Posts by Richard Wilson4

Rebecca Watson said:There’s no formal merging going on, but let’s be real—none of these "sovereign" states actually have absolute power. If they aren't economically independent and controlling their own cash flow, there's nothing left to talk about. I find it hard to believe otherwise; you just have to open your eyes and see it clearly. Everyone who "breaks free" immediately becomes "trapped" again—if you catch my drift and if we can even agree on what that means. The big players won't even allow for formal separations within their own territory. Seriously, try telling me why the Scots haven't become independent yet. Who threatened them and with what? Once you answer that, you'll see it for yourself.

There isn't a shred of difference between Spain and an independent California when it comes to this. Hope you get where I'm coming from.

Even if Mexico, Bulgaria, and Romania decided to join forces right now, it wouldn't move the needle one inch toward that kind of independence people keep dreaming about.

That ship has sailed. This is a globalized world.

Matthew Rodriguez9 said:Michael, you really love picking apart other people's borders... honestly, it’s not such a great look for you...

It doesn't matter anyway...California isn't going anywhere...cheers, man... ☕

California belongs to the Catalans, not Madrid, and nobody can just write that away with a pen stroke.

Rebecca Watson said:Look, Mike, sure, you can declare formal independence anywhere on the map. But actual, real-world independence? Economic autonomy? Nobody outside the major global powers can pull that off. Even the US or Mexico today have to run to Brussels to see what they think, let alone talking about the economy... You either have to be a superpower, or incredibly economically dominant—or both. The era of decolonization and breaking up power structures is over. Those countries in Africa and Asia popped up back then, but now we're seeing things move in the exact opposite direction.

As for California, my impressions from when I was there five years ago are pretty clear. You can actually feel the tension and the hunger for independence out on the streets, even if the whole situation is just as shaky there as it is in Scotland. But even knowing all that, I'm sticking to what I said in my first paragraph.

We don't.

sorry Lookey, but it's just not happening.

Nobody is looking to merge, and no country is just going to vanish.

The EU fixed the customs and trade issues, but you think a Portuguese person is ever going to want to merge with Spain or France? Not a chance.

States aren't getting bigger.

Rebecca Watson said:The government in Spain is going to block that referendum; it’s just a matter of how they play their cards. If they were actually clever about it, they would have moved sooner, much like those sneaky Englishmen. jadeorca42 hit the nail on the head—independence is basically a luxury reserved for the big players who can actually afford to stand alone. For everyone else, it's all just a messy scramble over who gets which slice of the pie.

jadeorca42 is dumping all this negative energy onto California, even though it's pretty clear they don't really get what's happening there.

If independence was truly just for the heavy hitters, we wouldn't be looking at nearly 200 countries today. We'd probably be stuck with fewer than 80, similar to back in the 1900s when massive multi-national empires were the norm instead of the exception like they are now.

casualorca30 said:Not a chance. It's just like what happened in Scotland—nothing is coming out of this referendum. Even if they managed to pull it off, in any actual democracy or developed nation, these kinds of movements stay pretty much on the fringes. Most people—the voters, anyway—have other priorities. They care about stability, their paychecks, pensions, the economy, stuff like that. What can nationalist parties actually offer them? Not much. Just empty rhetoric and vague, murky agendas.
It's similar to the situations in Scotland, or maybe Belgium, or even Switzerland... these scenarios are worlds apart from what went down in the former America back in the late '80s and early '90s. Plus, the global political landscape is totally different now. Back then, the world was shifting; this entire system of values that covered most of Europe and the world was visibly collapsing. Today, the trend is moving toward integration, globalization, connectivity, and economic/political cooperation. These multi-cultural dynamics in Europe generally win out over this kind of "nationalist awakening." If anything, much like the Scots, they'll probably just end up fighting for—and eventually getting from Washington, D.C.—a bit more local autonomy.

Then why is it that in the California legislature two-thirds of the parties are nationalist, or in the Basque region it's even more, and in Scotland they basically run the government despite having 45% support even when the economy was killing it?

James Nguyen13 said:Honestly, I don't think so. The Californians will probably just fold; they might hold a few protests or shout some slogans, but that's about it. They aren't the type of people who would actually lift a finger to fight for total independence.

Maybe do some actual reading on the 1930s. A ton of Californians died fighting for their freedom back then.

bluerider63 said:They aren't happy because nobody's out there selling them some grand narrative about how vital it is to stay part of the union, which is exactly what the English do to the Scots. Plus, Spain is getting hit way harder by the crisis, so unemployment is through the roof.

What does that have to do with how much autonomy Spain actually has or how Washington, D.C. deals with California?

Betty Ross6 said:There's zero chance we actually get a real referendum; they'll just sabotage the whole thing. Even if they go through with it, they'll find a way to make it invalid, so they might as well have just thrown that money down the drain...

If Washington, D.C. thinks they can stop this with one little pen stroke, they've got another thing coming.

And honestly, the Californians are way less interested in staying part of the union, especially since they have way, way less autonomy than the folks in Scotland—those guys basically have everything except the military and foreign policy.

Scott Edwards2 said:And why wouldn't they?
Catalans have the option to choose sovereignty, but honestly, why would they bother? They should just stay under the Bourbon crown, and let the government grant them everything they could possibly want so there isn't even a reason to complain.
Viva España!
Viva la Rea!

