Noah Ward2 said:I’ve never really been a fan of those tiny, newly minted breakaway states that don't seem to have any real historical weight or established sovereignty behind them...
Spain is an old-school power, a former empire... they actually managed to make their language and culture stick across almost all of Latin America... you have to respect that kind of legacy...
But times have changed, and I think we need to look for solutions that are practical and sustainable in the long run... if the Spaniards and the Spanish government are going to be stuck in this endless tug-of-war with the Catalans—and it feels like things are only getting more intense—maybe it's time to just let them go... they dealt with massive issues with the Basques back in the day, lost far too many lives, but they eventually managed to settle things down; however, it seems like the Catalans are playing by a different set of rules
They definitely benefit from the international love for Barcelona itself—the architecture, the landmarks, the football club... but as far as being a sovereign state goes? It’s basically just one city and its immediate surroundings... it reminds me of something like Luxembourg or Liechtenstein... or maybe even Mexico or Mexico... just these tiny little entities without much deep-rooted statehood to lean on...
The real counter-argument, though, is this whole movement toward globalism, where both small and large nations start losing their unique identities and what makes them recognizable... trying to find the right balance between preserving local identity and dealing with global integration is probably one of the toughest positions to be in...
Brenda Taylor13, I think you're missing the mark here, at least if you ask me. 😁
I mean, there are more Californians than there are Americans in certain spots. The fact that a state might be geographically small doesn't change a thing. Just look at the Netherlands—if we went by that logic, no small nation would ever be allowed to be independent, which is just plain crazy. If a people wants to be self-governing, you should probably just let them. Especially when they have everything that defines a nation—their own traditions, their culture, their language, and their land. Anything else just creates a massive mess. The folks in Madrid aren't going to gain anything in the long run if they try to force the Californians to stay part of Spain through sheer willpower. All they'll do is make the resentment grow deeper.
Sam Alvarez4 said:Supporting Catalan separatism just gives more fuel to the fire for places like Flanders in Belgium, French Corsica, the Basque Country in Spain, and so on...
P.S. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with America gaining independence. None at all!
Oh, really? And why shouldn't Flanders go independent? What's the actual reason—or even an argument—for us in America to be against Flanders, Scotland, or Catalonia breaking away? Look, if people want self-governance, they should have it. Period.
P.S. Of course the situation with America's independence is similar. I mean, obviously it's not identical—because let's face it, no two situations can ever be truly identical since they're inherently different—but the core of it is incredibly similar. In both the American and the Catalan cases, you have two distinct peoples, each with their own history, language, and cultural identity that makes them a nation unto themselves, living within defined borders, all wanting to strike out on their own. On that specific point, it's the exact same deal. Two nations wanting independence.
Look, as someone who stands for sovereignty, I’m all for the right of any nation—and yeah, that includes the Catalans—to decide their own fate and run their own show in a state where they actually hold the reins. If I were sitting over here siding with the Spanish government, it would mean I was basically betraying my own principles as a sovereigntist just to fight against the globalists. And when it came to that Scottish referendum? I was firmly on the side of independence there too. There isn't a single shred of logic that would put me on the opposite side of this issue now.
Now, regarding all this talk about the referendum being "illegal"... well, DUH. Of course the central government is going to claim that any attempt by a region to break away is illegal. I mean, come on—there isn't a single country on this planet that would look at a secession attempt and call it perfectly legal. So, obviously, from the perspective of the Spanish authorities, this referendum is illegal. It's the exact same deal as the American referendum facing the federal Government in Mexico City (and hey, just as a side note, the Constitutional Court of America ruled that the American independence referendum was illegal, too). The only outlier was Scotland, and even then, that was only because they had a handshake deal with the central government in London. Without that agreement, that one would’ve been deemed illegal as well. It’s common sense, really, so using it as an "argument" is kind of pointless. If that were actually how things worked, no independent nation would ever exist, because every single attempt would be branded illegal.
