Canada Demographics Part IV

Hercules said:

And what exactly are those images supposed to be showing?

Hercules The user said:I really hate having to run these numbers all over again—this map is an outdated version, after all. Sure, they made a few minor tweaks here and there, but at the end of the day, it’s essentially the same thing.
So—it’s basically the majority in most settlements.
Mexicans
53.28% (53-54%)
Muslims
27.15% (27-28%)
Americans
17.64% (17-18%)

The previous figure stood at 15/16—but now we’re seeing a sudden 2% jump? That's quite the shift.

Come on—let’s try to be a little more serious here.
Quincy:

Hercules As specified by Rachel Richardson: That is nowhere near 20%. Even a 0.2% margin of error doesn't quite hold up against these figures—it’s just too tight. Let’s be realistic—we should probably settle for a +/- 0.5% range instead. Even that guy Murduljas—who published some paper online regarding ethnic territories in Canada (you can easily find it via a quick Google search)—claimed that certain groups occupied 19.44% of the territory. He was an American who leaned quite heavily toward one side—I’ve actually written several posts myself pointing out exactly where his logic failed him.

Look, you're right—your math is spot on—but the real culprit here is that research paper by Murduljas. 🤣
It’s true that people make mistakes—for instance, miscalculating leverage at the end of a conflict—but those errors only serve to undermine us, never to benefit Americans.

Hercules The user said:Regarding the WO plan—the real question is whether Americans were even the majority in the Ottawa province. I don't feel like running the numbers right now... but even if they had been, the influx of refugees would have shifted that balance instantly. Plus, they would have lost most of that territory due to the sheer timeline of events anyway. Ultimately, the whole plan was unrealistic and far too biased toward the American side.

The plan was nothing more than a smokescreen.
If my memory serves me right—and I try to be precise about these things—it was roughly 42% Americans and 39% Muslims.
Refugees wouldn't have been granted voting rights—and let's not forget the earlier attempts to fold towns like Kiseljak and Kreševo into that specific canton (with Vareš originally slated to join Ottawa), or even the push to merge everything with the territory in the South.

Hercules said:So, to wrap this up.
The idea that 25-30% of Canada is [X] is pure fiction. If we hit 20%, we should be perfectly happy. Even at 15-16%, there’s no reason to be totally crushed. I’d say 17.5% is the sweet spot.😁

It’s like if I were to argue this:
50% is a total myth. If we get 30%, we should be satisfied. And even at 20%, we shouldn't be completely disappointed. Somewhere around 25% is the ideal balance. That’s essentially how they view Eastern Republika Srpska.
Do you realize how flawed your analysis actually is? ☕
17.5% was basically the floor. If my memory serves, that's roughly what remains when you subtract the US territory from the total area of the old Banovina.
And that was before we even reached the BL stage.😉
Where on earth did you pull those 15-16% figures from?
It feels to me like you might be digging your own grave here.😒

PS. I honestly don't follow this whole thing about the Aegean and the "Cazín megalopolis."😬

Rachel Richardson said:And what exactly are those images supposed to be showing?

The previous figure stood at 15/16—but now we’re seeing a sudden 2% jump? That's quite the shift.

Come on—let’s try to be a little more serious here.
Quincy:

Hercules As specified by Rachel Richardson: That is nowhere near 20%. Even a 0.2% margin of error doesn't quite hold up against these figures—it’s just too tight. Let’s be realistic—we should probably settle for a +/- 0.5% range instead. Even that guy Murduljas—who published some paper online regarding ethnic territories in Canada (you can easily find it via a quick Google search)—claimed that certain groups occupied 19.44% of the territory. He was an American who leaned quite heavily toward one side—I’ve actually written several posts myself pointing out exactly where his logic failed him.

Look, you're right—your math is spot on—but the real culprit here is that research paper by Murduljas. 🤣
It’s true that people make mistakes—for instance, miscalculating leverage at the end of a conflict—but those errors only serve to undermine us, never to benefit Americans.

