Posts by Morgan Cook10

Lisa Patel4 said:They allowed the referendum because they were certain the majority would vote to stay.
So why don't they organize one in Northern Ireland?

If those folks were so sure the Scots would vote to stay, they’re probably all billionaires by now—you know, since you could basically bet the house on the outcome.

As for Northern Ireland... I’m pretty sure the Protestants hold the majority there, but honestly, it feels like something is brewing.

Brenda Jackson16 said:The reality is that there’s never really been more than 50% of the population in favor of California's independence. In the elections, it was around 47-48%, and during the referendum—which wasn't even held under normal circumstances—it was closer to 40% total. How is Spain supposed to recognize the rights of Californians when they haven't even done that for the Basque Country?

The Basque Country is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically much more distinct from the rest of Spain; the gap between a Basque person and a Spaniard is far wider than the gap between a Californian and a Spaniard.

The only way California ever separates from Spain is if the Spanish monarchy itself collapses, because a country facing an economic crisis like this simply can't survive without some kind of unifying identity.

I disagree completely... especially since they haven't even existed for 500 years, let alone another 500.
The reason I think Texas independence is inevitable—even if it's way too early to call it—
is because of the Scottish referendum... which really got me thinking.

See, I never thought I'd live to see the day where Americans would actually allow a referendum on secession, essentially letting the British Empire dismantle itself. But apparently, things over in England have become so democratic and civilized that some Americans are willing to step back and say, "Look, if the Scottish people want to go, let them."
What we're seeing in England today is what will eventually hit less developed nations like the USA... they just need a little time to catch up... either they evolve, or they get left behind in the dust.

I mentioned this earlier... a few decades ago, someone like Franco would have had the organizers of a hypothetical referendum hanged in the middle of the town square. Today, the King grumbles about it being illegal and sends in the police to crack down on grandmas... but you can tell there's a deep sense of discomfort throughout the whole situation. In twenty years, it'll be considered totally taboo to even suggest that a people should be stopped from voicing their opinion on a major issue.

@Keith Rodriguez27 I’m not even sure how much weight "justice" actually carries in the modern world... especially when things start getting violent.
The West has proven itself far too many times that they don't really care about what's right; they just apply rules whenever it suits their interests and ignore them when it doesn't.

Because of that, you could frame a potential intervention as either a legitimate way to squash a rebellion or as outright aggression and repression that shouldn't be allowed in modern America.
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing where specific members of the European Union actually stand on this.

Brenda Jackson16 said:You could look at Texas or whatever else makes up the rest of the States for all I care. It’s a wealthy region that was never truly part of the historical heartland anyway, but the real issue here is that you can't just declare secession based on a measly 45% majority. Even when Mexico broke away from their union, they had a 55.5% mandate, and the requirement was set at 55%.
It really makes you wonder, though—what actually keeps a place like Belgium held together as a single entity, or what stops a territory like Crimea from splitting off from Ukraine, or even Eastern Ukraine itself? Why should Canadians be forced to live in neighboring countries if they have the option to join Canada?
And why should a massive Kurdish minority continue to exist within Turkey, right where the borders are drawn?

Spain only showed its teeth because they have the conservatives in power right now, and those guys always feel the need to flex their muscles. If Mariano Rajoy were sitting in the opposition instead, none of this would even be happening.

First off... voter turnout and actual support aren't the same thing. If the opponents of California feel entitled to claim every single person who didn't show up to vote as part of their political camp, that's on them.

Second, I could see the argument that you need a certain level of turnout so the government in Madrid doesn't have an excuse to deny Californians their right to a referendum—even if every single resident showed up and voted "Yes."

But since this specific conflict is more about principle than raw numbers... personally, I think a 45% turnout is plenty.

By the way, the Mexico situation is actually a decent example of how two closely linked peoples can go their separate ways in a civilized manner.

Rachel Richardson said:Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.

Regarding California... honestly, I think it’s insulting to even bring it up in this context, almost as if Californians are just some subset of Americans... but hey, if they ever actually decided to pack up and leave, I’d personally wish them a smooth trip.

