You assume we don’t know what to do with our bad celebrities, but we do. For example, we once had a glut of Celine Dions. We no longer have that problem.
We’ll never forgive you for that one.
The post you quoted discussed countries as diverse as Iceland, with around 250k people, and Germany with around 70 (or is it 80?) million. So, frankly, the scale of the difference between those the countries dwarfs the scale of difference between the US and the likes of the UK, France and Germany.
So, basically, claiming things are so different due to scale is just ridiculous.
Oh also it isn’t quite so easy to emigrate to the US these days. In fact, it is quite closed off. People from my country are even officially inelegible for the green card lottery, as are people from many other countries.
You’re living in the past and your scale arguments make no sense.
Because Muslims have had it so ace in the US since September 11th.
You’re going to have to prove to me that Direct Democracy works on a country with more than 100m. So I’m going to have to do it. ‘Umm…cite?’
[quote]
Oh also it isn’t quite so easy to emigrate to the US these days. In fact, it is quite closed off. People from my country are even officially inelegible for the green card lottery, as are people from many other countries.
[quote]
That has relevance to what I said in what way?
Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You need to demonstrate that scale doesn’t matter in terms of direct democracy.
Actually it’s not that bad for Muslims in the US. They don’t live in grinding poverty like they do in France for instance. Being harassed at the airport is different from being locked in a ghetto with disproportionately high unemployment like they are in Europe.
Why? You’re the one randomly saying it won’t. I’m asking you why it wouldn’t and where this magic figure of 100m came from.
One of your claims as to what makes the US great isn’t particularly true these days. It used to be. It isn’t so much now.
Must be a different Europe to the one I live in.
Have you visited these places?
Are you aware that there are a great many well-to-do Muslims as well? I know, I’ve worked with them. I’ve studied with them at University. I meet them when I’m out.
Quite how it is different from the disproportionate amount of Blacks in the ghettos and “projects” of the US escapes me as well.
Vote for Canada here - it has all the benefits of the US (besides lacking a tropical area) and in addition is much more sparsely populated with much more pristine environment. *
Those are my qualifications in judging how the two countries differ - everyone needs to remember what is important to them is not someone else’s cup of tea. Someone mentioned Canada has no New York size cities. That is a good thing in my books!
*I’m antedotally qualified to judge this because I grew up in Canada but spent the last 9 years living in the US. I’ve also driven coast to coast in both countries and seen a lot of the geography and culture of each. Canada doesn’t have a Grand Canyon, but I find the Canadian Rockies much more jagged and striking than the US versions. Each country has it’s good points geographically and it would be impossible to subjectively judge which is more beautiful. But you can’t argue weather, and you can’t argue about how much pristine environment is left. You just have to choose which you like better.
Why are you avoiding the question? The 100m figure is to differentiate huge countries from tiny ones like Switzerland, and just generally big ones like Germany. There has been tons of ink spilled regarding information theory and how the flow of information breaks down the larger the organization it has to flow through. That seems pretty relevant to me when it regards direct democracy. Comparing a country the size of New Jersey culturally to the third largest nation in the world is rather silly. Does the EU work by direct democracy? Because by that metric the US and the EU are more analogous and Switzerland is analogous to a state.
Recent development that we haven’t seen what it’s future will be. A moratorium on immigration for half of a decade doesn’t tell us much of anything does it?
As for the comparison to black ghettoes with the Muslim ghettoes it’s a fair comparison, but the point was that American civil rights came late as compared to Europe, which isn’t really true. Anti-semitism is a serious problem in Europe, not so much in the US.
Man, you are so invested in this debate. So I’ll give you something. Even though I believe Canada is the best place to live in the world, no nation has benefited and stands to benefit the rest of the world like the US, by a country mile.
Happy?
I’m going to make an argument for Australia, even though I don’t believe it really is the best nation on Earth. But I reckon it’s up there.
*We are very well connected on the global stage. In the simplest terms we are geographically linked to Asia, historically linked to Europe and have military and scientific links to the US. In slightly less simple terms, we have trade and military ties to Asia to such a degree that few, if any, other Western nations can match.