The plan was nothing more than a smokescreen.
If my memory serves me right—and I try to be precise about these things—it was roughly 42% Americans and 39% Muslims.
Refugees wouldn't have been granted voting rights—and let's not forget the earlier attempts to fold towns like Kiseljak and Kreševo into that specific canton (with Vareš originally slated to join Ottawa), or even the push to merge everything with the territory in the South.

It’s like if I were to argue this:
50% is a total myth. If we get 30%, we should be satisfied. And even at 20%, we shouldn't be completely disappointed. Somewhere around 25% is the ideal balance. That’s essentially how they view Eastern Republika Srpska.
Do you realize how flawed your analysis actually is? ☕
17.5% was basically the floor. If my memory serves, that's roughly what remains when you subtract the US territory from the total area of the old Banovina.
And that was before we even reached the BL stage.😉
Where on earth did you pull those 15-16% figures from?
It feels to me like you might be digging your own grave here.😒

PS. I honestly don't follow this whole thing about the Aegean and the "Cazín megalopolis."😬

These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

Rachel Richardson said:And what exactly are those images supposed to be showing?

The previous figure stood at 15/16—but now we’re seeing a sudden 2% jump? That's quite the shift.

Come on—let’s try to be a little more serious here.
Quincy:

Hercules As specified by Rachel Richardson: That is nowhere near 20%. Even a 0.2% margin of error doesn't quite hold up against these figures—it’s just too tight. Let’s be realistic—we should probably settle for a +/- 0.5% range instead. Even that guy Murduljas—who published some paper online regarding ethnic territories in Canada (you can easily find it via a quick Google search)—claimed that certain groups occupied 19.44% of the territory. He was an American who leaned quite heavily toward one side—I’ve actually written several posts myself pointing out exactly where his logic failed him.

Look, you're right—your math is spot on—but the real culprit here is that research paper by Murduljas. 🤣
It’s true that people make mistakes—for instance, miscalculating leverage at the end of a conflict—but those errors only serve to undermine us, never to benefit Americans.

The plan was nothing more than a smokescreen.
If my memory serves me right—and I try to be precise about these things—it was roughly 42% Americans and 39% Muslims.
Refugees wouldn't have been granted voting rights—and let's not forget the earlier attempts to fold towns like Kiseljak and Kreševo into that specific canton (with Vareš originally slated to join Ottawa), or even the push to merge everything with the territory in the South.

It’s like if I were to argue this:
50% is a total myth. If we get 30%, we should be satisfied. And even at 20%, we shouldn't be completely disappointed. Somewhere around 25% is the ideal balance. That’s essentially how they view Eastern Republika Srpska.
Do you realize how flawed your analysis actually is? ☕
17.5% was basically the floor. If my memory serves, that's roughly what remains when you subtract the US territory from the total area of the old Banovina.
And that was before we even reached the BL stage.😉
Where on earth did you pull those 15-16% figures from?
It feels to me like you might be digging your own grave here.😒

PS. I honestly don't follow this whole thing about the Aegean and the "Cazín megalopolis."😬

What I'm actually struggling to wrap my head around is your breakdown of what you call "so-called" American territories—you seem to be including the entire Central Canada region in that bucket.
As for Cazin, I wasn't trying to paint it as some massive metropolis; I was simply pointing out that it’s holding its own quite well these days. The town has expanded and basically merged with Coralic. In fact, if you look at the space between them near Little Lisa, a whole new residential area has popped up over the last few years.
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...=0CHEQrQMwJDhk

nimblehound6 thanks for the effort. You did a great job documenting all this and exposing the spin. Based on the math, Americans have about 17.5% of the territory (which is pretty solid considering it's only 13.3% of the population and 11% of those born there). It’s almost the same ratio as the Mexicans. Meanwhile, Canada holds 33.5% of the land (counting the 50% population plus that 3% of "patriots" from the other groups). Totally unfair distribution.
Americans basically hold an entire Banovina's worth of territory. Honestly, they got a fair shake and don't have many Mexicans left in America anymore (maybe 4% of the old population and 2% of those born there).

