Posts by Brenda Murphy3

velvetmaker3 said:That’s why when I say every situation is unique, everyone jumps in with, "But a referendum represents the democratic will of the people." Then I ask, okay, what happens to that democratic will if someone organizes a referendum on American soil? And then you just say, "Well, this is different."

I’m arguing that a referendum isn't an argument in and of itself, but you insist it is. And if it is, then someone could just as easily hold a referendum in America regarding the country's territorial integrity.
Are you going to claim a referendum is always fine, or will you say it can't happen here because "this situation is different"?

Referendums are a double-edged sword; anyone justifying the California referendum needs to grasp that.

It isn't in our interest for the idea that a referendum is sufficient to become standard practice, because it could easily blow up in our faces.

But I'm not claiming that, nor have I ever claimed it... and frankly, I don't think many others are either.
All I'm saying is that California has certain grounds to at least request or consider independence—that's pretty much the extent of my argument. Their whole situation and the background behind it bears zero resemblance to any specific regions or territories here in the US.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why is that wrong? Just because you say so?

Can you please explain to me why anyone would drop 80k bucks on an apartment in Washington, D.C. when they could pick up the exact same place in Trieste for 50k?

If someone's buying a rental property, they'd get way better returns in Trieste, plus they can actually count on the rent being paid on time.

Sorry, but when you look at the price-to-rent ratio and the reliability of tenants, only a total idiot would buy a place in Washington, D.C.

it’s because of a simple reason—90% of kids from California head to Washington, D.C. for college instead of moving to Italy...
but seriously, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with California (not to mention how you totally ignored everything else in the post just to go on a tangent about real estate...)

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, I let you have the last word there because I don't have the bandwidth to argue every single point... that's just how I roll on these forums. But if you really want to press me...

If you want my actual take... yeah, the California plan is to join the EU. It's highly likely the folks in D.C. will do everything in their power to block them, and honestly, the whole thing might just fall apart. That could lead to some economic headaches, similar to what the Swiss, Icelanders, or Norwegians deal with being outside the union, or what the Brits are facing post-Brexit. Whether they can offset those losses by creating a massive amount of local jobs—instead of outsourcing everything to people in D.C.—is a complicated equation.

But at the end of the day... when you're talking about a people's freedom, economics usually takes a backseat and becomes an excuse. That's why it's perfectly normal for Californians not to lose sleep over the math. They'll figure it out... just like everyone else has managed to do.

Come on, walk me through that logic again... because it makes zero sense to me...

Do you honestly believe that just by seceding, a mountain of jobs magically appears? Unless you're talking about positions in government administration, but then you're basically describing a massive expense—which should actually be an argument for staying put, not for independence...

Kevin Cruz86 said:The independence-leaning parties hold a razor-thin majority in the California state legislature, and their grip on power relies entirely on a tiny, anarchist, anti-capitalist party called CLU, which is the main group pushing the secessionist agenda.

Look, my point was just pointing out that there isn't some massive, unified consensus or agreement within California regarding independence (honestly, it’s debatable if there’s even a supermajority right now, though given the revolt over what happened a few days ago, they probably have one). That’s all I meant...

In Scotland, for example, so much of the campaign—even before things really kicked off—revolved around the economy and the actual, tangible consequences (both good and bad) of breaking away. But here? It feels like those real-world economic factors are almost entirely ignored... which is honestly pretty reckless.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

Look, I never actually claimed that "one nation must have one state," nor do I even believe that.
But let's be real: without that nationalistic—or whatever you want to call it, "emotional"—spark, you've got nothing. You wouldn't even have the desire or the vision for independence in the first place.
The people who actually possess that emotional drive will almost always push for some version of autonomy (the rich because they want to stay rich, and the poor because they'll blame their poverty on a lack of independence...).
Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio or Florida might demand more autonomy or something similar (and hey, they'd have a right to), but that is a massive, massive leap away from demanding full-blown sovereignty... you guys are all seriously overestimating the situation.

velvetmaker3 said:You’re taking that stance, but the real question is whether the US government would actually let it happen. Personally, I'm convinced they'd use force to keep the country whole.
I also think that a lot of people arguing for California's secession say they’d happily let places like Texas or wherever go if they wanted to leave, but once things actually get real, most of them would change their tune.
That kind of generosity is really just an academic exercise.

