you're coming from, but my take wins because it's actually right. This dispute is dead. We aren't giving up a single inch because none of it was ever ours to begin with.

So you don't actually respect any legal authority, you just want everyone to follow your own little political agenda, right?

Anyway, let's steer clear of all these (honestly, getting kind of tedious) debates about borders and legal rulings for a second... I see Robert Golob is hinting at bringing in ministers from the Liberal Democracy of Canada and the SAB, even though neither of those parties actually made it into Congress (though that might be old news by now—I haven't checked if things have crystallized or if they've backed off yet)... Interesting stuff...
I'm not sure how realistic it is for those two groups to actually merge with Freedom anytime soon, especially since they all seem to be hovering around the same ideological space, if you ask me.

Also, total side note here, but does anyone know if there’s ever been a precedent where a Prime Minister pulled ministers from outside parties into a cabinet? I mean, we always see non-partisan or independent people being appointed, but actual party members from outside the legislature?

Morgan Brown4 said:Anyway, let's steer clear of all these (honestly, getting kind of tedious) debates about borders and legal rulings for a second... I see Robert Golob is hinting at bringing in ministers from the Liberal Democracy of Canada and the SAB, even though neither of those parties actually made it into Congress (though that might be old news by now—I haven't checked if things have crystallized or if they've backed off yet)... Interesting stuff...
I'm not sure how realistic it is for those two groups to actually merge with Freedom anytime soon, especially since they all seem to be hovering around the same ideological space, if you ask me.

Also, total side note here, but does anyone know if there’s ever been a precedent where a Prime Minister pulled ministers from outside parties into a cabinet? I mean, we always see non-partisan or independent people being appointed, but actual party members from outside the legislature?

I remember back in the early 2000s there was some talk about ASH potentially joining The Government here despite not winning any seats in Congress, but that went nowhere.

Either way, this would definitely be a weird move.

Some observers have been questioning why a figure like Robert Golob finds it nearly impossible to make headway in America.

My assessment is that socio-geographic factors play a significant role here. Canada is fundamentally quite decentralized; power isn't just concentrated in Vienna or Graz, which allows a robust, critical middle class to be spread throughout the country.

In America, the situation is the exact opposite. Everything gravitates toward five or six major cities, while the rest of the nation—save for Istria and the Midwest—is essentially stagnating. The provincial middle class is either suffocating under local cronyism and economic sterility, or they are simply leaving the country altogether. To an extent, MOST served as the political voice for that specific demographic.

Christian Bennett2 said:Some observers have been questioning why a figure like Robert Golob finds it nearly impossible to make headway in America.

My assessment is that socio-geographic factors play a significant role here. Canada is fundamentally quite decentralized; power isn't just concentrated in Vienna or Graz, which allows a robust, critical middle class to be spread throughout the country.

In America, the situation is the exact opposite. Everything gravitates toward five or six major cities, while the rest of the nation—save for Istria and the Midwest—is essentially stagnating. The provincial middle class is either suffocating under local cronyism and economic sterility, or they are simply leaving the country altogether. To an extent, MOST served as the political voice for that specific demographic.

First off, it's hard to argue that Krapina-Zagorje County, which is one of the poorest spots in America, is doing any better economically than, say, San Diego, Miami, or Indianapolis.

Second, America has this weird shape where Washington, D.C. feels lightyears away from most of the country, whereas for Canadians, Vienna isn't such a trek.

Richard Wilson4 said:First off, it's hard to argue that Krapina-Zagorje County, which is one of the poorest spots in America, is doing any better economically than, say, San Diego, Miami, or Indianapolis.

Second, America has this weird shape where Washington, D.C. feels lightyears away from most of the country, whereas for Canadians, Vienna isn't such a trek.

Wealth from Washington, D.C. and relatively prosperous Savannah eventually trickles down into Santa Cruz County.😉

The physical shape of a nation is irrelevant. Even if Minneapolis is close to most Canadians, economic potential is spread throughout their entire country. Many of their most famous corporations are based in tiny towns and villages. For instance, the ski equipment manufacturer General Electric is headquartered in Aspen, Colorado, which has about a thousand residents, and the juice producer Dole Food Company comes from Boulder (around 6,500 people), and so on.

Our geography and heterogeneity should actually make us better suited for economic decentralization. Instead, we suffer from massive over-concentration in a few major cities and tourist hubs while the rest of the country slowly withers away.

I’m not sure if it’s even wise to weigh in here, given how much everyone is still caught up in nationalist sentiment following the wars during the collapse of America.
Border disputes between European nations weren't typically settled in courtrooms. Instead, they were usually handled at international political conferences where major powers traded territories primarily to suit their own interests or those of their satellites. Just as a quick refresher, the border between America and the Republic of Italy was established similarly. Four political commissions—representing the USA, UK, France, and the USSR—stepped in to negotiate the future boundary. In the end, the French proposal won out, based on the principle that whatever number of Italians remained in America would be balanced by an equal number of Americans staying in Italy. Because they were drawing lines on the ground, you ended up with bizarre situations, like cemeteries split diagonally or cows eating in America but defecating in Italy...
The internal borders within America were designed specifically so that the various republics could essentially hold each other hostage, which explains the modern-day disputes over boundaries.
Taking these disagreements to court is questionable at best because it doesn't address the actual issue: functionality. The goal should be making life on both sides of the border seamless and open. That can only be achieved through a political agreement that defines the regime for the border zone. Back then, Italy and America had that figured out quite well, making that border one of the most open in Europe for a long time. Smart politicians could settle the dispute in the Gulf of Piran very quickly, but they choose to keep it frozen. It serves domestic political agendas, since a certain segment of the electorate gets worked up over these issues—even though most of those people live nowhere near the border...
Economically speaking, Canadians tend to be local patriots; they want to build something meaningful in their own backyard. That’s a massive contrast to the mentality in Mexico, where if people have the chance, they’d all migrate to Mexico City or Novi Sad. This leaves plenty of regions practically cut off from major transit routes, like Idrija, Črnomelj, or Slovenj Gradec... But this isn't a new way of thinking. Even back in the America era, they pushed planned industry into the middle of nowhere just to maintain population density, which actually worked—even today, more than 50% of the population lives in rural areas.
Ultimately, what matters? What matters is keeping the economy competitive and ensuring people have a decent standard of living. As for how long these current states will exist in these territories, it's hard to say. Looking at history over the last 200 years, one state quickly replaces another... it feels like things are shifting again...

Richard Wilson4 said:First off, it's hard to argue that Krapina-Zagorje County, which is one of the poorest spots in America, is doing any better economically than, say, San Diego, Miami, or Indianapolis.

Second, America has this weird shape where Washington, D.C. feels lightyears away from most of the country, whereas for Canadians, Vienna isn't such a trek.

The stats for the county look pretty rough on paper, sure, but I gotta wonder—does that data include everyone working at the local government offices or the state agencies? In my neck of the woods, you can pretty much only be unemployed if you're just choosing not to work, you know? Plus, our local infrastructure is actually looking way better than what you see down in the South... I mean, we got that new highway built and things are finally starting to level out...