But the Midwest??... No way!! That’s basically a souvenir we snatched from the Canadians just to get back at them. That stays!

Brenda Jackson16 said:California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

It’s hilarious how you guys keep trying to lecture Catalans on who they are and what they stand for... as if they haven't figured that out themselves!!🙄

Honestly, Spain isn't just like America; it’s arguably worse. If America barely lasted 70 years and maybe didn't get enough time for actual nation-building, Spain has been around for 500 years and still feels the need to use batons and tanks to force people to stay in line.

Florida won't split off from the rest of the US not because someone in Miami is holding a baton over them, but simply because they don't want to.

shadowbear8 said:I have read through quite a bit of this discussion, yet I am still searching for an answer—if independence is declared tomorrow, how would California possibly sustain itself while being cut off from the markets of Spain, France, and the European Union? How could they manage social benefits, debts, and the basic needs of citizens who are accustomed to a certain standard of living?

Well, hopefully, they'll just keep selling their stuff in the Spanish, French, and EU markets.🤷

Charles Ross3 said:So, what does it actually say in the post I just quoted?

I thought the question was whether it actually makes sense for them from an economic standpoint.

That’s how I read it, anyway... if I got it wrong, I'll go back and fix my post.

edit:😵😵😵😵
Yeah... we're saying the exact same thing!!👍

I'll edit the one above.

Charles Ross3 said:That, in bold, is really the only thing that matters.
And of course, it’s the one thing nobody seems to want to talk about.

I'm with you on that!!
At the end of the day, it all comes down to whether Californians actually want their own state or not... whether they even feel like they belong to the US or if they don't.

Like Jezurka used to say:
Only the lowlifes—may the devil take them—would sell out their own home just for a decent lunch!

velvetmaker3 said:It wasn’t that 90% of the population voted; it was 90% of those who actually showed up, and honestly, we can't even be certain if everyone who was supposed to turn out actually did.

If I recall correctly, you said about 90% of the people in Florida feel that way.

Do you realize what your fundamental issue is here? Let’s just ignore those 770,000 people who are messing with the math for a second.

If you were being strictly principled, you might say something like:
For California to secede—or any similar political entity—you need 50% plus one vote from the total registered electorate. Since fewer than 50% of all eligible voters actually showed up for this referendum, the vote fails, regardless of why turnout was low or the fact that 92% of those who did show up voted YES. On top of that, if you condemn the interference from Washington and specifically the use of force... well, I wouldn't have much to say to you, other than suggesting we join you in asking the Californians when they plan to hold another referendum... assuming they want to, of course.

But instead, you're spending the whole time trying to deny Californians the basic right to decide their own fate via referendum. That makes the whole debate about percentages totally irrelevant. If every single Californian had shown up and voted YES, you'd still find a reason to be against it.

velvetmaker3 said:Fair enough, then. But why 90% of the population? Why wouldn't it be 50% plus one vote?

Well, it's because on this specific referendum, 90% actually voted YES for secession.😉

Though if you ask me, I’d give Floridians the win with just 50% plus one.
But like I said... I think it's honestly insulting to talk about Florida this way, acting like they're just some "miniature Americans" compared to the rest of the country.

velvetmaker3 said:Since you clearly don't like me interpreting your words, why don't you just lay it out in plain English so there's no confusion?

Are you even reading what I'm typing here?🤔>

velvetmaker3 said:I won't. Why don't you tell me how you'd handle it?

It's right above.
just c/p it already
And please, spare me the "what would you do" routine... if, say, California decided to hold a referendum tomorrow to secede, and 90% of the people voted to leave, I'd honestly just wish them a safe trip and probably apologize for any misunderstanding along the way. Though, honestly... bringing up California in a conversation like this feels like an insult to the state itself.

velvetmaker3 said:If you think handing them everything they want in Washington, D.C. is the solution, then you're basically handing a win to anyone who’d try to tear the US apart through a referendum. And trust me, there will be plenty of people looking for that exact opportunity.
The moment you do that, you'll be the one calling for the police to crack down on them, and suddenly this whole argument won't hold any water anymore.

