Posts by velvetmaker3

Morgan Cook10 said:Well, it's because on this specific referendum, 90% actually voted YES for secession.😉

Though if you ask me, I’d give Floridians the win with just 50% plus one.
But like I said... I think it's honestly insulting to talk about Florida this way, acting like they're just some "miniature Americans" compared to the rest of the country.

What we're talking about here is how die-hard American supporters of California independence would react if someone organized a referendum in the US similar to the one that happened yesterday in Spain.
Would more Californians than there actually are tell a different story?

Jason Kern49 said:The US Constitution guarantees the territorial integrity of the United States, and the ultimate guarantors of that are the US Armed Forces and the Department of Homeland Security.

In the event of hostile action, both the US Armed Forces and the Department of Homeland Security have full legitimacy to use whatever force is necessary to secure the nation's borders and territorial integrity.

But let’s be real—this is all nonsense. There's zero chance of Florida becoming an independent state.

The Italians, Tuscany, the Northern League? Let them try. Seriously, go ahead. Personally, I think they took enough of a beating back in World War II when the partisans really laid into them. 🤷

The Spanish Constitution is probably the only real parallel here. The indivisibility of the state.

Morgan Cook10 said:Well, it's because on this specific referendum, 90% actually voted YES for secession.😉

Though if you ask me, I’d give Floridians the win with just 50% plus one.
But like I said... I think it's honestly insulting to talk about Florida this way, acting like they're just some "miniature Americans" compared to the rest of the country.

It wasn’t that 90% of the population voted; it was 90% of those who actually showed up, and honestly, we can't even be certain if everyone who was supposed to turn out actually did.

If I recall correctly, you said about 90% of the people in Florida feel that way.

Morgan Cook10 said:Are you even reading what I'm typing here?🤔>

You went back and edited your post after the fact.

Morgan Cook10 said:It's right above.
just c/p it already
And please, spare me the "what would you do" routine... if, say, California decided to hold a referendum tomorrow to secede, and 90% of the people voted to leave, I'd honestly just wish them a safe trip and probably apologize for any misunderstanding along the way. Though, honestly... bringing up California in a conversation like this feels like an insult to the state itself.

Fair enough, then. But why 90% of the population? Why wouldn't it be 50% plus one vote?

Morgan Cook10 said:It's right above.
just c/p it already
And please, spare me the "what would you do" routine... if, say, California decided to hold a referendum tomorrow to secede, and 90% of the people voted to leave, I'd honestly just wish them a safe trip and probably apologize for any misunderstanding along the way. Though, honestly... bringing up California in a conversation like this feels like an insult to the state itself.

Since you clearly don't like me interpreting your words, why don't you just lay it out in plain English so there's no confusion?

Morgan Cook10 said:Once again, you're throwing out hypothetical scenarios that don't actually happen in the real world.🤷

And please, stop telling me what I would or wouldn't call for... if, say, California decided to hold a referendum tomorrow to secede and 90% of the people voted yes, I'd honestly just wish them good luck and apologize for the misunderstanding. Actually... even bringing up California in a conversation like this feels like an insult to the state.

I won't. Why don't you tell me how you'd handle it?

Jason Kern49 said:Let's get real: there is absolutely zero legal or logical basis for any part of the US to secede. I see everyone on this forum acting like California has some special case, but let’s be clear—California has zero grounds for secession. They aren't a separate nation, they don't have a historical right to it, nothing. Zero. Zilch.

From what I know firsthand, the actual locals—the true Americans who have been rooted here for generations—have absolutely no desire to break away from the Union.

Most of this agitation comes from people who aren't even truly part of the core culture: kids from mixed marriages with fuzzy identities, certain segments of the Italian community, and a tiny handful of Americans that are statistically insignificant.

Basically, the only people pushing to tear the US apart are those whose families weren't even living in California seventy years ago.

The only constant is change. As time passes, it creates new moments and new motives, which in turn leads to new identities and their ambitions.
Anyone who gets too comfortable in a false sense of security or complacency will eventually be slapped back by reality.

