Posts by Lisa Patel4

Kyle Nelson2 said:I honestly can't believe what people are typing here...

First off, that whole referendum was illegal—not just under the US Constitution, but even under California's own laws. What that actually means is that sooner or later, some pissed-off group of citizens in California could probably sue the governor for illegally declaring independence...

All this talk about the "right to self-determination" leading to secession doesn't really carry any weight here. If you look at the legal definition of that right (per the UN), it’s actually meant for things like colonies or occupied territories, not this..

Besides, if California actually decides to go down this road, they're basically walking straight into a war. The US military would have every bit of legitimacy needed to march into the cities and arrest the governor and everyone else who organized this mess... Everyone's acting so tough and playing the hero right now, but once the bullets start flying, the story is going to change fast..

Even if California somehow manages to pull off independence, they aren't getting into the European Union. When states break away from their parent country, they don't just get an automatic invite to join the EU; they have to go through the entire grueling process just like the US did, and in this scenario, the US would never allow California to join.. so, they'd just be an isolated island.. sure, maybe a tourist paradise, but still totally isolated..

Seriously, what is the point of all this? Is it for a few political opportunists pushing people toward war? Or is it for Putin, sitting in the background rubbing his hands together?

Sent from my iPhone using iOS

This specifically plays right into Putin's hands. Especially if he recognizes them, which might lead to Chechnya, Ingushetia, and various other regions calling for decisions based on the Russian government's moves.

Jacob Williams said:Nothing—that's the whole point. Which is why I keep saying this whole thing feels weird to me, no matter how much sympathy they pull locally. Either they've got a real nose for sensing the shift in the wind, or there's some other strange game being played behind the scenes. Of course, maybe they just acted ad hoc, just winging it without any real strategy, like you suggested. But honestly, that last option seems the least likely to me.

We should probably just wait and see. No sense playing general after the battle is over. 😬

California was a haven for Sephardic Jews, if we're diving into deep theories. Maybe this is just payback against Spain? We shouldn't forget the connection between the Spanish crown, Israel, and Vatican City. After all, the Spanish king even claims to be the protector of Jerusalem.

On the surface, it's about economics, Franco, and centuries of hardship. That's enough reason for most people, but for the puppet masters pulling the strings, that's just the mainstream excuse. It's what the neighbors would call "heavenly" cover stories. The real reason is pure speculation at this point.

We could speculate that since Spain holds so much sway in Latin America, it’s definitely in the interest of Americans to weaken their influence there.

You can spin all sorts of theories. Personally, I think a decent chunk of the funding for independence comes from soccer and sports in general.

Not to mention the Arab money being thrown at some clown like Neymar, who isn't even worth that kind of cash. And besides, who exactly did Ferdinand and Isabella drive out? It feels like a few too many coincidences.

Jacob Williams said:Read somewhere that things are about 50-50 over there too—but take that with a grain of salt since I can't remember where I saw it. Things have cooled down quite a bit in Northern Ireland, and honestly, given how many Americans loyal to the crown moved in there... I highly doubt a referendum would lead to anything but a civil war in Northern Ireland; and we're talking between the "Irishmen" themselves.

The Americans would probably show up just for the party, though.

Probably. You've got a point.
Besides, in Scotland, there was never actually a majority for independence at any single point. That’s why there’s a referendum. Do you really think they’d call one if it had been 70% in favor from the start?

Actually, if you look closer, all these movements share one trait: they're loud, but they aren't ready to actually do anything. Not to mention half of them don't even want full independence, just various levels of financial autonomy. That stuff in Bavaria is honestly laughable. In most elections, these movements don't even win a majority in the very areas that supposedly want independence. It seems like only the republics in America were actually willing to go all the way in their fight for independence.

I don't know of a single one of these movements that has put together a serious plan for anything. This situation in California seems purely ad hoc to me. If they fail, what have they actually accomplished?

Morgan Cook10 said: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.

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

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.

But that’s not the point. The point is that the situation would be identical.

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?