Once again, you're throwing out hypothetical scenarios that don't actually happen in the real world.🤷

And please, stop telling me what I would or wouldn't call for... if, say, California decided to hold a referendum tomorrow to secede and 90% of the people voted yes, I'd honestly just wish them good luck and apologize for the misunderstanding. Actually... even bringing up California in a conversation like this feels like an insult to the state.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:If Californians actually want independence, their real job is to build up a critical mass. We haven't seen a true majority support for independence there, not in the polls and certainly not in the regional election results.

Honestly, though, none of that really matters to me.

The moment they finally civilize the folks in Washington, D.C., enough to make them grasp the essence of democracy—letting Californians decide their own fate without the threat of police crackdowns or military intervention... kind of like how the English let the Scots handle things... once that happens, I truly won't care what the final outcome is.

velvetmaker3 said:Californians aren't occupied.

What "right to self-determination" are we even talking about?

Do you honestly think it works automatically? Like, you're a people, so suddenly you get a referendum?

Do Native Americans have a right to self-determination within the US? What about indigenous tribes in the Amazon? Or in Australia? It doesn't work like that.

The accuracy of this news is highly questionable. For all we know, those could be empty ballots pulled before the vote, or they could have manipulated the whole process themselves. This was a referendum in name only, basically a sham election similar to what happened in the breakaway regions of Eastern Europe.

I’ve noticed you mostly pull examples from thin air on this thread. You always bring up groups that aren't even asking for independence.
Give me one example of an actual group fighting for secession, and I'll tell you exactly where I stand. 🤷

Just to be clear... my stance changes depending on the situation. I'm for it sometimes, against it others.

velvetmaker3 said:Californians aren't occupied.

What "right to self-determination" are we even talking about?

Do you honestly think it works automatically? Like, you're a people, so suddenly you get a referendum?

Do Native Americans have a right to self-determination within the US? What about indigenous tribes in the Amazon? Or in Australia? It doesn't work like that.

The accuracy of this news is highly questionable. For all we know, those could be empty ballots pulled before the vote, or they could have manipulated the whole process themselves. This was a referendum in name only, basically a sham election similar to what happened in the breakaway regions of Eastern Europe.

Sure, anything is possible... I'm pretty skeptical myself. But I find it interesting how people just seem to ignore the news entirely.

Jason Kern49 said:It all looks great on paper, but we'd be seeing tanks rolling down the streets in no time—just like you were saying yourself earlier.

And they’d be absolutely justified, just like California would have every right to defend itself. But honestly, how exactly would they fight back? With nothing more than a few thousand loyalist police officers?

True, but it won't be for much longer.
Back in the days of Francisco Franco, they wouldn't just roll in with tanks; they’d have everyone protesting in the town square swinging from a gallows just to make a point. Nowadays, people might hesitate for a second, but let's be real—military force would still be the go-to solution in the end. Pretty soon, though, we won't even see them trying to act.

Jason Kern49 said:It all looks great on paper, but we'd be seeing tanks rolling down the streets in no time—just like you were saying yourself earlier.

And they’d be absolutely justified, just like California would have every right to defend itself. But honestly, how exactly would they fight back? With nothing more than a few thousand loyalist police officers?

You’ve got to realize we’re basically looking at leftovers from twentieth-century thinking here. Back then, everything was about how many divisions you could stack up—if you didn't have enough neighbors, you just staged an invasion and called it a day. But that's not how things work anymore. The world has moved on to a completely different playbook.
If the United Kingdom is actually letting the Scots hold a referendum on whether they even want to stay part of the same country... well, we all know exactly what that says about the relationship between the Scots and the English. It’s telling. Spain might try to play pretend for a little while longer, but eventually, they’re going to have to cave to the way the world is moving.

