Canada will do much better joining US (and distancing itself from declining EU and its disastrous policies). The US is much better managed; the results speak for themselves.
Gonna tell you a secret, the world isn't black and white, while there are areas such as the economy where we struggle to compete as an European I would never want to live in the US again (I studied in Columbus Ohio for 7 months as an exchange student at OSU and traveled US multiple times).
The streets here are clean, spotting a homeless person is borderline impossible even if you try, in US I've seen tents, bidonvilles, homelessness everywhere, drugged zombies as soon as you entered the wrong streets in basically every city.
There's much less anxiety around healthcare or education here, violence and crime are very different too. My 180k people city hasn't seen a murder (outside very few caused by family violence, which are virtually the only cause for murders in my country) in decades.
Actually now that I think about it, I also found Canada (where my wife has family that emigrated there 80 years ago) to be better in all those regards. Have you ever crossed from Canada to US at Niagara falls? If you did and walked more than 500 meters you know what I'm talking about.
Mind you, there's no doubt US does many things great, as an engineer and wannabe entrepeneur I know US would've given me more chances, but believe it or not, not everybody wants to live the american way and money isn't everything if you have to use it to feel safer and less anxious in guarded neighbourhoods like some of my best friends in US live in.
There's countless things that US does great, and that does awfully, different people and cultures may weigh the pros/cons differently.
I've lived in the US and Canada (a couple large cities in each country), and briefly in a medium-sized city in France.
Canadian cities are the cleanest of the three countries, but homelessness and drug use are just as prevalent in Canada as in the US. I don't remember seeing many addicts in Europe but there were certainly a lot of homeless refugees when I lived there. I guess you could argue that's not the fault of the host country, unlike the homelessness in Canada/US.
Other than that, the US cities I've lived in have felt safe and livable, with vibrant street life and plenty of great restaurants and events. I prefer urban neighborhoods which are close to the downtown core, but outside of it; the visible social problems seem to be very concentrated in certain areas, which can be avoided.
If by "guarded neighborhoods" you mean gated communities with full-time live security, I think your friends are major outliers. A very small minority of people live that way in America.
I do agree with you about "less anxiety around healthcare or education". My European friends see the world and life very differently. People don't feel guilty about living a normal life in the same way that some Americans seem to: the culture here screams "strive" and "excel", and I think that drives a lot of people to be miserable when they feel they are falling short of that expectation.
Every city in the world has good parts and bad parts, the question is in what proportion and how are they changing.
The ones that are weirdest to me is when you have people living in gated skyscrapers with homeless literally leaning against the sides of the building, so much wealth and destitution mere inches apart.
Do you see a strong economy as a goal in itself? I see it as a proxy measure for the things that truly matter. Happiness, good health, good education, the freedom to lead your life the way you want. America fails miserably on all of those.
A strong economy makes the rich richer. (Trickle down didn't work.) That means for the rich who are beneficiaries of a strong economy, they are indeed enjoying happiness, good health, good education, and the freedom to lead a good life.
The US is fifth in the world in terms of incarceration rate (i.e., there are only 4 countries which imprison a larger portion of their population). The thirteenth amendment allows the US to enslave its imprisoned population (which they do, and it's a very lucrative business). The US also has a thing called the death penalty where they literally _kill_ the person convicted of a crime.
According to the world press freedom index, the US ranks 55th when it comes to freedom of the press.
I don't know if you know this, but the US has been holding immigrant kids in cages at the border. Started with Obama, increased under Trump, and then increased some more under Biden.
Guantanamo also still exists, but I suppose torturing civilians without formally charging them for a crime doesn't count against the freedom of US citizens.
By what metric does the US have a lot of freedom?
> Our universities are probably the best in the world
Good colleges aren't worth anything if only the owning class can afford to send their kids there. Going to college puts people into lifelong debt (in America, that is). Out of the top 10 universities in the world according to the QS world ranking, 4 are from the UK, 4 from the US, despite the UK having about a fifth of the population of the US.
> And having a strong economy is generally a good thing -- there are jobs, which matters.