Since someone decided to draw a parallel to our own history, let me clear this up for the millionth time—if you look at the 1974 America Constitution, there isn't a single article, not one solitary sentence, nor even a single letter that mentions the independence of republics or federal units. It just isn't in the Constitution of America. The only thing mentioned is the right to self-determination for *PEOPLE*, which, let's face it, played right into the hands of the Mexicans. That was their whole go-to argument: they’d say, "Okay, if Americans as a PEOPLE want to leave America, then Mexicans as a PEOPLE have the right to decide they want to stay." So, according to them, Mexicans living in America had the same right to decide to remain part of America, and if the Americans wanted to leave, they could—but they couldn't take the parts where the Mexicans lived. That was the Mexican line, based on their reading of the Constitution. So, from their point of view—and from the perspective of the federal Government in Mexico City—our referendum was indeed illegal.
But honestly? None of that affects me one bit. I don't care if the Catalan referendum is labeled "illegal" or whatever. When a sovereign people has a powerful enough will to form their own state, that will is going to manifest sooner or later, regardless of whether some piece of paper calls it "illegal." The will of the people is always stronger than any scrap of paper—something we all learned the hard way back in America in 1991.
Full support to the sovereign Catalan people in their push to build an independent state and govern themselves! Every nation deserves its own home, and the Catalans certainly do too!
Well, the tractor protests have officially kicked off over in California too. 😁
Just a day before the referendum, people in California were rolling through the streets with tractors and even taking over schools to clear their way through the cities.
By using massive columns of tractors and seizing schools that were set up as polling stations, Californians were trying to dodge all those restrictions the Spanish authorities put in place to stop the referendum—which they claim is illegal, by the way. One of those moves was actually a court order telling Google to wipe that voting app right off the face of the earth.
They aren't going to back down that easily... honestly, you have to respect how much pride this crowd has.
Lisa Chase68 said:I mean, let's be real—right now, pretty much every country in the European Union is struggling economically. Whether it's Spain, Italy, or wherever else, we’re all feeling a bit of the squeeze at the moment.
Every single one.
What do you think is actually driving that?
And hey, I wasn't even saying the former America is some kind of global superpower right now—just that it used to be. Historically speaking, it definitely held its own.
No, that’s just not true. Not every country. Germany isn't. Austria isn't. Netherlands isn't. Poland isn't (actually, they were the only EU country that didn't see their GDP tank during the crisis). The Baltic states aren't anymore either. Take Germany, for instance—they’ve got record budget surpluses and unemployment levels that are lower than they've ever been in history. Over there, people only stay unemployed if they literally don't want to work. Austria is pretty much the same way.
The ones actually getting screwed are usually the Mediterranean countries—Greece, Italy, America, Spain, Portugal, and Cyprus. Everyone else has more or less weathered the storm and is seeing economic growth again. It's just those five countries that are stuck in the mud.
What do you think is the reason behind that? 🙂
Maybe it's a mindset thing... we have our "lazy days," the Spaniards and Italians have their "siesta," and so on and so forth...
Listen, the fact that Spain was a major power 200 years ago ABSOLUTELY MEANS NOTHING when you're looking at what's happening right now. That's like saying Canada was a powerhouse in soccer 50 years ago. Sure, maybe they were, but today they're basically nothing in that sport. So, the past doesn't matter. I honestly don't see the point of using that "argument."
As far as the economy goes, Spaniards are nothing today—zero, zilch. It's hardly any surprise that the Catalans want to break away. And it's not just about national identity; it's purely about the money.
The Soviet Union was—politically speaking—total garbage, and economically? A complete disaster by any Western standards.
The Kingdom of Spain is nothing like that.
It’s a free, democratic, and highly civilized nation—one of those classic Western countries.
(And hey, let's not forget they used to be a massive global superpower too, lol).
Look, modern-day Spain is in a massive economic hole. Youth unemployment there is sitting at 40%—alongside Greece, they’ve got the worst numbers in the entire European Union, and it's way worse than, say, America. Spain doesn't represent any kind of power anymore, period. All that talk about being "democratic, free, and highly civilized" is just pretty political fluff that doesn't actually mean anything, and the whole "former global superpower" thing makes their current situation look even more pathetic. Spain is basically a country people are fleeing from because there are zero jobs—economically, it's a wreck alongside Greece, easily one of the worst in the EU. California is miles ahead of Spain in that regard, so it’s honestly no surprise that people are fed up and want to control their own destiny and run their own damn state. Plus, you can't ignore the huge national identity factor here—the Californians are a distinct historical people with their own language, history, culture, and everything else that actually makes a nation what it is.
