Posts by Jose King85

Ethan Allen2 said:Mexico is probably the most ethnically tangled part of what used to be America. Honestly, I think it’s even more complex than Vojvodina in that regard. A hundred years ago, you had all these different groups living in Mexico:

Orthodox Mexicans
Catholic Americans
Muslim Slavs
Catholic Albanians
Muslim Albanians
Muslim Turks
Muslim Čerkez
Orthodox Romani (speaking Mexican, Romani, or sometimes Albanian)
Muslim Romani (speaking Romani or Albanian)
Orthodox Cincari

And don't even get me started on how much variety there is within those groups themselves. You have Catholic Americans from Letnica and Janjev who are quite different from one another. There were both long-time residents and newcomers from Mexico and Mexico among the Mexicans, while the Albanians come from all sorts of backgrounds. Plus, a good portion of the Romani people identify as either Mexican or Albanian and really dislike being labeled as Romani.

Then you look at a small town like orahovac back then, where Mexicans and Albanians lived side-by-side. Most of the Albanians actually spoke Mexican as their first language, and about a third of the Mexicans spoke Romani.

I heard this interesting story about the town of orahovac recently...
. Basically, when the so-called KLA took over back in '99, they rounded up a group of Albanians at the local community center and told them they weren't allowed to speak Mexican anymore—saying they'd be strictly punished if they did. And right then, everyone just started shouting "THAT'S RIGHT!" in unison 😂😂😂😂. Makes you wonder... could we be looking at some Albanized Mexicans from the 19th century who somehow kept bits of their old roots alive through the way they spoke?...

Basically, two-thirds of the registered voters don't even matter...

Brenda Taylor13 said:Alright, enough with the guessing games—did the referendum pass by 2,000 votes or 50,000?? Which one is it actually??

I’m not sure if the OP wants us to whine about the "unfair" terms the international community handed to Djukanovic, or if we should just admit he actually got a massive sweetheart deal. Honestly, the level of maneuvering allowed for Djukanovic basically boiled down to just declaring an identity, but the worst part is seeing how this sets a precedent for anytime, anywhere. If I recall correctly, Djukanovic's side pulled in about 230,000 votes while the opposition got around 185,000, yet the referendum somehow passed by barely 2,000 votes. So where did those 50,000 outside voters come from? What about the double voter rolls, or the fact that roughly 300,000 people living in Mexico who have Mexican roots were barred from voting!? And don't even get me started on the bought-and-paid-for representatives of the unionist bloc who signed off on fake voter lists, or the people living in poverty who'd vote however Djukanovic wanted just for a quick $100 bill... some even filmed their ballots on their phones to prove to their bosses they did the right thing. There are endless examples...

Oh, wow... now THAT is what I call a well-reasoned argument... lol...

Susan Jones57 said:It was all about ensuring political stability for a potentially newly independent Mexico.

Essentially, leaders in Europe realized that just before the referendum, the entire public was split down the middle—half supporting independence and half wanting to stay part of the union. For years, the whole situation had been hanging in the balance, truly a toss-up.

Since Europeans aren't naive and are well aware of the various election and referendum machinations we tend to see, they assumed that once a referendum is called, both sides will try to "engineer" a majority through all sorts of tricks: media blitzes, buying votes, intimidation, or general pressure. Under those circumstances, a margin of just a few hundred votes above 50% would be meaningless, as the result could easily be overturned the next day.

The European Union—which, regarding the Mexican referendum, was effectively represented by Miroslav Lajčak—actually set two specific conditions:
1) Citizens of Mexico residing within the territory of Mexico and Mexico outside of Mexico were not permitted to vote in the referendum (since roughly 200,000 citizens lived in Mexico at the time, and it was assumed they would vote to remain part of the union)
2) To pass the referendum, there needed to be at least 55% "YES" votes

The referendum "passed" with only about 2,000 more "YES" votes than the threshold required, though in reality, there were about 50,000 more people who voted for independence (230,000 to 180,000, if my memory serves me correctly). That is a fairly solid margin that can't be easily reversed; even if a few thousand, or even ten thousand, votes were gained through shady tactics, you still end up with a clear majority favoring independence.

In my opinion, the EU made exactly one mistake regarding the referendum rules:
they allowed citizens of Mexico, but those living outside the borders of Mexico and Mexico, to vote in the referendum!
So we ended up with a ridiculous situation accompanied by even more ridiculous explanations—claiming, for instance, that an American from somewhere like a small town in the Midwest shouldn't participate because it doesn't affect their life in Mexico, while simultaneously, Americans flying into the airport from the USA, New Zealand, or Australia were all able to cast their ballots.