There were jobs during slavery too (I mean the slavery from before 1865, not the 13th amendment slavery from today). Jobs are not an inherent good. About 40% of the homeless (in the US) have a job, but cannot afford housing.
With respect to your lived experiences, as a fan of the US I would just like to say that it is a country of 330m+ whose physical presence spans a majority of a major continent, so I would encourage you not to generalize us based on what you saw in Columbus. That would be like me visiting Paris (a city I particularly did not enjoy) and generalizing all of Europe!
What of this is not true for the rest of the country then? I haven't visited at all but what the comment above you mentioned (basically the woes of limited social mobility, bad employment terms including tying healthcare to it if you're not rich, insane incarceration, etc.) is the kind of stats and stories I'm familiar with. The country does some things well also, as the commenter above also said, but it's not a place either of us would recommend most people to live after having known EU life. If there is even 10% of the 'major continent' that is not as described (besides Canada), I'm genuinely curious to know of it
> it's not a place [I] would recommend most people to live
Your recommendation (or lack thereof) carries little weight, then.
But to actually answer your question, there are many places in the US (urban, suburban, and rural) where fear of violent crime is not a major factor in the day-to-day life of most people. I don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime, and it does not feature prominently in conversations. In fact, the highly touristic areas in Europe seem to have more crime than anywhere I've personally been in the US, but I know better than to judge the entire continent by those outliers. I probably worry about as much about gang violence in south-side Chicago as you do about Romanian sex traffickers, or pickpockets in the 1st arrondissement of Paris.
Right, exactly! I personally felt much less safe in Paris than anywhere in the US (including Chicago and Oakland), which is not to say "I'm right and you're wrong", it's just entirely subjective and often the result of having not traveled extensively enough or lack of understanding.
Thanks for the answer. Though I can't say that I expected most people to fear being violently killed on a daily basis indeed, murder is something the person above mentioned so that technically is an answer to my question about which bit is not ubiquitous for the country
Fair enough, I only provided a counterexample to a part of the argument. I think a lot of the social criticism in that comment is more accurate, e.g. the stuff about health care and education quality. In a lot of America it seems like the only solution to those things is "don't be poor".
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm asking whether there is any bit of the place that is worth differentiating from what was said above, not having a prejudice about any which 10%
Easy to say "you're extremely ignorant" without even mentioning what of the data I saw is wrong, let alone provide a correction. Also makes it hard to know where to even start to either update my understanding or find that you're wrong and I'm wasting my time, whichever case it may be
>whose physical presence spans a majority of a major continent,
I take your point, but this part isn't true. Canada is a little larger, and then there is also Mexico which is about 1/2 the size, so US is roughly 2/5ths of North America.
Oh you’re right about relative size of Mexico - my memory had a units error (km vs mi). Still, it’s not even as big as Canada so the statement wasn’t close to right…. It’s a bit under 9/20
The opposite would be better for the US. If the US joined Canada, they could benefit from universal healthcare, schooling, and responsible gun laws within a short period of time, given the available resources that would be added to the Canadian system.
This is wishful thinking. The quality of public healthcare in Canada has been declining. In particular, the waiting times are long. Those who are well off go to US for important timely care.
The gun violence in US is higher, but the chances of that impacting you are low, if you avoid problematic areas.
The waiting times for healthcare in my part of the US are extreme, and are complicated by things like prior approval. It varies a lot depending on where you live. For instance my parents were able to get same-year medical appoints in southeast Michigan. My mom recently moved to my state, and is appalled at having to make appointments a year or more in advance. She has talked about flying back to Michigan for her appointments.
Your chances of gun violence are also greatly lowered by not having a gun.
Spot on. I'm quite well off but don't think I'd support a system where only the well-off get good treatment. Better to have all shoulders supporting the system for everyone. Even if that means going through lesser years (also since it's not like good healthcare stops altogether during that time), having the relatively rich as well as politicians also need to make use of the system makes a lot of things suddenly possible
Canadian healthcare is quite interesting. It's the best in the world if there's someone from the States in the room but as soon as it's just Canadians in the discussion, it instantly becomes the world's worst.
