Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[mistercorporate]

Most of the Americans who are interested in moving to Canada after the Trump victory are "Muslim-Americans"...

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by flipv

I doubt social issues figured much in the votes for Trump. Another miscalculation from the pantsuit side.

This was an anti-establishment, anti-elite and anti-free trade election. SJW must realize their message doesn't resonate with the vast majority of the populace.

I think your absurdly ignoring how many people seen through the histrionics.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Happy with the results. Dissapointed in the media out here. So biased. Also unfortunate our Prime Minister directly insulted the US president. Same with Cristi Clark.

Canada will see a similiar swing in 3 years. As allways.

The lesson is to stop trusting the media and especially what you see pushed through social media.

Trudeau specifically didn't insult Trump and constantly stayed out of it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Fingers crossed. Some of his supporters are already turning on him for being gracious to Clinton in his acceptance rambling. He could be tarnished as just another politician soon enough, and actually govern as such.

I just feel bad for how he's lowered standards, not so much for his actual policy positions. It's rewarding the racism and ignoring the sexism and bullying that bothers me most. That's such primitive politics.

This is my greatest source of dismay as well.

Policy positions will likely vary considerably once he is actually faced with the constraints and pressures of power.

It's easy to bark armchair advice at the pilot when you're sitting in first class with a drink in your hand.

But when you are in the cockpit at the controls, you're much more clearly focused on preventing the plane from going down with you hitting the ground first 'cause you're the guy right at the front.

[Acajack]

No, no, no and no.

Americans who wish to leave their country can go through the same process as everyone else.

Not that I don't want Americans to move here (they're actually prime immigrants), but you don't antagonize your only immediate neighbour (pretty much) and largest trading partner with these types of diplomatic faux pas.

[flipv]

Ha. I had no idea Melania was fluent in Serbian but she's the right age to have learned it in Yugo.

This is all twilight zone worthy.

[eternallyme]

It seems like an anti-urban rebellion from the small towns and rural areas. Honestly, having spent a lot of time in those places too, I am not surprised and I feel Canada needs to be aware that the pot is stirring here too. Could the urban establishment be in a "bubble" of sorts?

The one thing working against a Trump-like winner in Canada (either/both federally or provincially) is that the immigrant population is greater, but even in Canada it is heavily concentrated in the big cities. That could create even stronger urban-rural divisions.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It seems like an anti-urban rebellion from the small towns and rural areas. Honestly, having spent a lot of time in those places too, I am not surprised and I feel Canada needs to be aware that the pot is stirring here too. Could the urban establishment be in a "bubble" of sorts?

The one thing working against a Trump-like winner in Canada (either/both federally or provincially) is that the immigrant population is greater, but even in Canada it is heavily concentrated in the big cities. That could create even stronger urban-rural divisions.

Trump polled much better than Romney or McCain with minorities. CNN was talking about it but I don't have numbers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It seems like an anti-urban rebellion from the small towns and rural areas. Honestly, having spent a lot of time in those places too, I am not surprised and I feel Canada needs to be aware that the pot is stirring here too. Could the urban establishment be in a "bubble" of sorts?

The one thing working against a Trump-like winner in Canada (either/both federally or provincially) is that the immigrant population is greater, but even in Canada it is heavily concentrated in the big cities. That could create even stronger urban-rural divisions.

It would be interesting to know how our ridings are distributed between rural and urban areas.

I mean, I know the standard is about 100,000 people per MP, but some ridings are way above or way below that. Often it's urban ridings that are above and rural ridings that are below. But how many ridings are at play with this and how big an impact this could potentially have, I have no idea.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

He actually described all of this in detail.


When did I say he supports the government or any of that crazy nonsense. Again this is where your definition of freedom needs an updating, his point wasn't that china was some paradise, but that the west has fundamentally lost something. A culture that stagnating in a tale spin, in contrast china is undergoing a mass cultural change.


He's been an esl teacher for the last decade fluently speaks mandarin and describes the depth of his adjustment with the inlaws, having to pay 40k for a downpayment on a place that is now crumbling, how his students lack creativity, and how as a foreigner he's always in the wrong etc.

So basically he's aware of the privileged freedoms he has as an expat in China and he simply, consciously chooses to revel in them. Fair enough.

Western countries are not perfect and there are troubling signs for sure, but they offer an extremely high level of freedoms to their people at the present time.

This includes the United States BTW, and almost certainly even the United States under a Donald Trump presidency.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It would be interesting to know how our ridings are distributed between rural and urban areas.

I mean, I know the standard is about 100,000 people per MP, but some ridings are way above or way below that. Often it's urban ridings that are above and rural ridings that are below. But how many ridings are at play with this and how big an impact this could potentially have, I have no idea.

