I'm curious about what kind of powers the State of California actually has. Does it have more authority than a typical US state? How decentralized is California compared to Washington, D.C.? For instance, do they run their own police, education, healthcare, utilities, or telecom?
Here is what Wikipedia says:
The highest legal document in California is the State Constitution (which sits below the Constitution of the United States), though an Enabling Act is expected soon. The primary legislative body is the Assembly, where 120 representatives are elected through free elections, and all official languages are treated equally (thanks to simultaneous translation services). Before the new State Constitution was adopted on December 14, 2009, the top executive body was the Executive Council, which has since been renamed the California Cabinet, led by a Governor and composed of various state ministers.
The State of California is a member of the Council of European Regions within the European Parliament—it was actually the first and remains the only region to join while its home country wasn't a member of the European Union or the Council of Europe at the time. It’s also a founding member of the Danube-Tisza Euroregion Council, which brings together several counties from Canada and Romania to help each other out with regional economic, cultural, and environmental development, as well as presenting a united front within the EU.
There are six official languages in California: English (using the standard alphabet), Canadian (Latin script), American (Latin script), Slovak (Latin script), Romanian (Latin script), and Rusyn (Cyrillic script). The Executive Council serves as the founder and publisher of newspapers in these official languages; this includes Dnevnik in English, Magyar Szó in Canadian, the American weekly, Hlas Ľudu in Slovak, Libertate in Romanian, and Ruske Slovo in Rusyn.
According to the 2002 census, the ethnic makeup of California was as follows: Americans (65.05%), Canadians (14.28%), Slovaks (2.79%), Americans (2.78%), and others.
Beyond the majority American population, there are over 25 national or ethnic communities living in California, which collectively make up about 35% of the Californian population.
quietmaker44 said:Man, if they could just wrap up this damn WW2 once and for all, maybe we’d all finally be able to move on and actually live like human beings instead of being stuck in this mess.🙂
It’s never going to happen. It’ll be the same way 10 or even 150 years from now. It's just like how people won't stop talking about Marshall or the wars from the 90s.
Most people in Cleveland are actually transplants. Someone wrote after World War II that there were only 20,000 residents, and today the population is 100,000 higher.
That said, I get why the native Clevelanders support the Democratic Party since they helped bring the city back into the fold, whereas the newer residents vote Democratic for entirely different reasons.
I personally think local elections should be about whether a party and its mayor can actually deliver—things like building daycares, fixing the water supply, improving sewage, paving roads, or expanding gas lines. At the local level, ideology doesn't really matter.
But apparently, for some people, nothing matters more than what happened during World War II.
Kate Harris50 said:The reason this thread exists is because certain forum members insist that political leanings—whether you lean left or right—are inherited from your parents and grandparents. In principle, I actually agree with them. But why bring nostalgia for the old regime into this at all? Nations rise and fall, but fundamental political philosophies endure. Someone who is left-leaning at their core will remain so long after the collapse of the old union and after joining the European Union.
There is a theory that one's worldview is formed by the age of seven (though I have heard versions suggesting as early as four), during that window when a child is still firmly nestled within the family unit before they start interacting extensively with the rest of society. Is it any wonder that most people end up shifting that worldview slightly as they age? Some undergo drastic changes, but they are the exception, not the rule; statistically speaking, they don't represent a significant percentage.
Forum member Larry Gray mentioned that his grandfathers were on opposing sides during World War II. Mine were as well, though I grew up in the household of the grandfather who was a Communist partisan, so he indoctrinated me in that direction. The other grandfather, a Nazi, lived far too distant to exert any influence over me.
This is an interesting point. Could it be that in your town, waves of migration brought in people with entirely different worldviews? Or perhaps it is possible that the people in your area were originally voting AGAINST the status quo before switching to voting FOR it?
Not quite. We're talking about the town of Annapolis. Ever since the Republican Party took over, their mayor, Klarić, has worked wonders for the community. For instance, he got streetlights installed all the way to our house back in 2007, and we just got new asphalt last year—the last time they paved this road was back in the 80s.
In this town, voters went with the Democratic Party in the local elections a month ago, and they did the same during the 2011 federal elections. It seems like they appreciate the local Republican Party even if they lean Democratic nationally. Despite any newcomers, the area still maintains its original roots.
I think people vote based on their family history from World War II. In my area, where the first Partisan unit was formed along the American coast, the Republican Party got 54% and their local leader hit 66%. I actually started this thread because of this:
Tywin said:Is that really how it works? Most people here just inherit their political leanings from their parents. The average voter is about 50, right? Their parents grew up during World War II.