Having lived on both sides of the border for many years, Canada first needs to improve its version of "universal healthcare" before making a pitch like this.
The enshitification of health care has been happening whether your bill is paid by taxes or by insurance. Both systems were probably better a few decades ago.
I want American and Canadian healthcare both to remain the way they are, I have timely access to care with my American health insurance, but if I lose my job I can get healthcare anyways with my Canadian passport
There are something like nearly half a billion Americans - they’d immediately and irrevocably outvote the Canadian remnant and turn it into cold Texas.
"The point" of Canada is that it's a separate country that doesn't have US politics.
That being said, the general lockdown of the boarder after 9-11 has driven a lot of people who live close to the boarder nuts. Crossing the boarder used to be like crossing a state/province boarder. If you look at satellite photos of the boarder around Maine, NH, and VT, it's full of little country roads where you could cross unimpeded until 9-11, and private properties that go right up to the boarder.
There's even a golf course that's in Canada, but the driveway is on a US street. You're allowed to enter from the US, but they follow Canadian laws (specifically, the Canadian drinking age.)
Personally, I wish we could figure out how to resolve our (relatively minor) differences so we could keep an open boarder.
Interesting. How do you define "success"? Is the average American Joe really better off than the average European Joe?
In the U.S., a cancer diagnosis can lead to bankruptcy, while treatment is free (or close to free) in most EU countries. Education is largely free as well, and you don't see people walking around armed like they’re in the Marine Corps. So, I'm not sure what benchmark we're using to measure this.
Which way are the immigrants flowing? If European Joe is better off than American Joe it should be a net flow to Europe, no?
And I’ve seen way more people walking around with military weapons in Europe than I ever have in the USA - to be fair, they were the literal armed forces of the country, but still exceptionally weird to see as an American.
I truly cannot tell whether you're joking. If you're not, I'd love to pick your brain. I'm very interested in what standards you have and why you have them.
depends on how rich each individual is. US is great if you're rich enough to pay for any medical emergencies out of pocket and you want investor money for explosive growth.
Long term, maybe. Short and medium term, let's see if you guys tear yourselves apart in a civil war or some other footgun. Nothing other than internal shenanigans can possibly threaten overwhelming US hegemony, after all.
Reconciling the constitutions and laws would mean you'd basically be creating a new country.
The Republican party seems to view any new possible states as free congressional seats for the Democrats, so I can't see enough votes for such a thing regardless.
Let’s set aside the jokes for a second... there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.
Just hang on - this isn't as crazy as it sounds!
Think about it:
- There would be a shared defense and infrastructure: NORAD already has the US and Canada tied at the hip for defense. Greenland, being strategically crucial to Arctic security, fits naturally into this alignment. Folding them into a single framework could simplify and strengthen North American defense.
- Economic integration's already there: the US and Canada are each other's largest trading partners. NAFTA (and now USMCA) means much of the heavy economic lifting is already done. Greenland’s resources are becoming increasingly important as Arctic access opens up.
- Population and resources balance out: Canada has land and resources but not enough people. The US has people and markets but strained resources. Greenland sits on untapped potential. There’s a complementary puzzle here that fits. Heck, I know a bunch of people that would move to Greenland in my circle of friends alone if it were a state of the Union.
Think about the plausibility, even if you don' think it's likely.
Sure, there's political gridlock in the US? Sure. But let’s not pretend Canadian politics are a beacon of stability. And Denmark’s hold on Greenland isn’t exactly ironclad. In unstable times, pragmatic unions can look attractive.
And yeah, there are a lot of cultural differentials, but flipping flap jacks, look at the cultural divide between California vs Indiana or TX vs Vermont. Mergers like this happen incrementally - closer military cooperation, shared Arctic development, economic harmonization.
Not saying this will/could happen tomorrow, but in a time of rethinking alliances, I think it’s less far-fetched than it sounds. If Europe can experiment with supranational governance, why can’t North America????
What are the realistic roadblocks here beyond just "politics?"
The current state of the US is the roadblock to this. We already have very high economic integration between Canada and the US, but we now have to deal with a belligerent and incompetent American administration coming in that seems dead set on extracting as much from Canada as possible.
Canada needs to move away from the Americans as much as possible. Easier said than done given that America is an economic powerhouse.
Greenland is Denmark. Why are you including it? (FWIW Inuit in Greenland are better off than their peers in Canada [or Alaska]. Higher quality of life)
The reason Canada and the US are not closer than they already already -- which is very close -- comes down to the same story it has for over 200 years: massive political cultural divide.
"Peace, Order, and Good Government" vs "Don't Tread On Me" or whatever.
American expansionism, manifest destiny, and the populist politics that go with it only sell well to a minority here. This is a country that has deep loyalist roots and a long history of preference for our Westminster style gov't and the balances it has.
Not because we love being ruled by a king -- the monarchy is not popular -- but because we don't like to be ruled by demagogues and militia-men. I say "we", but of course there's people who would disagree, like anywhere else.
If this was still the Obama-era US I think the case for closer ties could be made -- a currency union, perhaps, some kind of Shengen-style border arrangement. But as long as US politics is taking the form it is right now, not a chance. I, for one, want nothing to do with it.
But yeah, Greenland's not just Denmark's icy backyard... it’s a strategic Arctic outpost sitting on rare earth minerals and shipping lanes that are about to become prime real estate as the ice melts. The US already camps out at Thule Air Base for a reason, and with Russia and China eyeing the region hard, folding Greenland into a North American framework isn’t about expansionism, but rather it’s about locking down resources and supply chains before someone else does. Greenland’s been flirting with more autonomy anyway, and when the time comes, stronger North American ties could offer stability without the economic freefall of full independence. Ignoring Greenland while the Arctic heats up (literally and politically) is leaving the back door wide open.
I get the hesitation. 'Manifest destiny' doesn’t exactly have the best branding. But this isn’t about expansionism or flag-planting; it’s more like making sure the neighborhood’s in order before someone else moves in and rearranges the furniture. Greenland’s interest (if it ever happens) wouldn’t come from the US kicking down the door, but from their own evolving relationship with Denmark. If anything, the US would probably just be the least disruptive option on the table.
Honestly though, what do you think about China’s own 'manifest destiny' moves in Africa, Brazil, the US, Canada, and basically everywhere else?
Haha, fair enough! Let’s just hope no one ends up eating their own words if Greenland - or even Canada - starts rethinking their options... Arctic politics can shift fast, and it’d be a shame to see China further sink its teeth into the region while closer ties with people who actually share similar cultures and values were on the table. But hey, I’ll happily shelve this take if Denmark and Canada keep things locked down! Good luck!
As a Canadian, the idea of becoming part of America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
Our country has problems, yours is broken.
It's been broken since its inception. Giving every state an equal representation in the Senate and an outsized representation in Congress meant that it was ALWAYS going to break.
I the 70s a few people tried to change this by abolishing the electoral college and ensuring you vote directly for the president at a 1 to 1 ratio. Unfortunately, that was shot down by some selfish liberals who thought they'd get more representation in particular situations (they won't for anything more than shilort term). There hasn't been a proper chance to fix it since.
Now Democrats simply do not have any power whatsoever. If Republicans don't want to let something pass, they just hold it up in the Senate. Something Mitch McConnell has done relentlessly.
Oh, and since the senate has to approve Supreme Court appointments, they've taken control of that too. McConnell blocked Obama's picks, using the excuse that it was an election YEAR. That handed the pick to Trump. That evil little man then let Trump have appointments much closer to an election.
Now your Supreme Court is fully stacked with Republicans. Some of which engage in open corruption.. And they're wiping out decades old rights. Anything is on the table.
Youre living in a country that has fallen into fascism and don't even know it.
Also, states being able to run their elections has allowed for an absurd level of corruption. Some states specifically design their voting districts for a particular outcome.. Like come on..
Anyway, I'm hoping for a CANZUK alliance or joining Europe. I will reluctantly flee the country if our sovereignty is threatened by the US.. Which is unfortunately looking more and more possible.
I get the sentiment, but let’s not pretend Canada’s running some utopian alternative to the US. Canada’s got deep, deep, DEEP structural cracks that are hard to ignore. I've got family that fled Canada and I've got some more that are miserable up there at the moment. They hate the government, they hate the cultural evolution, and they simply hate all the possible futures right now. Think about this:
- Trudeau’s leadership is on life support, with his own party circling the wagons to push him out. Even Liberal MPs are openly calling for his resignation. The country’s direction feels more dictated by party infighting than any grand vision.
- Economically, Canada’s in a rougher spot. GDP contracted last quarter, the Canadian dollar’s getting steamrolled by the USD, and political uncertainty is scaring off energy investments. Meanwhile, the US economy is actually growing. That’s not exactly a great look for the 'better system.'
- Housing? A total disaster. Young Canadians are stuck renting indefinitely, and wages haven’t kept pace with living costs. By comparison, even in US cities with high real estate prices, the economic mobility is still better. I know twenty-somethings who are buying homes, living life, and having large families. One friend is 25, already has three kids, and owns a home—stable as can be.
- And don't forget groceries... food prices in Canada have been soaring to the point where one in five families are skipping meals or turning to food banks just to get by. That’s not just bad policy, it’s a slow-rolling humanitarian crisis!
I’m not saying the US isn’t broken. Sure, it’s a mess in a lot of ways, but which country isn't right now?
But if we’re comparing corpses, at least one of them still twitches. Canada’s problems aren’t just political, they’re economic and cultural... and there’s no clear path out. Maybe that stomach-turning thought of joining the US will feel a bit different if things keep sliding downhill.
And about the US being 'broken since inception' - come on. Canada’s flaws run just as deep, if not deeper in certain areas:
- Political gridlock? Trudeau’s barely hanging on, and Parliament is a powder keg of internal rivalries. Party leadership fights dictate policy more than voters do.
- Representation imbalance? Alberta’s voice gets drowned out, while Quebec rides on political privilege. Sounds familiar, right?
- Judicial interference? Trudeau’s government meddling with court decisions drove his own Attorney General to resign. LOL
- Corruption? From the SNC-Lavalin scandal to WE Charity, Canada isn’t exactly shy about political favoritism and backroom deals.
- And don’t even get me started on voter disenfranchisement! Canada’s own electoral system ensures whole swaths of the population feel ignored. I mean, this is what I’m hearing from Canadians, so you’re not gonna convince me otherwise. I’ve even heard talk of civil war scenarios if the government doesn’t change, and that’s saying a LOT for Canadians. You know it’s bad when folks known for telling each other to go to hell with a smile stop smiling - and forget to apologize halfway through.
I get the appeal of CANZUK or joining Europe in theory, but let’s be real, Canada’s fate isn’t going to be saved by cozying up to the Commonwealth. If Canada collapses under its own weight, it won’t be US 'fascism' that’s the biggest threat. It’ll be watching foreign powers scoop up influence while we argue about which utopian club to join!
Alberta's voice being drowned out? Civil war? "Fled" Canada?
C'mon. Get real.
You sound like you've been talking to a pretty far right-wing echo chamber.
I'm from Alberta originally and ... no... not drowned. Shrill, and a with a strong persecution complex, but... very well heard. And with way more power than it pretends.
There are certainly forces... American forces included... that would like to characterize things the way you are. For their own interests.
Look, I get that you don’t see it that way, but dismissing this as some far-right echo chamber narrative feels pretty shortsighted. When I hear this stuff from actual Canadians - family, friends, and people living the experience - it’s hard to chalk it up to 'outside forces' pushing an agenda.
I’m not saying Alberta’s voice is literally drowned out in the sense that it’s silent. It’s drowned out in the sense that for all the noise, policy-wise, Alberta’s concerns often get sidelined while other regions take priority. That frustration isn’t imaginary. You might be comfortable with how things are, but not everyone is.
Shrill? Persecution complex? Maybe. Or maybe people are just fed up and tired of feeling like they’re being patronized when they point out legitimate issues. You can call it overblown, but the cracks are there whether you acknowledge them or not.
>there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.
Canada I understand.
But why Greenland, other than the fact that Trump saw it in the window and decided he wanted it? The US already has a base there, it doesn't seem to be that vital to our strategic interests.
So while it's kinda hard to see at first blush perhaps, Greenland plays an actual critical role in North American security and economic interests - far more than it might seem at first glance. Yeah, Trump's interest aside (which definitely brought some unnecessary circus to the topic), Greenland’s value lies in a few key areas:
- Strategic Arctic positioning. It's central to Arctic geopolitics. While the Arctic ice melts, new shipping lanes are opening up, and countries are vying for control over these routes and untapped resources. The US already maintains a military presence at Thule Air Base, but integrating Greenland more formally would secure this position and reduce the risk of competing interests (think Russia and China making moves in the region - which they are very, very much doing).
- Resource potential. Greenland's rich in rare earth minerals and many others that are critical to modern tech and defense industries. These materials are currently dominated by Chinese markets. Greenland’s dev could diversify supply chains and reduce Western reliance on Chinese exports. This is SO insanely critical right now.
- You might not like this one, but: think geopolitical stability... Denmark’s grip on Greenland isn’t absolute. There’s been growing interest within Greenland towards greater autonomy, and while full independence is really complicated and economically (ultra) risky, stronger ties to North America would absolutely offer an appealing middle ground and protect the people of Greenland itself.
Ultimately if we ignore Greenland it feels like we're leaving a crucial puzzle piece out.
These all seem like post-hoc rationales to me, because as far as I know (and I may be wrong) no one was talking about Greenland in this context until Trump brought it up.
If Greenland is that important, we already have all of the money if we wanted to buy it, and all of the tanks and planes and nuclear submarines if we didn't want to take no for an answer.
LOL, right? Somewhere between ‘affordable defense budget project’ and ‘sell your national debt to make it happen.’ Either way, the geopolitical value is worth more than the sticker price, and that’s the part people underestimate.
Yep, and it’s not as far-fetched as people think. The US tried it under Truman too. This isn't just a Trump brainwave. It’s been on the table before, and it’ll probably come up again as Arctic competition ramps up. The question isn’t 'if' the US stays involved in Greenland but how. Whether through diplomacy, economic partnerships, or something more official, Greenland’s future is tied to who secures influence there first.
Honestly, Greenland’s probably tired of feeling like a geopolitical football at this point. But as long as the Arctic’s up for grabs, expect it to stay on the radar.
For the cost of only $14 per American per year, we could pay everyone in Greenland $85k/yr for life. It’s $4.5/bln a year.
Greenland has already obtained some independence from Denmark and is looking for more. It’s unlikely they sell themselves to the USA directly but something that is effectively the same with a fig leaf on it could certainly happen.
And if actual world-scale conflict broke out, it would de facto be a US protectorate at best, and just another territorial acquisition at worst.
That $14 per American sounds like a deal, honestly. But the tricky part is less about the money and more about convincing the people of Greenland that closer ties to the US are better than sticking with Denmark.
Economic incentives only go so far—there’s a cultural and political dynamic at play. If Greenland leans towards more autonomy, stronger US ties as a protectorate might happen naturally without needing to 'buy' anything outright. If they drift away from Denmark, North America becomes the obvious landing zone.
I get why it feels like that, but Greenland’s strategic importance didn’t suddenly appear because Trump made headlines. The Arctic’s been heating up (literally and politically) for a while now. Russia’s been militarizing its Arctic coastline, and China’s trying to gain influence in the region through ‘research stations’ and resource deals. The US presence at Thule wasn’t just for fun... it’s part of a broader strategy that predates Trump by decades. Trump just made it louder (and weirder), but the underlying value of Greenland has been quietly escalating for years.