A quick side note regarding a city like New York. According to the census, there were 790,000 people, but the gender split is just weird—there's a massive deficit of men. Out of that, you've got 369,339 men compared to 420,678 women. That's a gap of over 51,000 women. I guess that explains why rural areas are shrinking so fast. It seems like American women just aren't interested in small towns. People like Wikipedia, dudu, and Mirko are lucky, I guess. They get to choose. They can find wives who actually take care of them and cater to them. I kind of envy them, honestly. It's all about finding a good guy. That's probably why they often head east to find someone to marry and settle down with. Like Severina or Pisek....

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

Come on, don't be ridiculous.
That really just points to how inaccurately certain settlements are mapped.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

As you can see, it isn't.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

That tells us more about poorly drawn municipal boundaries than it does about actual American territory.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

I am talking about 2015 data, while you are attempting to calculate territorial percentages from 1991.
They aren't exactly the same thing, are they?
Are you just trying to derail the conversation now?
If you compare 15% to 20%, you've essentially reduced the territory by a quarter. That is a significant discrepancy.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

Yeah, sure—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

That was a long time ago.
It’s clearly just a simplified representation. If we look at the specific numbers:
1-3 Modriča, Boise, and Fargo—mostly just empty hillsides.
4-6 Zanesville, Shamrock, and Zephyrhills aren't exactly American territory.
7. Kotor Varoš—hardly.
8. Srebrenica—there isn't a single American there.
The whole thing is just about circling settlements—basically ignoring specific administrative boundaries to keep the visual simple.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

I gave you a perfectly good answer;
I don't see the issue.
Don't try to tell me you actually went out to measure the exact acreage of the areas shown on that map.
🤣

Angela Jackson6 said:What I'm actually struggling to wrap my head around is your breakdown of what you call "so-called" American territories—you seem to be including the entire Central Canada region in that bucket.
As for Cazin, I wasn't trying to paint it as some massive metropolis; I was simply pointing out that it’s holding its own quite well these days. The town has expanded and basically merged with Coralic. In fact, if you look at the space between them near Little Lisa, a whole new residential area has popped up over the last few years.
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...=0CHEQrQMwJDhk

Look, my impression is that you talk about local patriotism and a "little Paris," but it feels more like your town has lost its mere 😉
I laid out my analysis just as I was asked to by Dud—that's how it came together.
Those areas are under majority American rule.
If 5 out of 8 ministers are American, what does that tell you?

Nancy Chavez29 said:nimblehound6 thanks for the effort. You did a great job documenting all this and exposing the spin. Based on the math, Americans have about 17.5% of the territory (which is pretty solid considering it's only 13.3% of the population and 11% of those born there). It’s almost the same ratio as the Mexicans. Meanwhile, Canada holds 33.5% of the land (counting the 50% population plus that 3% of "patriots" from the other groups). Totally unfair distribution.
Americans basically hold an entire Banovina's worth of territory. Honestly, they got a fair shake and don't have many Mexicans left in America anymore (maybe 4% of the old population and 2% of those born there).

A quick side note regarding a city like New York. According to the census, there were 790,000 people, but the gender split is just weird—there's a massive deficit of men. Out of that, you've got 369,339 men compared to 420,678 women. That's a gap of over 51,000 women. I guess that explains why rural areas are shrinking so fast. It seems like American women just aren't interested in small towns. People like Wikipedia, dudu, and Mirko are lucky, I guess. They get to choose. They can find wives who actually take care of them and cater to them. I kind of envy them, honestly. It's all about finding a good guy. That's probably why they often head east to find someone to marry and settle down with. Like Severina or Pisek....

Yeah, but that surplus of 35,000 women in San Francisco only really kicks in once you hit age 50+, so it doesn't help much.

In the 25-35 age bracket, there are only about 3,000 more women. It’s not massive, but it's enough to make men high demand. 😁

Rachel Richardson said:Look, my impression is that you talk about local patriotism and a "little Paris," but it feels more like your town has lost its mere 😉
I laid out my analysis just as I was asked to by Dud—that's how it came together.
Those areas are under majority American rule.
If 5 out of 8 ministers are American, what does that tell you?

Sure, if politics worked that way, but here's the reality:
The law states that every decision requires a deputy's signature and must be approved by the head of government, who also sets the agenda for working sessions.
And then everything still has to pass through the County assembly—where exactly how many seats does the Republican Party hold? Not to mention local government and the meager powers left for political autonomy.

