ImplyingImplications

Any American moving to Canada would need to be trained in an in-demand job. In-demand jobs typically pay well, but jobs in Canada pay less than their equivalent job in America. The reason Canada attracts Indian engineers and not American engineers is because Indian engineers get paid less than Canadian engineers, but American engineers get paid more than Canadian ones. There's no economic incentive for American engineers to immigrate.

On top of the pay cut, Canada is also experiencing a housing, food, and healthcare crisis. Moving to Canada isn't the best option if an American is hoping to escape economic troubles. If their plan is to instead escape political troubles, I unfortunately don't think Canada is much better. Poilievre is a jerk and a bully but looks set to win as big as Trump did. Many provinces are also already firmly run by climate change denying, healthcare privatizing conservatives.

Also they'd have to learn celsius.

To be fair, Germany's terrible economy in the 1930s was a huge factor in electing the Nazi party. Hitler campaigned on "work and bread".

It's the same outcome either way. You don't have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! What changes?

People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you'll never use? What's the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You've decided there's some event that is so bad you'd end the world if it happened. I'm not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don't get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn't do that though.

They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won't be used!

No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn't even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It's just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

They're just regular people who get up and go to work every day and are trying to make a better life for their kids, and they feel like they have been told to just shut up when they have complained about the things that are hurting them in their own lives

This applies to everyone. It applies to the immigrants Trump wants to deport. It applies to the trans people Trump wants to deny care to. It applies to the people Trump wants to jail for being enemies within. Trump badmouths people trying to live their lives literally on a daily basis.

That TLS handshake went hard

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

As a Canadian, I think "Americans are crazy" followed by "Americans are crazy".

3 cups Beef broth, 1/2 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce, 6 sprigs of fresh parsley, 1 gallon of moonshine, 3 carrots.

I tried to keep the example simple since this is ELI5. If you take the number of electors a state has a divide it by the states population, you'll get its electors per capita.

28 electors for 19 million people equals 1.47 electors per million people for New York.

30 electors for 22 million people equals 1.36 electors per million people for Florida

Idaho gets 4 electors for 2 million people equals 2 electors per million.

Since it's the number of electors sent to Washington that decide who gets to be president, sending more electors per capita means a state has more influence on the outcome.

50% of Americans live in just 9 states. The other 50% live in the remaining 41 states. If the 9 states all voted one way, and the 41 other states voted the other, the popular vote would be 50/50, but the electoral college results would be a landslide victory for whoever won in 41 states.

The main reason someone becomes president while losing the popular vote is because they won the electors from a bunch of the smaller states. Smaller states are less populated and more rural. Rural people tend to vote conservative since they benefit less from progressive policies and prefer tradition. Conservatives therefore have an edge due to the electoral college. There were 4 presidents that won without the popular vote. All of them were Republican. Given there have only been 59 elections in American history, that's a 6.8% chance the loser of the popular vote wins.

BEGONE THOT

No way!