Posts by Brenda Murphy3

Justin James10 said:Well, how are we supposed to gauge how many people actually want this when the police are out there cracking heads? 🤷

And what about those who don't want anything to do with it? Those who stay home and refuse to vote like the Scots? 🤷

Besides, what does Milorad Dodik have to do with any of this? 🤷

It’s honestly delusional to expect anyone opposing independence to even show up for a referendum like this... I mean, the vast majority aren't going to bother.

It would be a completely different story if they called a legitimate referendum—one actually approved by all sides, like they do in the United Kingdom—so we could see the real numbers. Up until this point, the reality was that independence wouldn't pass, but after everything that's gone down, now the real question begins...

bluerider63 said:Look, from where we're sitting, there's no way to tell if Catalans are actually being oppressed or what. Honestly, looking back at how things went in the late 80s, you had Canadians, Americans, and Canadians who weren't exactly being crushed by the system either, yet they were all still itching to break away from America anyway.

Actually, we totally can...

You shouldn't even be making that comparison—what happened here was a total overhaul of the entire social structure (which was repressive in a ton of ways, let's be real)... so looking at it through that lens is just completely wrong.

velvetmaker3 said:Opinion is always a moving target. Just because some Catalans feel a certain way doesn't mean an entire state should just fall apart. You need a critical mass, and that would only exist if they were actually being oppressed.
It's honestly wild to hear people talking about Catalans being oppressed.

Nobody is actually bowing to kings anymore; they don't have the power they used to. They're basically just there for show.

Look, I disagree with a lot of what you're laying out (mostly because your logic just doesn't hold water), but you've got a point right here.

You seriously cannot claim Californians are being "oppressed"—it's the same nonsense people try to pull regarding Scots or Welshmen too.

Also, even though plenty of people here love to ignore it, if you look at pretty much any poll leading up to this referendum, there wasn't even a 50% majority of Californians pushing for independence. It's nowhere near a unified movement, which is a huge distinction to make, especially when people try to draw parallels to our own situation.

Of course, once this "referendum" happened and the federal government reacted the way it did—well, everything changes. Honestly, the way the central government handled this was totally baffling to me... it’s like they intentionally backed them into a corner just to spark a revolt (which, frankly, is totally justified...).

Where we diverge is your claim that California has zero right to independence. That's just wrong. Even if there were a massive critical mass—say 70% wanted it, which might actually happen after all this chaos—they’d still have a legitimate claim to autonomy. Period.

Expecting the US to take a hardline stance on this is just misguided and, frankly, pretty stupid...

(And as for those people trying to compare this to the Frontier or Republika Srpska? It just shows how little they actually understand or that they're complete idiots...)

velvetmaker3 said:If you don't actually know why you're even commenting, maybe just don't?

But I'll lay it out for you. The SRH was defined as a state. Catalonia isn't—it's an autonomous community, which is a much lower level of administrative organization. It's more like a single county than an actual state.

Wrong.

Catalonia actually holds just as much administrative power—and in several areas, way more—than the US ever did.

(And by the way, regardless of whatever nonsense you try to spin about ethnicity, it still matters...).

Your logic is completely broken and just plain wrong... no matter how much you try to trivialize the whole thing or pivot to these pathetic, bottom-of-the-barrel arguments.

velvetmaker3 said:The status of Scotland and California is completely incomparable. And then you have the nerve to tell me that *I* don't know what I'm talking about.🤦

In what way exactly are they incomparable?

velvetmaker3 said:Some people see America everywhere.🤦

Neither the Crown of Aragon nor even modern-day Spain fell apart after just a few decades.

It’s not that everyone sees the old USA in everything; there are just specific parallels between how the USA was structured and how Spain functioned, especially regarding how those individual states were organized within the whole system (though, honestly, comparing them is a bit of a stretch given the totally different historical baggage and how political systems actually shift over time).

velvetmaker3 said:What is California's status? A Republic? A State?

It’s basically what people would call an autonomous region or a republic—kind of like how certain states functioned back in the old days under America, but with way more wiggle room than a standard US state. You could probably compare it to something like Scotland...

And honestly, if you don't even know the basics, why are you even posting in this thread? You just keep trying to draw comparisons to things that aren't even remotely similar... I seriously don't get it.

velvetmaker3 said:The county government here has all the official administrative markers you'd need—it's a solid enough starting point if anyone actually wanted to make a move. At the end of the day, ethnicity doesn't mean a damn thing; what matters is whether the people living within those specific borders actually want change. Isn't that basically what you're preaching anyway?