They try to avoid ridings within provinces breaking from the mean at the initial redistribution, but areas of common interest seem to deviate from such. As suburbs (and some city areas) continue to grow faster though, they will have larger ridings later - especially in 2023. The biggest ridings are in BC, AB, and ON generally. By 2023, the inner city and small town/rural ridings will definitely be smaller.

As for the Conservative leadership race, the Leitch faction may have a winning issue among their base, and that would likely make significant inroads in Quebec as well (I honestly think Trump would have done much better in that province than most believe). However, they would have been shot down in the big cities. They could also do really well in places like southwestern Ontario with a more protectionist message, but would that part of the agenda play well in Alberta? It's worth examining.

[Acajack]

I wonder if the Canadian Conservative leadership all of sudden becomes a more coveted prize.

I mean, Canada is always a laggard when it comes to global political trends like the ones that are currently at play in the UK and US, so maybe the right wing "pot of gold" is not this current leadership campaign but the next one.

In any event, I am sure Justin Trudeau is happy that we're generally an election or two behind when it comes to such things.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It would be interesting to know how our ridings are distributed between rural and urban areas.

I mean, I know the standard is about 100,000 people per MP, but some ridings are way above or way below that. Often it's urban ridings that are above and rural ridings that are below. But how many ridings are at play with this and how big an impact this could potentially have, I have no idea.

It's easy enough to find out, but difficult to wrap one's mind around for larger provinces.

I assume all provinces keep some sort of record of urban/rural areas in a way that's easy enough to understand. Ours, for example, is this:



The dark pink is urban, which for us is basically defined economically. It's where there's high diversification, lots of opportunity, lots of people, etc. It's the parts of Newfoundland that are successful, self-sufficient, and can last.

The lighter pink is larger towns that are regional service hubs (and their service area). These often have a wide variety of service sector opportunities (for example, hospitals and schools and shopping malls and airports).

The light purple is first-level rural which have smaller regional service centres that are broken up - so perhaps the school is in one medium-sized town, while the hospital is in another, and the local industries in a third.

The dark purple is second-level rural which is sparsely-populated areas with basically no economic activity but anchored by a single-industry town. This is where rural communities are surviving only because everyone there who is employed works at the regional plant, or mine, or factory, or whatever it is. And there's little else.

And the blue is third-level rural, which is basically where hope dies. This is where abandoned houses dot the communities, where anyone who is employed is either in the public service or commuting to Alberta (or St. John's).

****

So, if you overlay our federal ridings over that, you can get some idea which areas could go crazy in the long term.

I believe the federal riding of Labrador is the smallest in population, with 26,728. It doesn't take much for a candidate to win there.

The rest are all in the neighbourhood of 75,000-80,000. Only two are majority urban (St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl) and only one other has any urban, as the province defines it, at all (Avalon).

I think here, though, the situation is reversed. I can't imagine a Trump-like candidate could ever win here, but if one did, I would expect him to perform better in the capital than the countryside. We're progressive enough socially, but barring furor with the federal government, the economy is what matters here and as far as that is concerned it's traditionally (until Harper) been conservative in urban areas and liberal in rural ones.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Trudeau specifically didn't insult Trump and constantly stayed out of it.

Indeed, memories fade but I was trying to recall when/where the alleged insult occurred. JT made it clear where his preferences lay (a given) without mentioning Trump by name and then said it was up to USA'ers and that Canada would work with the government they elected. Or so I thought. Did I miss something?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It's easy enough to find out, but difficult to wrap one's mind around for larger provinces.

I assume all provinces keep some sort of record of urban/rural areas in a way that's easy enough to understand. Ours, for example, is this:



The dark pink is urban, which for us is basically defined economically. It's where there's high diversification, lots of opportunity, lots of people, etc. It's the parts of Newfoundland that are successful, self-sufficient, and can last.

The lighter pink is larger towns that are regional service hubs (and their service area). These often have a wide variety of service sector opportunities (for example, hospitals and schools and shopping malls and airports).

The light purple is first-level rural which have smaller regional service centres that are broken up - so perhaps the school is in one medium-sized town, while the hospital is in another, and the local industries in a third.

The dark purple is second-level rural which is sparsely-populated areas with basically no economic activity but anchored by a single-industry town. This is where rural communities are surviving only because everyone there who is employed works at the regional plant, or mine, or factory, or whatever it is. And there's little else.

And the blue is third-level rural, which is basically where hope dies. This is where abandoned houses dot the communities, where anyone who is employed is either in the public service or commuting to Alberta (or St. John's).

****

So, if you overlay our federal ridings over that, you can get some idea which areas could go crazy in the long term.

I believe the federal riding of Labrador is the smallest in population, with 26,728. It doesn't take much for a candidate to win there.

The rest are all in the neighbourhood of 75,000-80,000. Only two are majority urban (St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl) and only one other has any urban, as the province defines it, at all (Avalon).