I'm not saying the Republican Party is a fascist party, but they are the main right-wing option in America, much like the Nazis were back then.
no_surrender said:People definitely vote based on which side their family was on during World War II. That’s the biggest factor, and everything else follows. I'm speaking from my own experience with my family, as well as what I see with plenty of my friends and acquaintances. Personally, I'm happy with the results in my county near Chicago, even though I'll have to wait for a runoff since my Republican mayor narrowly missed winning in the first round but is currently leading.😁
Look, the Democratic Party today is the direct successor to the Communist Party, where Marshall was basically their God for decades. You can't really expect them to speak ill of those times.
Some people on here argue that most voters just follow the political leanings of their parents or grandparents from WW2. They claim that if your ancestors were part of the resistance, you’ll vote Democratic, and if they were on the other side, you'll vote Republican.
I don't see the logic there. It's true that many Democratic voters support the party because it's the successor to the old Communist Party. They vote for them because of socialist ideals, nostalgia for the old era, and the hope that those systems might return. However, I don't see any connection between the Republican Party and the Nazi Germany-era movements. Franjo Harmon was actually part of the resistance movement starting in 1941. Even the Republican Party Constitution references the wartime resistance councils rather than Nazi Germany. Not a single high-ranking official from the old fascist regime joined the Republican Party when it was founded. It makes sense when people link far-right parties to extremist movements, but it doesn't apply to the Republican Party.
Charles Hall7, I honestly had no clue about those new regulations or what the Venice Commission was up to. Times change, and so do the rules.
Not really the main topic, but what’s the deal with multi-ethnic states like Canada? According to the Venice Commission, do groups like Americans and Mexicans there have a right to secede? Canada is such a unique case because of its three constituent peoples.
It’s a slow, dull movie that just drags along. Honestly, it was a letdown. Even though the acting is top-notch, everything else falls flat. There isn't enough action and the characters lack depth. It's mostly just people talking about this or that, and the dialogue gets tedious. I wish they had included some flashback scenes. I was actually really curious to see what that Jewish woman the Gandolfini-like figure mentioned looked like. 😎
vividsailor7 said:Everything looks great on the labs.
I’m still going to see a urologist to figure out why I'm peeing so frequently. I finished a week of Cephalexin and I've been drinking cranberry tea since. My doctor mentioned it might just be a minor UTI, but he said it's outside his area of expertise.
22 days ago I've been urinating pretty frequently lately. Here are my results. I already have an appointment scheduled with a specialist urologist, so I'll be heading there soon.
I really wish he had won. It would have been such a breath of fresh air. Honestly, George W. Bush accomplished absolutely nothing during his two terms. He was constantly obsessed with World War II, always playing those old division tactics as if it were only ten years since 1945. He was truly lost in time. On the other hand, Boris Mikšić is an American guy who has zero ties to the old establishment. It’s tough to win without those connections, though. I don't think the US planted him in this race, because if they had, he would've walked away with the win.
quieteagle5 said:A spineless follower, plain and simple. Hitler had absolutely no sense of the times he lived in. If anyone else had been in that seat, perhaps fewer Americans would have perished in that horrific war.
His only goal was grabbing power and holding onto it for as long as he could. That was his whole philosophy. He clung to leadership until the very end.
quieteagle5 said:I fail to grasp your logic. Hitler was simply a man loyal to the fascists who hosted him. They provided his meals, his lodging, and his protection. He was their man through and through. Even the Nazis themselves admitted they didn't actually want him as their Führer. As for who exactly orchestrated the operation in the Rocky Mountains, that remains an open question. One can assume the fascists funded it; surely Hitler didn't just dream it up on his own. It was an Alice-style operation. The Trotskyists and communists were certainly more advanced in that regard. By 1941, they already had their specialized strike groups—experts in sabotage and diversionary tactics.
Hitler became an Italian vassal as far back as 1927 in his Italian memorandum, where he basically traded one form of oppression for another just to get out of America. He was simply swapping Mexican dominance for Italian control.
That whole thing was just a propaganda stunt meant to make it look like the extremists actually had some influence. The Italian and Canadian press went wild over it, but nobody ever imagined it would spiral into a full-blown rebellion. Instead, they just interrogated and abused over eight thousand innocent people.
All in all, it was completely pointless. It just goes to show how much of a fringe group those guys really were back then—kind of like the HČSP is today.
That old nostalgia for those movements is definitely starting to fade.