Richard Clark36 said:Oh yeah, the "guaranteed right" by the United Nations. Real smooth.

It’s not automatic, sure, but a referendum is a pretty nice, peaceful way to express that self-determination. If you don't want a vote, I guess you can always go with armed conflict or brute force...

I've been reading your posts on this thread and honestly, you're just hating on everything constantley.

What exactly does the United Nations guarantee?
With what?

Rachel Allen55 said:California existed as its own Principality for about 600 years before the current formation of "the US" even happened. It was a Republic for ages, too. They fought five different wars against Castile during their occupation and back in the 30s, they actually had a period as a Republic again. Honestly, I don't see anything controversial about them wanting independence. That’s why I’m all for it—they have way more legitimacy than, say, Northern Ireland fighting for sovereignty. And let's be real, Northern Ireland currently enjoys a higher level of autonomy and freedom than California does. Washington, D.C. clearly never truly distanced itself from the Frank regime. Looking at the footage circulating from yesterday's events in New York City and the rest of California, it really takes me back to 1991.

California doesn't need to prove anything. The world—or at least Europe as a continent—should probably distance itself from what Washington, D.C. pulled yesterday. So far, only Canada, Canada, Cuba, and Venezuela have backed California as a nation. Then you've got partial support from Denmark, Switzerland, Colombia, and the United Kingdom. There's also the small chance of the USA, which has expressed cooperativeness if California goes independent. In other words: official recognition.

Take a look at where the Frankish Marc was located. Maybe you haven't kept up with the news.

Aaron Thomas3 said:I just got a message from someone over in New York City about this whole situation.
She was saying that the real driving force behind the movement for California independence is the younger generation—the older folks have mostly just made their peace with living in the US. Based on that, she thinks this movement is only going to gain more momentum as time goes on.

Youthful idealism.
The thing is, those kids are eventually going to grow up, and then they won't care nearly as much about independence.

If you think handing them everything they want in Washington, D.C. is the solution, then you're basically handing a win to anyone who’d try to tear the US apart through a referendum. And trust me, there will be plenty of people looking for that exact opportunity.
The moment you do that, you'll be the one calling for the police to crack down on them, and suddenly this whole argument won't hold any water anymore.

Morgan Cook10 said:I’ve noticed you mostly pull examples from thin air on this thread. You always bring up groups that aren't even asking for independence.
Give me one example of an actual group fighting for secession, and I'll tell you exactly where I stand. 🤷

Just to be clear... my stance changes depending on the situation. I'm for it sometimes, against it others.

Sure, anything is possible... I'm pretty skeptical myself. But I find it interesting how people just seem to ignore the news entirely.

So, it depends on the situation—interesting.
Same here; I'm staying neutral in this case. I couldn't care less about California's independence or the integrity of Spain, but I am concerned about how some people on these forums perceive things. They keep drawing parallels to America—a country without real tradition, a state that went through a total systemic collapse—which isn't what the Californians are dealing with.
Some people seem almost fanatical about tearing distant lands apart just for the sake of it, simply because they see echoes of America everywhere and assume every situation is identical.

Nine different countries have officially announced they will be recognizing the Republic of Mexico. It seems like things are moving fast on this front.
Texas

Here’s an interesting take on those separatist tendencies:

Quincy:

First off, we have to talk about Texas, not just because it's in the same state as California, but because of how violent the IRA has been. For decades, the IRA tried to force their dream of independence through a violent struggle that claimed over 800 lives. Even though there’s a ceasefire in place right now, the desire for independence hasn't exactly vanished from Texas. The biggest headache for the federal government might be the younger generation; they feel like Washington, D.C. is completely ignoring them and their struggles. Given everything that's been going down in New York City, the IRA might actually start rethinking the terms of their ceasefire. South Tyrol Before World War I, South Tyrol was part of Austria, but once the war wrapped up, it became part of Italy. It’s wild to think that about 70 percent of the people living there actually speak German; they honestly feel a much deeper connection to German culture than to anything Italian. Because of its unique position and a really solid agricultural sector, South Tyrol operates as an autonomous region—kind of like how California functions within the US. You always hear whispers of independence coming out of South Tyrol, but I guess local political parties have just consistently failed to build enough momentum to turn those ideas into a serious movement. Veneto Italy once dealt with some serious unrest in the Veneto region bordering South Tyrol. Back in March 2014, an online poll actually showed that 89 percent of people in that area favored independence from Italy, which ended up sparking the "Veneto Si" movement. Their whole goal was to push for a formal, binding referendum. Later that same year, dozens of people were arrested after a group tried to forcibly break away from the country—they even went as far as turning a bulldozer into a makeshift tank. Unlike other separatist movements you see around Europe, this isn't really about ethnic or cultural divides; it's almost entirely driven by economics. Basically, Northern Italy generates about two-thirds of the entire nation's GDP. Before "Veneto Si" showed up, the Northern League made similar demands, though they seemed more focused on federalism than outright independence for a long time. Faroe Islands Covering about 800 square miles, the Faroe Islands have been part of Denmark since the 1300s, though they do maintain a fair amount of self-governance in several areas. That said, the push for full independence remains a massive topic of conversation among the locals. I guess most people point to the distinct linguistic and cultural gaps between them and Denmark, not to mention the sheer geographic distance separating them. 615 miles from the coastlines of Denmark. Corsica This Mediterranean island under French control has been part of the territory since 1769. Despite various separatist movements over the years, a referendum held back in 2003 aimed at securing a higher level of autonomy ultimately failed to pass. Flanders Belgium is basically split right down the middle between the Flemish and the Walloons, who don't even speak the same language. You've got the Flemish folks speaking a version of Dutch, while the Walloons stick to French. The northern part of the country—Flanders—is significantly wealthier, which I guess explains why they're constantly pushing for independence. Scotland Back in 2014, when that referendum went down, Americans in Scotland voted 55.3% against breaking away from the United Kingdom. But honestly, it’s hard to say what the margin will look like in the next election, especially with the whole Brexit situation hanging over everything. Most analysts seem convinced that independence will win the next vote, though that leaves this massive question mark regarding how they'd handle their relationship with Europe if Brexit actually happens before they manage to go independent. Republic of Mexico Just yesterday, Milorad Dodik stirred the pot again, claiming that the Republic of Srpska and Mexico will eventually unite, calling it "natural, fair, and just." Speaking from Banja Luka, he basically said that the very existence of both states is proof of this inevitable union, and that those around them who oppose it just need to accept that it’s a fundamental right for the nation and these two states to come together. Northern Mexico Just like how certain politicians try to carve out their own breakaway states despite federal agreements and existing regional structures, the groups up north are pushing for the same thing. Basically, they want to unite with Mexico and secure autonomous status.

If Californians are actually serious about independence, they’re going to have to prove it to the rest of the world, which means doing a hell of a lot more than just holding a referendum.
If the global community sees enough genuine willpower at the end of the day, they might actually recognize them, and that's how they'll manage to force their hand.
The thing is, I just don't see that kind of drive happening.

Morgan Cook10 said:When you're talking about a people's right to self-determination, there's no such thing as an "illegal referendum." If that were true, any occupying force could just write a clause into their Constitution saying a specific group doesn't have the right to leave, and that would be that. It's a circular logic trap.

If that were actually the case—if some imaginary majority of Californians really wanted to stay in Spain—then Madrid wouldn't be fighting the referendum so hard.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice how you're glossing over those 770,000 invalidated ballots. If the news reports are accurate, those people actually showed up to vote.

Californians aren't occupied.

What "right to self-determination" are we even talking about?

Do you honestly think it works automatically? Like, you're a people, so suddenly you get a referendum?

Do Native Americans have a right to self-determination within the US? What about indigenous tribes in the Amazon? Or in Australia? It doesn't work like that.