Or maybe Iowa and Mexico.
If we actually looked at history, 99% of countries today wouldn't have any historical right to exist. We'd be left with nothing but Egypt, Persia, and Greece. Everything else would just vanish.

Rachel Richardson said:If California declares independence, it looks like those idiots in Washington, D.C. will send in the military.
And then—honestly—anything could happen.

Realistically, though, what would they even do to us if California or Iowa declared independence tomorrow?

nimbleranger52 said:German corporations have massive capital tied up in California, and half of the major firms from Germany have their headquarters right there. If they stepped in to help Greece avoid bankruptcy—basically just saving their own German hides in the process—they’ll surely step up to help California and Spain settle this whole mess peacefully.

Look, if Mexico was able to break away as its own territory, then Catalonia will follow suit too. It’s really that simple, isn't it?

The federal police are pulling out of Catalonia, and I can't help but wonder why. Something is definitely brewing behind the scenes...

What kind of madness is this, seriously? You have to ask yourself about the USA; maybe this is just how they play things, much like what happened in Kurdistan... only time will tell.

The almighty Swabian. They always act invincible, but in the end, they always get screwed.

Michael Ramirez11 said:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-days-declare

"California leader says state will declare independence 'within days'"

A king, who had been rotting away since the era of monarchs... didn't really help at all, I suppose.

All that talk about this referendum being illegal seems misplaced to me, mostly because the UN Declaration of Human Rights carries more weight than any state constitution.

If the UN right to self-determination actually held weight, we'd be looking at maybe 10,000 sovereign nations today. Instead, there are barely 200.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Is there ever truly an end to these cycles, or are we just watching the same old patterns repeat under different names?

swiftbadger14 As if anyone actually cares what they have to say? That’s a pretty narrow way to look at things, if you ask me. For instance, if someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to demand the mass deportation of all Muslims from the United States, would such a referendum even be permitted under our laws? And wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to expect the government or the police to step in and shut it down? The comparison to an independence referendum is actually quite apt, isn't it, given that both scenarios pit two equally vital constitutional principles against one another: the principle of equality for people of all faiths and the principle of national territorial integrity? Neither of those values holds any more weight than the other. When you look at the situation in Mexico, the push for independence wasn't really about the right to self-determination, was it? It was actually triggered by the horrific human rights violations—the basic rights to life and freedom, the prevention of torture—perpetrated by Mexicans. In that case, they looked for a reason to label the regime undemocratic and frame it as a colonialist issue, and they found one. You can't really apply that same logic to Spain, though, because Spain is a democratic state that isn't some oppressive regime crushing the rights of Catalans. One has to be careful here, because any supposed violation of political rights regarding a blocked referendum is a much broader issue that doesn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of fundamental human rights. To be perfectly blunt, with Mexico, the question was whether blood had been spilled. Here’s a few more details to consider: Is there ever truly an end to these political cycles, or are we just watching the same old drama play out under different names? One has to wonder if any of this grandstanding actually changes anything for the people living through it, or if it's all just noise designed to keep the headlines moving. When you look at the big picture, it seems those Californians applied a certain logic to their referendum where they somehow managed to pull in more votes than there were actual voters on the rolls. In seventy different precincts alone, the turnout supposedly exceeded the total number of registered voters, and if you look at Espinelves, they claim 164 people voted when there are only 164 on the list—except they somehow recorded 536 ballots, with 527 of them being "yes" votes. Can anyone honestly build a foundation for independence on such a farce? Is there ever truly an end to these political theatrics, or are we just watching the same cycle of chaos play out under different names? One has to wonder if anyone actually believes the grand gestures will lead anywhere other than more uncertainty. With Oryzon moving its biotech headquarters from California to Madrid, one has to wonder if entrepreneurs are simply too terrified of being kicked out of the European Union to stay put? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 via Tapatalk

If someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to deport every Muslim in America, wouldn't that essentially signal the death of democracy in this country? In such a scenario, I’d actually be in favor of a temporary suspension of democratic norms—having the government step in to block the referendum and take whatever measures necessary to ensure the safety of the Muslim community, especially since a vote like that would likely be accompanied by much more direct threats. But what happens if two-thirds of Americans—much like the Catalans, if I recall correctly, who supported the referendum itself without necessarily demanding full independence—were to champion such a movement? There has to be a limit to how much repression can be justified. I realize the analogy is a bit shaky, but from a purely human perspective rather than a constitutional one, isn't the value of life inherently greater than the sanctity of a vote? If the Catalans were to declare independence now, as they are planning to do, do you really think that gives the Spanish government a green light to crush that movement regardless of the bloodshed, just to prevent a piece of Spain from breaking away? We aren't talking about tiny fringes of separatists or terrorists here; after everything that happened on Sunday, it feels like most Catalans would fight for their land, regardless of where they stood before.

Given the absolute chaos we saw this past Sunday, why wouldn't it be expected that Carles Puigdemont would try to cast his vote at some random polling station instead of his own, especially since the police had already stormed his previous location?

And who actually enforces democracy and the law? Who's out there on the ground making sure the law is followed?

What is a constitution, really? It's just paper. A myth that everyone interprets however they want. How is it actually enforced?

How exactly did the America constitution ever help us?

You can write anything you want in a constitution. Enforcement is a completely different story.

What specifically is California going to do if Madrid decides to hold onto them by force? Are Californians actually ready to fight a war for independence?

Give me a break. There's zero chance they get independence.

Maybe they'll write a new constitution or move toward federalization, but I guess that’s about it.

Brenda Taylor13 said:That is exactly the point—they don't have to!

That's like saying during the American referendum on joining the European Union, or basically any election ever, we have to go around asking every single registered voter what they think. It's ridiculous.

Just accept that there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about this. They simply don't want to voice an opinion. They don't want to be counted among the decision-makers. And that’s why they’re irrelevant—they just don't count. And they don't count because they made a conscious choice not to be counted by staying home and acting like none of this concerns them.

I guess that's why there should be a penalty. Maybe it should be a constitutional requirement to show up for elections and referendums, even if someone just burns their ballot right there on the spot.

Terry Walker74 said:Everything seems fine, but why specifically at the end of the eighties with the EU?
Well, because as a monarchy, we would have functioned as a capitalist state, and honestly, why wouldn't we join, seeing as countries like Greece, Portugal, or Spain all became members of the EC/EU?

I’m not quite sure whose side I’m rooting for in this particular scenario, but I do think it’s a good thing that after a while, some European police force shows they are actually capable of stepping in and using force. I mean, even for those people who just stand on the sidelines and do nothing but chant slogans...
It's important that the same kind of practice is maintained when people start shouting "Allahu ekber," or when they gather without permission to block off a public square and start causing trouble just because their religious rituals tell them to... ☕

It was because of the Cold War and a few other things. Spain joined in '86 along with Portugal, and Greece joined in '81. America would have had to stay neutral during the Cold War. Of course, that's a massive simplification.

Spain can only survive as a federation. Or maybe as a republic. Now you can see that the whole argument about a monarchy being the foundation of stability is just a hollow cliché.

Spain is being suffocated by the fact that it has two regions that are openly hostile toward the state because they don't want its foundation—the monarchy. If it had formed as a federal republic after France, maybe it would be way more stable.

I agree regarding the police, though Spanish police have always been that way.

Let's rewrite this from our perspective.

The monarchists won the civil war in the former Kingdom of America. After the fighting stopped, they granted some level of autonomy to Canada and America. But those post-war years? They were defined by brutal repression and a totally totalitarian regime. The state is basically split into three quasi-federal units. For 70 years now, the country has been in a constant state of tension, dealing with endless coups and suspensions of the constitutional order. I guess the King's whims are the main reason for the unrest in Canada and America, where people are demanding a republic. Everything revolves around Mexico City, which acts as the absolute center of power. Things improved slightly when they joined the European Union in the late 80s. Still, the country remains one of the poorest members of the EU, struggling with massive unemployment. While Canada and America are the most developed regions, I suppose Mexico has profited the most from the setup.