I think here, though, the situation is reversed. I can't imagine a Trump-like candidate could ever win here, but if one did, I would expect him to perform better in the capital than the countryside. We're progressive enough socially, but barring furor with the federal government, the economy is what matters here and as far as that is concerned it's traditionally (until Harper) been conservative in urban areas and liberal in rural ones.

I found this. Federal ridings by population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ederal_ridings

Most of the ones with smaller populations are rural or sparsely populated. The larger ones tend to be urban, suburban or in small to medium cities.

That said, I am not sure if it's possible in Canada for a leader or a party to get a significant proportion of the population across the country all angry about the same thing(s) at one time.

It seems like we're too fragmented geographically, culturally, economically, linguistically in order for something like this to happen.

[kwoldtimer]

I suppose the issue could arise of whether to grant USA'ers refugee status.....

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I found this. Federal ridings by population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ederal_ridings

Most of the ones with smaller populations are rural or sparsely populated. The larger ones tend to be urban, suburban or in small to medium cities.

That said, I am not sure if it's possible in Canada for a leader or a party to get a significant proportion of the population across the country all angry about the same thing(s) at one time.

It seems like we're too fragmented geographically, culturally, economically, linguistically in order for something like this to happen.

That's definitely true. That may be one of the benefits of the mosaic over the melting pot; people hold on to enough of their identity to never form a homogenous whole to defend, in the federal sense (there's definitely one here, and in Quebec, and in other pockets, which probably explains a lot of those political differences from Canada as a whole). I can't imagine there'd be quite as many "Muslims4Trump" or "Gays4Trump" in Canada's version of this election.

Harper tried, surely - the whole "old stock Canadians" line, the "Barbaric Cultural Practices Hotline", etc. But it didn't work outside of the usual suspect areas. And, truthfully, I think even there it usually worked for unrelated reasons.

But anything can happen anywhere, given enough time and provocation. If the WTC or Bataclan was in Toronto or Montreal we'd probably already be having a completely different conversation.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Don't worry too much, this is just leaving me in a mere meh.

Guessing some political establishment of theirs just collapsed. We saw far worst disasters, eh.

Anyway, if they expect walls all around their country that would supposedly keep them safe from any so-called outside threat, I'm pretty sure Trump's voters will be deeply disappointed. In today's world, isolationism leads nowhere but to impoverishment.
So, it's up to them...

Trump is nothing much but a random businessman. He just fooled them all, didn't he? Lol, nasty man... Now he's going to learn about actual power and responsibilities while he'll be in office.

I would only encourage the Canadians to stay cool and just remain what they've been. Some sort of mix between "hey, 'murika baby" and old Europe, which is fine.

I think this is pretty much on point. Trump will inevitably govern in a way that is very different from his campaign rhetoric. That's not to say that he will betray his supporters, but there is no need to overreact to some nightmare scenario that will never materialize.

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It seems like an anti-urban rebellion from the small towns and rural areas. Honestly, having spent a lot of time in those places too, I am not surprised and I feel Canada needs to be aware that the pot is stirring here too. Could the urban establishment be in a "bubble" of sorts?

The one thing working against a Trump-like winner in Canada (either/both federally or provincially) is that the immigrant population is greater, but even in Canada it is heavily concentrated in the big cities. That could create even stronger urban-rural divisions.

This is probably a good wake-up call to politicians that the small town and rural folk are part of the country too. It's great that the coastal areas have prospered under trade deals and the new economy, but the laid-off factory worker in Ohio has every right to have his voice heard... the chattering classes should ask themselves why the establishment candidates were utterly unable to get through to him.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if the Canadian Conservative leadership all of sudden becomes a more coveted prize.

I mean, Canada is always a laggard when it comes to global political trends like the ones that are currently at play in the UK and US, so maybe the right wing "pot of gold" is not this current leadership campaign but the next one.

In any event, I am sure Justin Trudeau is happy that we're generally an election or two behind when it comes to such things.

You bet... we will get our Trump, in the same way that we got our Reagan (Mulroney), our GW Bush (Harper) and our Obama (Trudeau). We always get a watered down version of the American president, just a few years later. Prime Minister Kevin O'Leary, anyone?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is my greatest source of dismay as well.

Policy positions will likely vary considerably once he is actually faced with the constraints and pressures of power.

It's easy to bark armchair advice at the pilot when you're sitting in first class with a drink in your hand.

But when you are in the cockpit at the controls, you're much more clearly focused on preventing the plane from going down with you hitting the ground first 'cause you're the guy right at the front.

In some cases, probably, but he will also be facing the constraints imposed by some of his more contentious policies, including "the Wall", renegotiation of free trade agreements, obliging NATO partners to spend more (Canada, this means you!), etc. He will also certainly appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, which will have long term implications. Obamacare is toast in its current form.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I suppose the issue could arise of whether to grant USA'ers refugee status.....

It's only been a tiny trickle, but I am pretty sure Canada has accepted refugees from the US in the fairly recent past. (I am not just talking about draft dodgers in the 60s.)