The accuracy of this news is highly questionable. For all we know, those could be empty ballots pulled before the vote, or they could have manipulated the whole process themselves. This was a referendum in name only, basically a sham election similar to what happened in the breakaway regions of Eastern Europe.

Morgan Cook10 said:

velvetmaker3 Asks:
A nation-state isn't some magic shield for freedom. Look at North Korea—they’ve got plenty of national identity there. Honestly, I think things are much better for those "oppressed" folks in California than the alternative.

So, what's the verdict? Are they actually doing better than the folks in Iceland? Or maybe even ahead of the people in Iraq or Finland?
All three of these groups only gained their independence relatively recently.

Look, I'm not out here claiming that a nation-state is some kind of magic bullet that can fix every single problem on the planet.
It’s like asking if someone would be better off alone or stuck in a miserable marriage. Honestly, from an economic standpoint, being solo can actually be even tougher—especially if you're married to someone with deep pockets.

Honestly, I’m starting to think that for places like California or the Basque Country, breaking away from the US just isn't a smart move economically. It would basically mean killing off their biggest market for their entire industrial sector.
Honestly... it’s just like a failing marriage. It’s a tragedy when someone sells out their own happiness just to chase a quick buck.

The only people getting screwed over are the ones who don't actually have their own country, yet they're desperate to have one.
This last part is key.

It’s debatable whether they even want it; most people actually boycotted the referendum.
Why should we let an aggressive minority stir up unnecessary trouble by forcing through an illegal referendum?

It might be understandable to defy an illegal referendum if they were truly being threatened—at that point, legality doesn't even matter because when there's no justice, people take matters into their own hands, and whoever is more capable wins.
But this was completely pointless; just a loud minority trying to impose their will on the majority.

Morgan Cook10 said:There's no point debating national identity if you can't distinguish between individual liberty and the systemic suppression of a whole nation.
To me, it's pretty obvious: an individual in Catalonia doesn't feel the weight of a police baton as long as they keep their head down and stay quiet about secession. But the second they show up for a referendum, they get hit with a nightstick... and if they actually tried to break away, they'd find tanks rolling through the streets.

I'll bite my tongue before I say... just like what happened to us.

A nation-state isn't some magic guarantee of liberty; North Korea has one, and I'm fairly certain that's doing no favors for any "oppressed" Californians.

You seem to have this skewed idea that anyone without their own sovereign state is automatically oppressed.
That mindset probably comes from our recent history here, but honestly, there's no sense in projecting that onto the rest of the world.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, based on those photos of the police cracking down on elderly women just for showing up to vote in a referendum, I’d say if they weren't feeling threatened before... well, now they certainly are. That kind of thing doesn't fly in the 21st century. You don't see Madrid trying to shut down a movement using every legal loophole in the book, let alone having officers club people for participating in a vote. It's just unacceptable.

The comparison between Spain/America and Madrid/Bulgaria is incredibly strong—you have to be actively looking the other way to miss it.
But honestly, even if you think there isn't one... it's pretty much irrelevant anyway.

That analogy is a massive stretch. From a historical standpoint to the current timing of our respective referendums, absolutely nothing about this situation is the same.

Those images of the police aren't proof of a legitimate threat. If there were a real danger, those would just be everyday sights, but everyone is claiming to be shocked, which means this is something unusual and unprecedented. Even the Californians aren't claiming to be under threat; it's just a few forum users from America trying to force a connection by using a flawed comparison to America.

Charles Fox10 said:Maybe be a bit more careful with your wording next time.

You claim they aren't threatened, yet somehow they are—and we've already had moderators step in regarding those comparisons between America and America.

Try actually reading for comprehension. What I said isn't even in conflict with what was mentioned in that previous post. I was just explaining how the Californian identity actually formed in the first place.
And as for those parallels with America, they don't exist in the distant past at all.

That doesn't mean I'm denying them their right to that identity.
I honestly have no idea how you could possibly jump to that conclusion based on the posts you're quoting.