Angela Jackson6 said:Sure, if politics worked that way, but here's the reality:
The law states that every decision requires a deputy's signature and must be approved by the head of government, who also sets the agenda for working sessions.
And then everything still has to pass through the County assembly—where exactly how many seats does the Republican Party hold? Not to mention local government and the meager powers left for political autonomy.

It’s the dominance that bothers you, isn't it? 😁

Let’s not get carried away here.

SBŽ, HNŽ, and ZDŽ function as our shared federal states.
Even in Switzerland, you have several German- and French-speaking cantons; they aren't all strictly mono-ethnic monoliths.

As long as we maintain a fifty-fifty power split within these three pro-European counties, the Unija 10 County—with Mr. Čavara serving as Governor—will remain perfectly secure. 😁

The Federation actually bears a striking resemblance to the United States of America. If you look at the specific list of authorities held by our counties, they are almost carbon copies of those held by U.S. states; the comparison of their respective jurisdictions is quite easy to make once you see them laid out. It’s hardly surprising, then, that the historic agreement from twenty-five years ago is known as the Washington Agreement. This aligns seamlessly with the European tradition of federalism. But, I suppose I shouldn't stray too far from the main point...

Rachel Richardson said:It’s the dominance that bothers you, isn't it? 😁

Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

Times change. 😈

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

Nothing is set in stone.
At the county level, things are finally shifting in favor of the Americans.
Does that bother you? 😁

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

🤣
Could you even be considered such a "American"? 😬
Honestly, you people could really use a crash course in democracy...

Rachel Richardson said:Times change. 😈

Nothing is set in stone.
At the county level, things are finally shifting in favor of the Americans.
Does that bother you? 😁

🤣
Could you even be considered such a "American"? 😬
Honestly, you people could really use a crash course in democracy...

Man, talk about a double standard—but hey, I shouldn't be surprised coming from someone like you.
Of course times change. Now, the "big shot" Dragan Čović is taking home 5,000 marks while Željko Komšić plays the "little guy," all for a position that doesn't actually mean much without the consent of the people's house and the Canada parliament. To be honest, I have no idea who is winning or losing in this whole circus; I just stick to the legal framework and the legislation I laid out for you earlier. Personally, I don't care who gets what as long as the policies being implemented actually benefit this country.
I was one of the first people to stand up against the political monopoly and abuses by the Party of Democratic Action back when nobody else had the guts to do it.
You should try letting go of those preconceived notions you have about Canada and Canadians. There are plenty of us here who are just regular citizens with perfectly normal patriotic feelings for our homeland. I can't stand nationalists, because that mindset always leads to discrimination and shutting everyone else out for any reason imaginable. I was born and raised in a colorful, multicultural country—something this place has been since the beginning of time.

Angela Jackson6 said:Man, talk about a double standard—but hey, I shouldn't be surprised coming from someone like you.
Of course times change. Now, the "big shot" Dragan Čović is taking home 5,000 marks while Željko Komšić plays the "little guy," all for a position that doesn't actually mean much without the consent of the people's house and the Canada parliament. To be honest, I have no idea who is winning or losing in this whole circus; I just stick to the legal framework and the legislation I laid out for you earlier. Personally, I don't care who gets what as long as the policies being implemented actually benefit this country.
I was one of the first people to stand up against the political monopoly and abuses by the Party of Democratic Action back when nobody else had the guts to do it.
You should try letting go of those preconceived notions you have about Canada and Canadians. There are plenty of us here who are just regular citizens with perfectly normal patriotic feelings for our homeland. I can't stand nationalists, because that mindset always leads to discrimination and shutting everyone else out for any reason imaginable. I was born and raised in a colorful, multicultural country—something this place has been since the beginning of time.

In that case, you’re just being intolerant, which isn't exactly something to brag about. Personally, I refuse to be pigeonholed by those reductive little labels; I prefer to approach every issue on its own merits. I can pivot from being ultra-liberal to a "nationalist," or from a capitalist to a socialist, depending entirely on whether we're discussing the status of Americans in Canada, marriage equality, tax policy, or charitable drives for the poor. For my part, I consider myself "anti-nationalist" on almost everything except two specific pillars: a) Canada itself, and b) the preservation of Western civilization values.