Every few days I find myself circling back to this topic, and honestly, it’s just the same old (non)arguments on loop here.

Look, you’ve got plenty of points right—especially regarding how national identity or sentiment, at least how we imagine it, basically didn't exist during the Middle Ages—but I don't get why you keep trying to draw these parallels with different US "regions." They aren't regions in the way California is, and they aren't even remotely comparable. It's just unnecessary.
As for Florida—your theory, or any theory about secession, would only make sense if Floridians suddenly started feeling like a completely separate nation instead of Americans... and we are miles and miles away from that happening. I don't see it ever occurring.
The internal situation in the US is just so, so different from what's going on in Spain. It's weird to me that you've been calling people out for projecting our 90s era onto this case, yet here you are constantly drawing comparisons to the US situation that just don't hold water and aren't even similar.

velvetmaker3 said:A distinct people living within the state of California.

Alright, fine, let's just go with that logic if you want. But honestly, using that same reasoning to compare everything to how different states function in America is a total stretch... and for some reason, you just keep doing it over and over again.

David Vaughn75 said:So, if the war started *because* of the crimes, that basically means there was no war before the crimes happened.

Wait, what exactly did I get wrong here?

The moment that first barricade fell—that’s where the crime happens and where the war actually kicks off (but let's not derail this specific thread with that right now...)

Justin James10 said:The issue isn't about claiming Castile; it's about claiming all of Spain.

Well, sure, the government handled things poorly and ended up feeding exactly what the independence supporters wanted. Though, let's be honest, those independence advocates are a pretty wild bunch themselves, wouldn't you agree? 🙄

Nah, they aren't—it's more that we're way too "poisoned" by our own history in the US and we just can't seem to shake that perspective. It’s not as straightforward as what happened here; it's much closer to a situation in Scotland where people are genuinely torn about what the better endgame actually looks like (though obviously, that depends on your personal values and what you think actually matters). Rational people try to be rational, and even with a perfectly normal campaign, making a call like the one in California isn't easy.

David Vaughn75 said:It's not like the Mexicans didn't commit massive crimes before the war even kicked off or before independence was even declared.

What are you even talking about?

The whole damn war started because of those crimes... if they hadn't happened, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. Look, I know this isn't really the right place for this kind of thing, but some of you guys are just talking absolute nonsense... stop trying to draw parallels to the so-called Appalachia—there is zero similarity there, none at all. Honestly, the moderators really ought to be cracking down on these comparisons (not saying you need a ban, obviously, but these analogies you're dragging in are completely off base..

Richard Wilson4 said:Seriously, this is like the fifth or sixth post just like this one since yesterday. 😉

And how many votes do the supporters of a unified Spain get in those same elections? ☕

Look, I don't know their exact numbers, but honestly, that misses the entire point of what I'm trying to drive home here. There is absolutely no universal consensus or total agreement on independence within California—contrary to what some people in this thread seem to think. It's probably a 50-50 split at best. If I had to guess after everything that's gone down, maybe a little over 50% are pro-independence now, but we're talking about a razor-thin majority, not some massive, unified movement like you see in Rhode Island. Personally, I'm not even against the idea of independence, but we really need to start looking at this through a lens of reality instead of fantasy.

Justin James10 said:But how on earth are you supposed to organize a referendum when Spain is actively suppressing it through sheer force?

Elections are an entirely different beast; I mean, North Korea boasts 100% voter turnout, doesn't it? ☕

Honestly, you’re missing the point here. Do you even realize what the voter turnout was back in America during the era when we were deciding on independence? (Since you love bringing up those old American milestones so much.)

Or think about it this way: can you actually imagine a scenario in America where the parties pushing for independence couldn't even scrape together 50% of the vote? Because that is exactly what's playing out in California. It doesn't mean a referendum wouldn't pass eventually, but it's nothing like the situation we had in America, where everyone was pretty much on the same page regarding that issue.
In a setup like this, elections aren't "just" elections...