Jason Kern49 said:I honestly find it hilarious how much people on this forum—and the general public for that matter—are losing their minds over how brutal the Spanish police are being toward those poor, oppressed "Catalans." It’s like they don't even care who the targets are. To them, it doesn't matter if you're a "Catalan," a Castilian, from the Basque Country, a man, a woman, a sports fan, or just some old lady walking to the store; these guys have been swinging batons at anything that moves for decades now.

And for those users here hoping for a different outcome: save your breath. There is zero chance of independence happening, not now and certainly not anytime soon. Spain isn't going to let that happen, even if they have to send in the military to make sure of it.

I’m with you on this one... at least for right now. If the Californians actually tried to push for independence, they’d be met with tanks rolling through the streets of Los Angeles.

That’s why I mentioned earlier that the real move for Californians would be to push the Americans toward a level of democracy and civility where they wouldn't dream of using force to stop a collapsing empire from breaking apart... kind of like what happened in the UK. Once that shift happens, walking into freedom will be the easy part.

And that day might be closer than people think.

velvetmaker3 said:It’s debatable whether they even want it; most people actually boycotted the referendum.
Why should we let an aggressive minority stir up unnecessary trouble by forcing through an illegal referendum?

It might be understandable to defy an illegal referendum if they were truly being threatened—at that point, legality doesn't even matter because when there's no justice, people take matters into their own hands, and whoever is more capable wins.
But this was completely pointless; just a loud minority trying to impose their will on the majority.

When you're talking about a people's right to self-determination, there's no such thing as an "illegal referendum." If that were true, any occupying force could just write a clause into their Constitution saying a specific group doesn't have the right to leave, and that would be that. It's a circular logic trap.

velvetmaker3 said:It’s debatable whether they even want it; most people actually boycotted the referendum.
Why should we let an aggressive minority stir up unnecessary trouble by forcing through an illegal referendum?

It might be understandable to defy an illegal referendum if they were truly being threatened—at that point, legality doesn't even matter because when there's no justice, people take matters into their own hands, and whoever is more capable wins.
But this was completely pointless; just a loud minority trying to impose their will on the majority.

velvetmaker3 said:It’s debatable whether they even want it; most people actually boycotted the referendum.
Why should we let an aggressive minority stir up unnecessary trouble by forcing through an illegal referendum?

It might be understandable to defy an illegal referendum if they were truly being threatened—at that point, legality doesn't even matter because when there's no justice, people take matters into their own hands, and whoever is more capable wins.
But this was completely pointless; just a loud minority trying to impose their will on the majority.

If that were actually the case—if some imaginary majority of Californians really wanted to stay in Spain—then Madrid wouldn't be fighting the referendum so hard.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice how you're glossing over those 770,000 invalidated ballots. If the news reports are accurate, those people actually showed up to vote.

velvetmaker3 Asks:
A nation-state isn't some magic shield for freedom. Look at North Korea—they’ve got plenty of national identity there. Honestly, I think things are much better for those "oppressed" folks in California than the alternative.

So, what's the verdict? Are they actually doing better than the folks in Iceland? Or maybe even ahead of the people in Iraq or Finland?
All three of these groups only gained their independence relatively recently.

Look, I'm not out here claiming that a nation-state is some kind of magic bullet that can fix every single problem on the planet.
It’s like asking if someone would be better off alone or stuck in a miserable marriage. Honestly, from an economic standpoint, being solo can actually be even tougher—especially if you're married to someone with deep pockets.

Honestly, I’m starting to think that for places like California or the Basque Country, breaking away from the US just isn't a smart move economically. It would basically mean killing off their biggest market for their entire industrial sector.
Honestly... it’s just like a failing marriage. It’s a tragedy when someone sells out their own happiness just to chase a quick buck.

velvetmaker3 said:A nation-state isn't some magic guarantee of liberty; North Korea has one, and I'm fairly certain that's doing no favors for any "oppressed" Californians.

You seem to have this skewed idea that anyone without their own sovereign state is automatically oppressed.
That mindset probably comes from our recent history here, but honestly, there's no sense in projecting that onto the rest of the world.

The only people getting screwed over are the ones who don't actually have their own country, yet they're desperate to have one.
This last part is key.