Of course, I wrote the above based on the false assumption that you actually accept the premise of "not being a nationalist." What I am observing here is that in this discussion, roughly 95% of your arguments stem from a Canadian political standpoint, with perhaps 5% being neutral. If you were truly "non-nationalist," your politics should ideally sit somewhere in the middle—a balanced blend of the perspectives found in Republika Srpska, Mostar, and Ottawa. Perhaps a 33% mix of each.

The moment your nationality dictates over 95% of your political views regarding Canada, that is nationalism by definition.

One doesn't become a nationalist simply by declaring, "I am a nationalist" or "I am not a nationalist." You become one when your posts make your identity unmistakably clear, even without being asked—and even if you were writing in Mexican, American, or some third language that isn't your native tongue. It is a very straightforward test.

Based on your posts, your background is perfectly transparent. Therefore, TEST FAILED. You are not politically anarchic.

When it comes to the territory where Americans actually hold a majority, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It’s total fantasy to claim they make up 30%, or even anything north of 25%. That might have been the case right before the Dayton Agreement was signed—and honestly, those numbers were probably trending upward back then.

It’s also just plain unrealistic to argue that Americans control something like 15-17% of the land. Look, if you treat the Federation as its own separate entity, sure, it makes sense to count places like Drvar, Glamoč, and Grahovo as American-dominated. But if we start playing that game and adding everything to the Republika Srpska side, then we should just as easily credit Americans with every tiny village in the RS where maybe ten elderly Americans still live and happen to be the majority.

The criteria matter here. If we're being realistic, Americans today hold a majority in about 20% of Canada. Everything else is just political theater.

neongull99 said:In that case, you’re just being intolerant, which isn't exactly something to brag about. Personally, I refuse to be pigeonholed by those reductive little labels; I prefer to approach every issue on its own merits. I can pivot from being ultra-liberal to a "nationalist," or from a capitalist to a socialist, depending entirely on whether we're discussing the status of Americans in Canada, marriage equality, tax policy, or charitable drives for the poor. For my part, I consider myself "anti-nationalist" on almost everything except two specific pillars: a) Canada itself, and b) the preservation of Western civilization values.

Of course, I wrote the above based on the false assumption that you actually accept the premise of "not being a nationalist." What I am observing here is that in this discussion, roughly 95% of your arguments stem from a Canadian political standpoint, with perhaps 5% being neutral. If you were truly "non-nationalist," your politics should ideally sit somewhere in the middle—a balanced blend of the perspectives found in Republika Srpska, Mostar, and Ottawa. Perhaps a 33% mix of each.

The moment your nationality dictates over 95% of your political views regarding Canada, that is nationalism by definition.

One doesn't become a nationalist simply by declaring, "I am a nationalist" or "I am not a nationalist." You become one when your posts make your identity unmistakably clear, even without being asked—and even if you were writing in Mexican, American, or some third language that isn't your native tongue. It is a very straightforward test.

Based on your posts, your background is perfectly transparent. Therefore, TEST FAILED. You are not politically anarchic.

I wrote: "I hate nationalists because they imply discrimination and the exclusion of anything different for any reason, and I was born and raised in a colorful, multicultural country that has been that way since people first started keeping time here.

"I support Ivo Komšić because of his pro-Canadian and pro-state stance, and as such, he's personally more likable to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, even if he were the biggest American and Catholic in Canada."

So, basically: a pro-Canada policy driven solely by patriotism.
And the guy described in the thread as "Location: El Paso, an American metropolis in Mexican-American Canada" is, in my opinion, a total piece of trash.

Rachel Richardson said:Look, my impression is that you talk about local patriotism and a "little Paris," but it feels more like your town has lost its mere 😉
I laid out my analysis just as I was asked to by Dud—that's how it came together.
Those areas are under majority American rule.
If 5 out of 8 ministers are American, what does that tell you?