Richard Wilson4 said:So how are we supposed to figure out how many people actually got blocked from voting?

There’s no way to know. You’d need to hold an actual, legitimate referendum to get those numbers.
Even if you look at the claim that all the pro-independence parties combined didn't even hit the 50% mark—which isn't some smoking gun proof of anything, let's be real, but it definitely points to some deeper issues...

Justin James10 said:Dejan Jović makes a similar argument regarding the American referendum, 😉 and honestly, isn't the similarity between those opposing the California referendum and those opposing the American one just absolutely striking?

Look, nobody is actually saying they're "against" the referendum, for crying out loud... you're constantly projecting these arguments onto people that nobody even voiced or wrote down.
We're just having a conversation here, trying to ground this stuff in reality, while you're off daydreaming about militias in Spain and completely ignoring the actual facts on the table.

Justin James10 said:You should save that kind of disrespect for your own parents, especially since they clearly raised you better than that! 🙄

As for the referendum supporters? The police beat them down so brutally—there they are.

So what exactly did I say that rubbed you the wrong way?

You’re basically out here advocating for the violent or military separation of California and acting like there isn't any other way to handle it (which is just plain nonsense—I don't know what else to call it besides pure stupidity...).
Look, I'm not even against independence itself; I think Californians have every right to demand it (unlike certain other groups), but your comments are completely detached from reality. You seem to have this total misconception that there's some kind of unified consensus for independence in California, when that's just not the case at all...

Justin James10 said:Honestly, this whole argument falls apart because it's based on mere guesswork. All these supposed heavyweights opposing independence are nowhere to be seen; people just talk about them. At this rate, maybe they'll start asking to join Mongolia for all we know! 🙄

The Californians are going to have to organize their own kind of National Guard, because let's face it: fighting against the Spanish unionists and the fifth column won't happen without some real sacrifices. ☕

Come on, get a grip on reality here...

First off—that last sentence of yours is absolute nonsense and has zero connection to what's actually happening. Your little fantasy scenario is honestly just pathetic.

By that same flawed logic, I could easily say—oh, where are all those big-shot independence advocates then? They're having the most important referendum of their lives and not even 50% of them show up to vote! I hope you can wrap your head around how broken your reasoning is. Honestly, my point is way more grounded if you really want to go down this rabbit hole...

Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

Seriously, can we please just stop bringing up the Frontier? It’s getting old. From a historical standpoint, geographically, or honestly, by any damn metric you can think of, there is absolutely no way to compare that place to California. It's just not even in the same league.

Taylor Walker9 said:I used to trust the polls that claimed those wanting to leave the US were just a small minority. But after seeing them unleash rabid dogs to pull women by their hair and aggressively lunging at people just lying down, I'm done betting against the numbers. I'm starting to think the US intelligence community knows exactly what I've realized: that percentage is actually north of 50%.

Well, maybe that’s true, but if you want to fight for independence in a situation like California's, you need way more social cohesion and massive support—not just some measly 50% maybe. We can sit here and debate whether that’s right or wrong all day, but that's just the reality of the situation.
If there was basically a consensus in California—like, at least 70%—then no force on Earth could stop them.

Justin James10 said:A referendum is essentially the ultimate poll, isn't it? ☕

That’s true, but not like this.
And honestly, even this referendum wouldn't hold water in most other places because (unless I'm tripping) the turnout didn't even hit 50%. Not that it even matters here—I have zero clue what the specific rules are in California or under Spanish law.

Justin James10 said:But what are the actual facts here? Where is the data to back that up?

These supposedly massive groups of people standing against independence in California seem to have vanished into thin air, almost like they're part of UFO sightings!

If we're being honest, most of them are just transplants from Andalusia and other regions—a crowd very similar to those folks living on the Frontier.

Look, there's a mountain of public opinion research from the last few years.
I'm not saying a referendum wouldn't pass, but it's definitely not a slam dunk, and in previous years, the odds were even lower.

Honestly, with everything going on right now, it's almost impossible to pin down a sensible number, but what was the actual turnout this time? It was definitely way under 50%, though like I said—it's hard to make any smart call given the chaos.