Alright, wow—how far are you willing to go with this ridiculousness and this total watering down of the issue? There aren't even any real "administrative markers" to speak of when you compare them to California and its actual legal standing...

I honestly don't get why it’s so hard for you to just admit and accept some plain, obvious facts... even if you do accept them, it doesn't suddenly turn you into some hardcore supporter of California independence (I'm not, by the way, but I'm not against it either). It just means you're finally dealing with some undeniable, well-known realities... that's literally it.

velvetmaker3 said:It’s not like Californians have always had all that. They haven't always been considered a distinct people either.
Does that make more sense now?

Oh man, what a brilliant argument... basically saying every single nation on Earth didn't exist at some point or wasn't "always" there...

So, hey, give me about 300 years—if the folks in Ohio manage to build up a sense of nationality and a unique ethnicity, maybe then we can actually have a conversation.

Honestly, I don't think you get half of this... and it’s pretty damn obvious..

(Or are we really going to sit here and debate the ethnogenesis of every specific group now??)

velvetmaker3 said:Grounds for what, though? Spanish laws? Laws of physics? Universal constants?

You could basically claim anyone has a right to demand anything if you say it that loosely.

You're granting that right to California, but I can tell you wouldn't extend that same logic to most other places.

What's the metric there? Just whatever happens to fit your own personal preference?

Look, Californians are a distinct people—they have a specific territory, their own legislature, their own governor, their own police force, their own language... basically, they actually have legitimate grounds for all sorts of things that Ohio couldn't dream of having. Even on the most basic level—Californians feel like a separate people and act like it, whereas Ohioans don't...

There, that's just the bare minimum to get us started. Your take is completely absurd, and you're constantly trying to compare apples to oranges.

velvetmaker3 said:That’s just what you think. You're basically defending an illegal referendum just because some people over there are desperate for one.
I'm trying to point out how ridiculous your logic actually is.

A single vote isn't enough to settle this.

Just go back and read the last paragraph of my post one more time...

California actually has a legitimate basis for making those demands... it's honestly weird that you don't get that.

velvetmaker3 said:The criterion is the will of the people who actually show up to vote, isn't it?

I guess you'd challenge one person's results but not someone else's.

Every situation is unique, of course, but those people trying to draw parallels between the US and California should probably be the first ones to take that into account.

But if the standard is democratic will, then every referendum is legitimate. By that logic, a vote in Ohio or Florida would be just as valid; they should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want independence or not. If they wanted to establish their own separate state—which would just be another American state—and they expressed that through a referendum, you wouldn't make an issue out of it, would you?
You'd probably just say it's the democratic will of those people and they have the right to decide their own future, right?

No, the will of the people isn't the only thing that matters, though you're kind of onto something there... the issue is that people in Ohio aren't a distinct nation, whereas Catalans are a nation and currently part of Spain. Spaniards exist in the same way that former American used to (not that that matters right now), but even if you look at it through your lens—which is honestly pretty basic—you still can't compare an actual nation to folks from Ohio... it's just nonsense.

velvetmaker3 said:

I guess I don't really have much to say about this. Maybe there isn't much to say. velvetmaker3 says:
I'm telling you, it's just not possible.

California has every right to demand some kind of referendum, and trying to deny that or compare it to something like Iowa is just plain wrong. It shows you either don't understand the situation or you're intentionally pretending you don't.

Why couldn't it just be anyone?
Isn't the most important thing just the will of the people actually affected by the referendum?

Or maybe not?

If that referendum in California can be challenged, then fine—but if it can't, then nobody else's can be either.

So?

How can you even ask "why"?

Look, if you can't see the massive historical, constitutional, administrative—hell, any kind of difference—between something like Scotland or California and a tiny little place like Ohio, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to comment on this thread. And I’m not saying that to be a jerk... I mean it. Why are you even here?

But yeah, fine—any referendum can be legally contested. You've got me there, obviously.

velvetmaker3 said:The reaction from Madrid is wrong, sure, but it's also wrong to try and force a referendum by banging your head against a wall when Californians aren't even under threat; they're living better than they ever have in their history.
If they were truly in danger, I wouldn't say anything, but they aren't. They're just playing the victim because of some short-term, one-off police action. God forbid they have to deal with life under Madrid's rule.

Look, you gotta realize that isn't even the main point here... I don't get why you keep bringing it up. Sure, it might be an extra motivator, but it's definitely not the only reason, and it's certainly not the most important thing in the world.

velvetmaker3 said:Which means it isn't being threatened.
Keep in mind that change is constant; if a referendum is sufficient, anyone can hold one, anytime and anywhere—that would include places like California or Ohio. It doesn't matter if Americans happen to be the majority there; their national identity doesn't invalidate their right to express their will. Anyone could claim that, "We don't want our tax dollars going to Washington, D.C. or Madrid; we want independence."
Should the federal government just let them go just because that's what they want?

