159
I wish my state wasn't surrounded by red states because I'd be down to join too.
Colorado? I always want to include them in Cascadia nonsense but yeah geography issues.
As someone not in these states I would support all efforts to retain Colorado. There's a fuckload of critical infrastructure the USA requires that is in CO. It's on a short list of states the USA cannot function well without- NY, CA, TX, CO, IL, and GA are all too important to the day to day functioning to let go.
USA has by world's measure a huge fuckload of money to rapidly build infrastructure.
As someone who's never been in USA - what's so critical about Colorado?..
A lot of our phone and internet cabling goes through there and they control a chunk of the Colorado river which CA needs to overwater their fields.
Seriously Cascadia is never going to happen.
Elizabeth May says a lot of things I like, but also comes out with bizarro-world shit like this
It was mostly a joke I'm sure, but a good retort :)
So, instead of Canada becoming the 51st state, the suggestion is that Canada just loses BC? How about we dismiss all the options where Canada loses territory?
Also, if BC seceded, it would only be a matter of time before Quebec did too.
I'm not fundamentally against the idea of states splitting off or joining up. There's no reason that the configuration of countries should always stay as they are in 2025. But, the reasons should be good. If there truly is a "Cascadian" culture, then yeah, maybe a nice separation agreement could be negotiated that's fair to everyone. But, having spent time in Vancouver, Seattle, San Fransisco and LA, I sure don't see it. The cultural difference even between SF and LA is pretty huge. And, I can't imagine that most people in BC would be keen to accept the guns of America, and the lack of free health care. Or, going the other way, would Americans be willing to give up their guns to join Cascadia?
It just seems to me that every time the world adds borders or moves borders, the result is conflict. I hope that over time there are fewer borders, and that the borders matter less. But, the only way to do it while avoiding war is really to do it slowly.
The "Cascadia" idea wouldn't be viable IMO. It would be better for all to just add the newcomers to an enlarged Canada. (I 100% wouldn't want B.C. to leave Canada, just to be clear, nor any Canadian territories to be 'exchanged' or lost).
I'd be against any absorption that brought US gun ideology to Canada... if they're splitting from the US, they'd better be doing so for the goals of taking on the more pacifist and commensalist Canadian values.
You realize that Canadians can own guns too, right?
Canadians were clever enough not to enshrine gun ownership as a right in the constitution. As a result, Canadians have limited gun rights, and almost no handgun rights. Sure, having guns for hunting is pretty common, especially in rural areas. But, the idea of a gun for home defense or a gun for taking on a tyrannical government is something that never took hold in Canada.
the idea of a gun for home defense or a gun for taking on a tyrannical government
... is something that only existed in USA when it was pure utopia in terms of government tyranny. All tyranny was private - white only towns, Blair mountain, things like that. Where problems are close to what gun ownership may solve - in the former case in the wrong direction unfortunately. In some sense it was symbolic weapon ownership that suggested that citizens should own all weapons they need to fight tyranny too, and all limitations are circumstantial and shouldn't hold when need arises for citizens to own B52's, field artillery pieces and main battle tanks. It still remained symbolic and any government possesses all the means to squash any insurrection with small arms allowed to citizens in USA even by the measure of year 1960 (for example).
I don't think the idea is bad. If you look long enough, all the difference between good and bad ideas fades. Good and evil may remain, but they matter only in our own choices.
Also the original tyrannical government for the USA was the British Empire. For Canada that relationship is inverted, except Quebec.
Taking away 74 reliable Democratic electoral college votes would permanently throw the US to the Republicans.
Texas (40) and Florida (30) would steamroller New York (28) and Illinois (19).
Yup. Guess those who want to stay out of a Repub hell-hole would want to move to Cascadia (or more realistically, an enlarged Canada) while they still could, then.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Terrible idea, that new country would instantly realize how awful it is needing to negotiate for oil when you have zero local sources of it.
The US has Texas, and Canada has Alberta.
You do not wanna form any kind of new pseudo country that doesn't have oil in 2025, you will have some serious issues within a couple years.
The only people that talk about any states or provinces separating are the people too ignorant of just how deeply they are dependent on all the rest of their country's exports, imports, and production.
Yes, even backwater places have an absolute fuck tonne of stuff they produce that you depend on every Just because you might think mineral mines, farms, oil, steel factories, forestry, etc etc isnt of major value, it is and you literally depend on it daily
You cant break out from that, but too many people have become too deeply dumb to grok how fucked their life would become if their specific state/province seperated.
You're cost of living would fucking skyrocket to levels you cant even imagine. So much random shit you currently take for granted still being affordable would vaporize as you suddenly realize "Oh yeah I guess we dont make that here locally do we, where does that come from? Shit it comes from there? I never knew they made this stuff, I use it every day! Now I cant have it at all? I can still, it just costs a lot more and is imported? Well how much does it cost? (spit take) IT COSTS HOW MUCH NOW?!?!"
Fun fact, oil can be brought in from other countries and when you control all the access to the Pacific ocean you're the one who controls the negotiations.
I think you just made an incredibly strong argument for why the US would use it's military to prevent this.
It would certainly be tricky. They would need support from the US military stationed in those states. That seems like a stretch to me. They wouldn't defect "just cause". You would need an action from the current US government that would force them to pick a side.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'll guess that you have never been to California. There was pumpjack one block away from my house when I was growing up.
But in fact, the biggest thing keeping us from moving away from fossil fuels is the political pressure from people who make money from it. And if California went into Canada or Cascadia, those people would come with it, kicking and screaming all the way.
load more comments
(3 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
159 points (96.0% liked)
politics
24126 readers
2232 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS