How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

[billay 163]

300 more years 

[CPE 97]

21 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Sure.  And that’s almost exactly what the author says in the second video of the series I linked below.

Youre justifying why they are working to reassert themselves as a superpower.  That’s fine. But the fact remains that they are working to reassert themselves as a superpower.

Maybe let me put it this way : at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a presence across Latin America and the Caribbean ie. Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.  These days, outside of maybe Venezuala, where they support Maduro, Russia really is not too involved in the region.  From what I see, they are content to confine their sandbox to Europe and the Middle East as regions where they are actively involved.  Compare that with China, where there is a global presence across Europe, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, etc., and Russia is clearly not on the same level.  I do not believe that they have any intentions of competing on that level either, given the fact that they really cannot afford to sustain a global presence compared to the one China has put forth in recent decades. 

[CPE 97]

20 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think another good question would be this: Which countries will cease to exist in 300 years?

1. United States

2. Russia

3. China

4. India

5. United Kingdom

6. Germany

7. Saudi Arabia

8. Israel

9. Japan

10. France

11. Sweden

12. Canada

13. Mexico

14. Brazil

15. Iran

Out of the list that you have provided, I think that the US & Canada have the highest chances of not existing in the short term.  They both are going to continue experiencing sharp cultural divides in the short term, and regionalism has taken root in Canada through Wexit in recent times, but also Quebec separatism (which is not as strong lately compared to historical benchmarks). 

The demographics of Germany, France, and Sweden will be a lot different than they are today.  Possibly the UK as well, depending on what happens in the coming decades.

Most other nations are pretty culturally homogeneous, so barring major warfare, they should be alright.

[vcczar 1,224]

38 minutes ago, CPE said:

Out of the list that you have provided, I think that the US & Canada have the highest chances of not existing in the short term.  They both are going to continue experiencing sharp cultural divides in the short term, and regionalism has taken root in Canada through Wexit in recent times, but also Quebec separatism (which is not as strong lately compared to historical benchmarks). 

The demographics of Germany, France, and Sweden will be a lot different than they are today.  Possibly the UK as well, depending on what happens in the coming decades.

Most other nations are pretty culturally homogeneous, so barring major warfare, they should be alright.

Sadly, we hear almost nothing about any tensions in Canada. I've never heard of Wexit, for instance. 

[CPE 97]

24 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Sadly, we hear almost nothing about any tensions in Canada. I've never heard of Wexit, for instance. 

That's understandable given how intensely focused most media outlets are on US issues nowadays.  When it comes to Wexit, basically the Liberal party can form government in Canada by basically carrying enough seats in Ontario, the Maritimes, Montreal, and the coastal parts of BC.  They have no real need to care for the rest of the country ie. Alberta, Saskatchewan, interior BC.

Politically the liberal/conservative divide is typically drawn along the lines of interior BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan + most of Manitoba (outside of Winnipeg) being staunch conservative areas, while the rest of the country is much more liberalized.  It is something of a cultural divide that has become starker after the price of oil tanked in recent years.  In Canada, there are what is called "equalization payments" between the provinces to help poorer provinces still have access to a high quality of life even if their economies are rather slow.  Before the price of oil collapses, Alberta used to contribute heavily to paying other province's bills through these equalization payments.  Following the hurt the has been imposed on the oil industry in recent times, Alberta is really not in a position to do as much as it used to.  On top of that, the oil industry allows for another point of contention through the carbon tax.  Alberta views it as an attempt from the east to further destroy whatever economy the province has left in such perilous economic times.  Ontario/Quebec (who are heavy proponents for measures supportive of green energy) are not as affected by it compared to Alberta (where the economy is still heavily dependent on the oil industry).

I think it is very much possible for a new nation to come out of Canada in the short term future.  It could possibly be drawn along the lines of interior BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, which would give it some pretty strong natural resources.  Granted, it would be landlocked between the US and Canada, but it certainly could take off if the conditions are optimal.  Would Ottawa let those provinces leave if they truly wanted to, that is another question I honestly do not have the answer to.

[Patine 467]

39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Sadly, we hear almost nothing about any tensions in Canada. I've never heard of Wexit, for instance. 

A member of the Weixt Party - and former candidate for the Alberta Independence Party in the 2019 election - lives right across the street from me.

[vcczar 1,224]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

A member of the Weixt Party - and former candidate for the Alberta Independence Party in the 2019 election - lives right across the street from me.

What do you think of Wexit?

[Patine 467]

7 minutes ago, CPE said:

That's understandable given how intensely focused most media outlets are on US issues nowadays.  When it comes to Wexit, basically the Liberal party can form government in Canada by basically carrying enough seats in Ontario, the Maritimes, Montreal, and the coastal parts of BC.  They have no real need to care for the rest of the country ie. Alberta, Saskatchewan, interior BC.

Politically the liberal/conservative divide is typically drawn along the lines of interior BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan + most of Manitoba (outside of Winnipeg) being staunch conservative areas, while the rest of the country is much more liberalized.  It is something of a cultural divide that has become starker after the price of oil tanked in recent years.  In Canada, there are what is called "equalization payments" between the provinces to help poorer provinces still have access to a high quality of life even if their economies are rather slow.  Before the price of oil collapses, Alberta used to contribute heavily to paying other province's bills through these equalization payments.  Following the hurt the has been imposed on the oil industry in recent times, Alberta is really not in a position to do as much as it used to.  On top of that, the oil industry allows for another point of contention through the carbon tax.  Alberta views it as an attempt from the east to further destroy whatever economy the province has left in such perilous economic times.  Ontario/Quebec (who are heavy proponents for measures supportive of green energy) are not as affected by it compared to Alberta (where the economy is still heavily dependent on the oil industry).

I think it is very much possible for a new nation to come out of Canada in the short term future.  It could possibly be drawn along the lines of interior BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, which would give it some pretty strong natural resources.  Granted, it would be landlocked between the US and Canada, but it certainly could take off if the conditions are optimal.  Would Ottawa let those provinces leave if they truly wanted to, that is another question I honestly do not have the answer to.

There's one thing I would out in your description, is that you mentioned all the NDP strongholds as just lumped into "liberalized," areas, and didn't mention the NDP as a separate party. This seems to show a two-party viewpoint bias, which is not just a U.S. problem and flaw, but I'm well aware most Anglo-Caribbean countries languish with nigh unchallengeable Duopolies as well.

[Patine 467]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

What do you think of Wexit?

A scary thought. The same as you might view Texas Separatists if they were really gaining steaming and you still lived in the Austin Area. That's put it that way.

[Patine 467]

1 hour ago, CPE said:

Most other nations are pretty culturally homogeneous, so barring major warfare, they should be alright.

Yeah, the great, mostly culturally homogenous, internally harmonious nation of India. :S

[CPE 97]

33 minutes ago, Patine said:

There's one thing I would out in your description, is that you mentioned all the NDP strongholds as just lumped into "liberalized," areas, and didn't mention the NDP as a separate party. This seems to show a two-party viewpoint bias, which is not just a U.S. problem and flaw, but I'm well aware most Anglo-Caribbean countries languish with nigh unchallengeable Duopolies as well.

Of course the NDP is more social democratic than neoliberal, but I would lump them as being closer to the Liberal Party than the CPC, for instance.  Culturally, they definitely are more likely to be on the left side of the political spectrum.  Was thinking more in broad terms when I said that.

 

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yeah, the great, mostly culturally homogenous, internally harmonious nation of India. :S

Point granted, but from what I understand, the Muslim population is more a PITA for the Hindus compared to them actually threatening to secede/destroy the nation.  If India ceases to exist as a nation, it is more than likely it is due to a nuclear war with Pakistan (or possible confrontation with China).

[Patine 467]

Just now, CPE said:

Of course the NDP is more social democratic than neoliberal, but I would lump them as being closer to the Liberal Party than the CPC, for instance.  Culturally, they definitely are more likely to be on the left side of the political spectrum.  Was thinking more in broad terms when I said that.

 

Point granted, but from what I understand, the Muslim population is more a PITA for the Hindus compared to them actually threatening to secede/destroy the nation.  If India ceases to exist as a nation, it is more than likely it is due to a nuclear war with Pakistan (or possible confrontation with China).

Hinduism is not a culture or ethnicity - it's a religion, just one that has strongly impacted many cultures, like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, and it's misleading to think of Hinduism as a "culture or ethnicity," whatever Modi may be pushing. India has a long history of violence, misgivings, divisive ideas, socio-political schisms, and, of course, the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, between the Indo-Aryan language speaking Northern ethnicities and the Dravidian speaking Southern ethnicities, both of which are strongly majority Hindu. Also, the Sikh Khalistan movement is, though only perennially known to flare up, a major issue when is does. And language and culture issues of each given State compared to Federal initiatives for unity are also causing stress. Hardcore Bollywood fans want to watch their favourite films in Maratha, not Hindi. So, saying it's as simple as "Hindus vs. Muslims," is not all nearly accurate.