*Geographically diverse? We got it all. Green, lucsious planes, a few mountains, large deserts, rainforests, wetlands, islands, beaches, dry areas and wet areas, hot areas and cold areas.
*Our economy is fueled by many things. Apart from tourism, we have great agricultural products, vast coal, natural gas, mineral and uranium reserves, and sophisticated R&D systems. The only thing we lack is manufacturing, but we are close enough to Asia for that not to matter too much.
*Geographically stable. We don’t have volcanoes. We have the occasional earthquake which is piss-all.5 on the Richter scale. It is an old land, fertile and established.
*We have unique, beautiful and occasionally delicious wildlife.
*Culturally diverse. In Sydney alone, the number of Asians living here is enormous. Many are 1st or 2nd generation migrants, some are from families dating back to the 1800s. Similarly with southern Europeans. There are strong Greek and Chinese influences to our cuisine, for example.
*We are good sportsmen, and women.
*One of the first nations to get women’s suffrage.
*We are a nation, and island, a continent.
*We have a strong culture of mateship. We help out our mates.
*where would we be without all of these?
Where do you go for down hill skiing?
Crocs and nine of the ten most deadliest snakes in the world
To the Snowy Mountains, mostly. There’s a bit of a clue in the name.
Yeah, I forgot to mention the snowy parts. Because I don’t care for them. But there is Thredbo for all things white and cold.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
AllWalker You forgot to mention a myriad of creatures which are either waiting to eat you or make life extremely unpleasant.
Y’know like snakes, spiders and such
Well, yes, but on the other hand the United States offers grizzly bears.
If your criterion is an environment with a minimum of fauna dangerous to humans, in my experience it’s hard to beat Ireland.
But these things are actually pretty marginal. Yes, Australia has more than its fair share of highly venomous snake species. On the other hand, due either to the generally retiring nature of these species or the superior good sense of Australians - take your pick - per capita death rates from snakebite in Australia are apparently lower than in the US. But in neither country is the risk of death from snakebite the biggest worry that you face, or the biggest factor that that might reasonably deter you from living there.
If you’re looking for a cause of death to deter you from living in Australia, malignant melanoma is your man - 62.7 deaths per million people per year, as compared with just 25.1 in the US. On the other hand, if you’re looking for a reason to stay out of the US, consider cardiac arrest - 60.6 deaths per million people per year, as opposed to just 5.9 in Australia.
(Figures from nationmaster.com, FWIW. Yes, the Australian death rate from cardiac arrest looks a bit sus to me, but maybe they all die of malignant melanoma before their heart disease progresses to that point.)
Heh Cardiac Arrest is a lifestyle thing, not about where you live. You don’t HAVE to eat that Big Mac. 
Skin cancer is a biproduct of beaches and farmland. Everything good has a flipside. Hence the difficulty in finding out which nation is “best”.
These points are both correct, although:
A: Lifestyle is influenced by culture – what you eat is heavily influenced by what your neighbours eat, what is sold in the groceries and restaurants, what the local cuisine is like, etc. People who move to the US do tend to move towards US death rates from lifestyle conditions, rather than the death rates of their countries of origin. (This is true whether the US death rates are better or worse than the corresponding rates in their countries of origin.)
B: Australian rates of melanoma are not just down to beaches and farmland. Other countries have beaches, and in many cases larger proportions of their population living in farming areas, and yet much lower rates of melanoma. Conversely there are countries which don’t leap to mind in respect of either farms or beaches, but which have high rates of melanoma, e.g. Norway.
Furthermore, there are genetic factors affecting susceptibility to cardiac disease and melanoma (and many other conditions), which obviously are personal to each of us and do not change when we relocate.
I mentioned melanoma and cardiac arrest merely to point out that things like the different rates of death from snakebite are trivial in comparison to different rates of death from other causes.
If threats to health overall are what concern you, then the “best country on earth” would be the one with the longest life expectancy. In that case go for Macau, according to nationmaster. (Australia comes in at number 7; the US is at number 47.) I’d have to say, though, that Macau would not be my personal choice for place I would most like to live.