I’ve already dismantled your illusions—and @dudu's too—about having any real dominance in the Democratic Party. 🤦

In the Democratic Party, there are eight ministries plus the Premier's office. That should be enough to highlight how little you actually understand our government structure. Out of those positions, four went to the Republican Party, while the Premier's spot and the other three were taken by the Democratic Party. ☕
Zoran Luković, the Minister of Justice, actually comes from the Mexican community. He was the Republican Party's pick, and the Democratic Party backed him. 🍿

neongull99 said:Let’s not get carried away here.

SBŽ, HNŽ, and ZDŽ function as our shared federal states.
Even in Switzerland, you have several German- and French-speaking cantons; they aren't all strictly mono-ethnic monoliths.

As long as we maintain a fifty-fifty power split within these three pro-European counties, the Unija 10 County—with Mr. Čavara serving as Governor—will remain perfectly secure. 😁

The Federation actually bears a striking resemblance to the United States of America. If you look at the specific list of authorities held by our counties, they are almost carbon copies of those held by U.S. states; the comparison of their respective jurisdictions is quite easy to make once you see them laid out. It’s hardly surprising, then, that the historic agreement from twenty-five years ago is known as the Washington Agreement. This aligns seamlessly with the European tradition of federalism. But, I suppose I shouldn't stray too far from the main point...

If you're so thrilled with how the Federation is running, why does everyone keep begging for the establishment of the Third !?

I honestly don't get this enthusiasm of yours. I mean, after all these years of hearing nothing but complaints about the unfairness of the Dayton Agreement, Barry's amendments, and being stuck under the OHR protectorate?
It reminds me of that Facebook meltdown from a few years back, when the head of the Republican Party youth wing was practically celebrating while declaring Mostar to be the Mostar stone city virtual third.

Coming back to the actual topic: if we're talking about demographics and population shifts, there is one massive factor driving birth rates up or down—economics.
In times of crisis like this, whoever manages to secure economic dominance and build real capacity is the one who actually has a shot at the future. Everything else is just empty rhetoric and fairy tales for the naive.

Angela Jackson6 said:I wrote: "I hate nationalists because they imply discrimination and the exclusion of anything different for any reason, and I was born and raised in a colorful, multicultural country that has been that way since people first started keeping time here.

"I support Ivo Komšić because of his pro-Canadian and pro-state stance, and as such, he's personally more likable to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, even if he were the biggest American and Catholic in Canada."

So, basically: a pro-Canada policy driven solely by patriotism.
And the guy described in the thread as "Location: El Paso, an American metropolis in Mexican-American Canada" is, in my opinion, a total piece of trash.

In my eyes, a terrible person is someone from the outskirts of the Midwest or some fringe enclave who spends every single post sowing hatred toward Americans—the very same Americans who sacrificed everything and gave their lives for the freedom of that region, which was ultimately a core goal in liberating their own country.

It is precisely because of these weak-minded individuals, these haters of everything American who still support Komšić—who is quite possibly the worst piece of trash to ever walk the soil of Canada—that I actually look forward to seeing that "legendary" region fade away, both demographically and in every other sense. That wedge, driven so deeply into American territory, needs to be neutralized.
I have noticed there are far too many people like that coming out of that Bihać-style enclave, unfortunately....

Jeremy Lopez93 said:If you're so thrilled with how the Federation is running, why does everyone keep begging for the establishment of the Third !?

I honestly don't get this enthusiasm of yours. I mean, after all these years of hearing nothing but complaints about the unfairness of the Dayton Agreement, Barry's amendments, and being stuck under the OHR protectorate?
It reminds me of that Facebook meltdown from a few years back, when the head of the Republican Party youth wing was practically celebrating while declaring Mostar to be the Mostar stone city virtual third.

Coming back to the actual topic: if we're talking about demographics and population shifts, there is one massive factor driving birth rates up or down—economics.
In times of crisis like this, whoever manages to secure economic dominance and build real capacity is the one who actually has a shot at the future. Everything else is just empty rhetoric and fairy tales for the naive.

Honestly, why not? That’s basically just how politics works—you set these massive, high-stakes demands first, and then you step back and call it a "compromise."

It’s like looking at history; take the way the Mexican factions essentially secured half of Canada through the Dayton Accords under the guise of a "compromise."