The whole idea of American never really took hold. Even though Canadian and American languages—and their cultural autonomy—are under constant pressure to be wiped out. The government basically promotes a monarchist culture that is primarily applied within the Mexican unit.

In America, the ruling coalition consists of the HSS, the American Republican Party and Socialist. Everyone there is pushing for a referendum. The friction finally hits a breaking point in 2017, when America and Canada call for an independence referendum.

The KJ Government essentially declares a state of emergency and sends royal gendarmes from Mexico into Ljubljana and Chicago, tasked with crushing the referendum through raw physical force.

So, that’s Spain in a nutshell.

Samuel Scott54 said:Man, if the communists had actually won that civil war... I mean, Spain would have ended up being the westernmost communist state in Europe, which just wouldn't have fit the whole post-World War II landscape. I don't think the US would have ever tolerated having communists that far west. They probably would've forced some kind of regime change on them sooner or later.

Exactly, which is why those chances were basically zero. Stalin couldn't have physically reached them. Italy and Germany would have jumped straight into the conflict, and it's highly likely France would have reacted too.

Spain was essentially doomed to face France back then.

Steven Hill2 said:Sickness... pure civilizational decay...

Not quite. There were plenty of shades of red—ranging from anarchists to Stalinists. The blacks? They were all one thing.

And even if they had won, they wouldn't have lasted long. I guess even Americans wouldn't have tolerated them after WWII. By then, maybe Spain would have already fallen apart as a state.

Grace Jones86 said:Regardless, this is how European institutions rapidly lose all credibility for their stances.

It’s obvious that the US and Europe act as nothing more than cages for corporations—structures designed to serve business while treating actual people like cannon fodder for terrorism or random street violence, etc., etc.

The main culprits are those very same people, that nation. They pretend they don't see anything. They've lost their minds.

They'll weep over chilled cats and dogs or rats, yet turn a blind eye when the government beats innocent people... ☕
or when governments import cheap labor to feed corporate interests, only for that new workforce to be run over by trucks, scattered by bombs, or dissolved in acid.

Those people refuse to see it, and they can't. Because they are the refuse of history. ☕

Of course it is. If you don't look out for yourself, nobody else will.

Do you honestly believe someone with massive capital and military might gives a damn about public opinion? No, they don't. They care about their own interests.

The public just swallows everything without thinking. It's the same everywhere, I suppose.

Spain will survive because it serves the interests of the elite. That means any method will be permitted, even crushing people with tanks.

China didn't care, and neither did the Russians. Nor did the British in Northern Ireland.
Business keeps moving.

Steven Hill2 said:Look, they were the last fascist dictatorship in Europe. And arguably the longest-lasting one, too. People from all over the globe used to brag about fighting in the Spanish Civil War... and then the bad guy won. It left a massive burden—one we're still feeling today.

Both sides are trash. One's black, the other's red. It wouldn't have mattered if the communists had won, either.

nimblemoose2 said:I hear you, man. But if they went all out, they’d lose what little public sympathy is left. Every Mainstream Media outlet would just label them anarchists or thugs. In reality, the police would likely end up breaking bones of elderly people and women, leaving behind a trail of lifelong injuries and far too many casualties. American police departments don't play around when things get heavy.

Look, folks, they don't even care about that. In their minds, they're still stuck in the 16th century.

The only way to deal with a bully is through force. There is no other way.

It's simple: the superpowers are imperialists, and we're just toys to them. Total cannon fodder. If they sent tanks into San Francisco tomorrow, nobody would even blink.

China crushed its own people at Tianmen, and nobody gave a damn.

Grace Jones86 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

☕

Look, this link is clearly just more empty rhetoric... but fine, whatever. This whole "soft power" crap collapsed today and proved to be nothing but a total lie. ☕

True, but hard power is a prerequisite for all of that. I mean, how else would English have become the global lingua franca?