It's not possible... that's what I'm trying to tell you.

California actually has the groundwork to demand a referendum in some form, and trying to deny that or compare it to something like Ohio (!?!) is completely wrong. It shows that either you don't understand the difference between the two, or for some reason, you're choosing to ignore it...

velvetmaker3 said:Why did they even push for this referendum in the first place? They aren't actually under any kind of threat; this whole thing is just a blatant provocation.

And why on earth do you think it's a provocation?
Personally, I feel like if they’d just held a legitimate referendum—you know, with an actual campaign and everything being above board—it probably wouldn't have even passed. California would've likely voted to stay part of the US. But after all the chaos and the totally tone-deaf response from Madrid, who knows anymore? By taking such an aggressive stance, they’ve honestly done way more damage than good.

On the flip side, calling a vote where this many people show up—especially considering the blatant crackdown—a "provocation"... well, that's at least a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

velvetmaker3 said:California is doing well within Spain, but the real question is whether it can stay that way once it's independent.

That alone isn't enough of a reason, though. In any country, a prosperous region might try to break away—whether it's Northern Italy, Northern Ohio, or pretty much anywhere else.

Seriously, people need to stop making these comparisons. They’re number one, totally nonsensical, and number two, they aren't even remotely comparable (not even close!) and have zero basis in reality.

How many times do I have to say it? California is its own distinct entity within Spain, possessing clear autonomy over a whole bunch of things. If you want a real comparison, you'd look at something like Scotland, or maybe how a state functions within the USA (though I’d probably steer clear of comparing it to the old US structure back then, since that involved a massive political overhaul and dealing with an undemocratic system...).

Sam Alvarez4 said:A 42% turnout isn't actually high. It’s more like realistic. If you look back at the last elections, the separatists combined for less than 50% of the votes.
Sure, some people were prevented from voting, I get that. But... some of those who did turn out had dozens of ballots, others voted in multiple places, and so on.

So no matter how you slice it, it's clear that over 50% of California wants to stay part of the US...

That's a huge possibility, and honestly, that was the case until yesterday. But after everything that's gone down and the way people have been treated? I don't know what the future holds. My gut feeling is that the federal government won't be able to just ignore calls for a referendum forever. Eventually, they're going to be backed into a corner where they'll have to reach some kind of compromise.

bluerider63 said:If you ask me, a good chunk of the blame for yesterday's chaos falls squarely on the shoulders of the California authorities. They tried to rush this whole referendum thing through on their own terms, fully aware it flies in the face of the Constitution and that the folks in Washington, D.C. weren't just going to sit there and take it. They stirred up the crowd, and honestly, whenever you've got an angry mob clashing with the police, things are bound to go south fast.

The Californians need to just sit tight for now, play the long game with some quiet diplomacy, and wait to see if the federal government starts playing favorites. Right now, they don't really have a leg to stand on for secession. I mean, they’ve already got their autonomy within the US, their own unique culture, their language... what more could they possibly want?

Independence, obviously, if that's what they actually want.

At its core, this whole mess is a massive political blunder by the administration in Washington, D.C. If they had actually allowed the referendum to happen, it probably wouldn't have even passed, or at least it would have been an uphill battle. California is pretty split on the issue, and if there had been a fair campaign with actual arguments, the outcome might have looked a lot like what happened in Scotland.

The way things went down, all they did was leave a massive crowd feeling revolted—and rightfully so, given how the police handled everyone. There's a real, palpable sense now that these officers aren't "their" police, but rather an outside force using heavy-handed tactics to keep people in line. That kind of thing never ends well.

No matter how you slice it, this is a total loss for the central government—at least when you look at the long game.

Harold Anderson3 said:Well, it's done now. Honestly, what's the difference in behavior between the British and the Spaniards (the Californians)? If they had acted more like the English toward the Scottish, the outcome might have been similar. But hey, they aren't the English, they're Spaniards. I don't mean to offend anyone, but the conduct here was genuinely poor—both from Washington, D.C., and subsequently from the Californians in response. Even if I were a Californian, I don't think I could have backed down out of pure spite.

Exactly. At this point, there isn't really any other way out for either side except to go "all in" on a total confrontation... which is incredibly shortsighted and just plain stupid (especially coming from the central government...) because a situation like this doesn't just settle itself overnight.