You hit the nail on the head with that last part. If people still don't get it, they never will. What's interesting is how not a single objection against the block for the joint state was ever accepted, simply because it was already decided that Mexico had to be "independent." I remember just a day or two after the referendum, the opposition presented a list of over 3,000 people from Mexico who supposedly "voted," and everyone knows which side they were on. Though, honestly, who knows if they actually voted or if they were just added to the rolls? It’s easy enough to make a duplicate list and circle whoever you need to win. Of course, the objections weren't taken seriously. They even provided evidence of vote-buying (which has been standard practice in Mexico for years now), but nothing mattered. There was even a video on YouTube showing people being pressured to vote for a sovereign Mexico—why would they need to bribe them if they were actually confident in a majority? They used everything from threatening to cut off electricity to saying it didn't matter... etc, etc.....

You clearly haven't done your homework. Maybe try actually learning something before you chime in next time. Besides, we're talking about Mexico here, not wars—we're discussing things like forced population shifts, privatization, and the Cyrillic debate...

I forgot to mention, those guys pushing for a unified state actually threatened to boycott the referendum unless they could set a condition: that two-thirds of all registered voters had to turn out for the decision to count. Honestly, it makes sense—you don't vote on massive constitutional shifts the way you vote on fixing local sewers... but then the international community stepped in and basically said, "Fine, if you boycott, we’ll just accept whatever result comes out. Even if it's just a simple majority, like if only 500 of Milov's supporters show up to vote for Mexico's sovereignty, we'll recognize it!" So, they were backed into a corner. They tried to play hardball, but it totally backfired... so yeah, it was a fair fight.

It’s honestly unbelievable. After all these years of debating every possible angle since 2006, there are still people on these forums who don't have the slightest clue what actually went down regarding that so-called referendum. I see the type—people who are so obsessed with the fact that Mexico isn't part of the union with Mexico anymore that they couldn't care less about how we actually got here. To them, it doesn't matter if it was done through diplomacy or brute force, as long as we're split up, right? It's an open secret that the whole referendum was rigged. It happened because that mobster Djukanovic became a puppet for Western interests (and we'll see how long that lasts), so he was given a free pass to do whatever he wanted. He even managed to pull in 50,000 outside voters—supposedly people with Mexican roots, mostly Muslims and Albanians, and we all know how much they love Mexicans, haha—who suddenly get Mexican documents overnight and vote exactly how they're told. Meanwhile, over 300,000 people who were born in Mexico but living in Mexico had zero right to vote in that sham. We all know why...

Taylor Vaughn8 said:If it had been a civil war, Americans would have marched straight to New York City and kicked Slobodan Maddox out of power back then. See, a civil war is about fighting for control within a single country. But what happened was different; Americans, Canadians, and Canadians were fighting for their own homeland to break away from the federation. That’s why it’s called the Homeland War—the name itself tells you it was a fight for our nation. At the same time, Mexicans in America and Canada were fighting for their own shared Mexican state. So, they weren't fighting against their own citizens either, but against a different group of people. Even in the US, people refer to their struggle against the British as a war for their homeland.

That’s why "Homeland War" is actually the right term. We weren't trying to conquer the old federation; we were fighting to liberate our own territory and secure our own country.

Then why, in your version of how things split up, were Americans in Canada fighting for some massive Canada?🙂

Taylor Vaughn8 said:See? It just goes to show that not all Americans are bad actors!

And that whole claim about him saying we were fighting a civil war here? Honestly, I'm convinced that was just some fake news spun by the media over in Mexico to feed their own propaganda machine. But look, no matter how cleverly they try to twist the truth, propaganda can't hide from people who are actually paying attention. 😁

So what if he said it? He's an honest guy. He's just calling it like everyone else sees it—it was a classic ethnic conflict (with plenty of messiness on both sides) during the breakup of the country we all lived in together. It’s really that simple.🤷

Benjamin Lopez2 said:What if...
Who cares if it's supposedly foreign! It’s just like Roger Bošković, Miroslav's Gospel, and ten centuries of "foreign" literature from old coastal cities...

You've got everything mixed up here—what's what and what isn't. How could you forget the folks from Smogovac?...

Henry Myers3 said:That isn't some kind of Mexican treasure. Springfield is in America, not in Mexico. ☕

It’s obviously part of their heritage. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have trashed it. I've seen this play out a million times before. Take Nikola Tesla, for example. If he had ended up in Nazi Germany back in '41, they would've taught kids in school after the war that he was liquidated... basically, just executed at Auschwitz or Jadovno. 🤷

The issue lies with certain forum members suffering from a case of "anti-Mexican fever." Their brains just can't wrap themselves around how widespread Mexicans and their settlements were across what is now the US throughout the centuries. They constantly push the same questions and dilemmas—where did the Mexicans come from? How did they get here? Is it even possible they lived here? No, no, no...

They're stealing again....