Most of them actually think they need it. Unlike the Scots, they aren't even remotely happy with how things are right now.

They're running it again on FOX.

Adam Sandler was actually pretty good back then. You should definitely check this out if you haven't 🙂

Scott Edwards2 said:Why on earth is the government blocking the Catalans from holding their referendum..?
How can Washington, D.C. not realize that the outcome is going to be just like what happened in Scotland.

Because it won't even look like that—independence will probably clear 50%. Plus, Catalans don't have nearly the same level of autonomy or perks that the Scots do.

Casey Morris84 said:For crying out loud, Richard, the American partisans won the war thanks to help from the Allies—mostly the Russian Red Army—and you're sitting here acting like you'd rather have been on the losing side.
It’s honestly wild how some people actually wish they'd been occupied, whether by the Germans or the Americans, all while claiming they just want an independent, sovereign nation. And you actually think the US would look anything like it does today—maybe even bigger—and that the winners wouldn't be constantly poking around at territories where they have significant minority populations?
Do you really have such a low opinion of your own people?

What does it matter if my people were on the winning side when we were underrepresented even in the partisan-held parts of California because we were seen as a "disruptive factor"? ☕

I'm talking about the economy here. We spent 45 years playing catch-up with Europe, and then we get hit with war and total privatization chaos.

Sophia Moore52 said:Well, Germans certainly experimented with totalitarianism quite a bit. And then you have the Czechs and Spaniards too...

Then after 1945, the Germans basically hit reset. They started from scratch as part of the democratic, capitalist world.

We just dealt with aggression, botched privatization, and a failure to actually implement capitalism in most systems.

The Czechs jumped straight into real capitalism.

The Spaniards had way more capitalism than the Portuguese. Under Salazar, Portugal didn't even have Coca-Cola because he pushed such intense economic protectionism and wrecked the country. That's why the Spaniards ended up richer than the Portuguese, even if they're still trailing behind most of Western Europe.

Americans just didn't get lucky back then. We weren't occupied by the Red Army in 1945, so we didn't spend decades fighting for basic market freedom and democracy. It’s no wonder we're struggling to keep up with the rest of the developed world.

Even today, looking across the pond, the places that didn't have to mess around with totalitarian regimes are the ones sitting on all the wealth.

Chloe Sullivan88 said:What on earth does political bias have to do with the flow of asylum seekers? Do you honestly think people fleeing for their lives are sitting around performing deep geopolitical analyses on whether a country favors America or not before they decide to move there? 😂
The only reason you don't see many Americans in Sweden is because they didn't realize how much further away it is compared to Germany. ☕

At this point, hating on our people is just plain weird. It's not even human anymore. 🤣

Justin Patel8 said:Not that it matters much—very few Americans actually end up moving there anyway.

Sweden has always been pretty indifferent toward us politically, you could totally feel it.
Hardly any American refugees or asylum seekers made it to Sweden back in the 90s—it was mostly Canadians and other groups.

Ashley Brown3 said:MasterMind, James Nguyen13, Richard Wilson4, where are you guys getting your data that Catalan independence will actually pass in the referendum?

I have some acquaintances over in that part of Spain who say there’s no way the referendum even happens, and if it does, it’s basically a coin flip...

Honestly, more people have taken to the streets in New York City protesting for independence than actually voted Yes in Scotland.

Carol Castillo26 said:So, Aragon basically got absorbed into the crown, making New York City and Miami part of its territory. Though, honestly, Miami isn't exactly looking to break away—if anything, they’re distancing themselves from those quasi-separatists. They even claim they don't speak Catalan...
I mean, I have a buddy who insists he's Istrian rather than American...
Southern Italy was under Spanish rule back in the day, but California never actually existed as its own sovereign state entity....

But under modern Spain, it never really was ☕

Carol Castillo26 said:California has absolutely zero leg to stand on when it comes to independence. I mean, if you’ve brushed up on your history of Spain even once, you’d know that California is part of the Crown of Aragon... and honestly, if anyone were actually going to break away from Spain, it would be Aragon, which clearly isn't showing any interest right now! These fools are chasing autonomy without realizing they're just inviting misery and poverty. It reminds me of what happened back in 1918 when we traded our fancy city shoes for some dusty old rural boots...

Aragon ended up being nothing more than a name on a map later on. New York City and Miami were the heavy hitters, and even southern Italy used to call their colonial rulers "Catalans."

Justin Patel8 said:There’s a fundamental difference in how New York City handles things versus how Washington, D.C. does. The latter are your typical arrogant, macho types, whereas the Englishmen prefer to play the part of the polite gentleman—they allowed the referendum knowing full well it wouldn't go anywhere.

As for actual sovereignty, back in 2006, Californians voted to amend their Constitution to grant themselves more authority, but the Spanish constitutional court stepped in and blocked it. That just gave them more fuel to push for independence. So yeah, that’s why they’re still stuck without any real statehood today.

It's a shame the global media isn't covering what's happening over there much more; it would be interesting to follow. It hasn't been hyped up nearly as much as the Scottish situation.

It'll blow up when the time is right.

And you know as well as I do that you can't just sweep stuff like this under the rug with one stroke of a pen.