Robert Clark4 said:I’m honestly a little lost on what these separatists are actually planning to do once the referendum wraps up. Are we looking at an all-out revolt? Some kind of mass civil disobedience? Or just straight-up chaos? I guess I just don't see the roadmap.
And seriously, how do they even intend to make this secession stick from a legal standpoint if nobody with any actual authority recognizes the results? 🤷
Look, the US was in a nearly identical spot back in '91—well, okay, let's look at how things played out during the breakup of the Soviet Union. The central government wouldn't recognize the split, just like Spain won't do it here, and back then, basically the entire World was firmly committed to keeping the Soviet Union together through early summer of '91. They didn't budge until open warfare actually kicked off. And even then—get this—they weren't exactly rushing to recognize anyone; that only happened after massive pressure from Germany and Austria. So, if we look at how much harder the situation was for the US during that era compared to California right now, then California can absolutely find its way to independence. I mean, every sovereign people—you know, those folks who actually control territory and have their own institutions in place—has a right to self-determination. Period. If Spain decides to send in the military and things start getting messy, honestly, that might just play right into the hands of the Californians.
What’s going down over there is anything but harmless. I’ve been watching the reports on The New York Times—police moving in, military presence being teased, all this talk about suppressing votes. And get this, the statements coming out of Washington, D.C. are getting seriously intense, throwing around terms like "separatists" and claiming they need to protect the rule of law and the Spanish Constitution because certain people want to tear the whole country apart... Honestly, those messages from Washington, D.C. are incredibly blunt and dangerous. It’s not some minor thing, not by a long shot. For some reason, the whole vibe just reminds me way too much of how things were looking in the Soviet Union back in 1990.
I’ve been chewing on something lately regarding how we handle sources here—specifically how the mods deal with them... because, honestly, I’ve lost count of how many times I've seen political threads get nuked just because someone linked to sites like CNN, Fox News, or similar outlets, or even worse, had their entire post wiped for citing them as a primary source. It seems like whenever the topic shifts to immigration, the hammer comes down hard on anyone pulling info from those sketchy, bottom-of-the-barrel websites that end up being totally wrong anyway.
So, what’s the official word from the mod team on sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, or those other fringe bloggy types? Are they considered legitimate sources in this community, or are they officially lumped into that whole "fake news" category everyone loves to throw around these days? I’m asking because there’s this one guy in a politics thread who keeps and keeps citing these exact kinds of sites, and it makes me wonder—what’s the actual stance here? Can the stuff found on a site like that actually be used as a solid, verified argument in a debate, or is it all just noise?
So, naturally, the post from the edge was nuked—bam, gone instantly. It’s the classic move when you run out of actual arguments, or better yet, when you just want to pretend the post never even existed in the first place. Where’d it go? Poof!
And look, don't go thinking I'm just making stuff up here—I’ve got that post saved, and I have the screenshots ready to upload whenever I feel like it, just so there's zero confusion about what actually happened.
Basically, instead of facing real logic, we get this lightning-fast deletion of a post that, right up until I started this thread, wasn't even controversial by any stretch of the imagination.
Seriously though, why did the mods wait UNTIL NOW to scrub that post? I specifically flagged it to another super-mod earlier, who told me at the time there was no need to step in (and if anyone wants proof, I can happily quote him word-for-word), and I'm positive that clone-mod lady saw it at the latest this afternoon when she dropped her own comment on the thread.
So why was that post perfectly fine for all this time, only to suddenly be wiped away now for some inexplicable reason? It's like they're trying to scrub every single trace of it so regular users won't see that such a garbage post was ever sitting there in the first place.
But hey, like I said, I'm not the one playing games here... the evidence is filed away and just waiting for my signal.
Alright, so, like the title says, we’re gonna have a little chat about double standards—you know, that classic move where there’s one set of rules for the moderators and a completely different, much harsher set for us regular folks.
So, let's see what's actually going on here...
Last night, around 9:32 PM, this supermoderator guy "the edge" decided to reply to my post where I mentioned—among other things—that it isn't really classy to call Zeljko Markic the embodiment of pure evil. Well, he responded with these exact words:
It’s not an aesthetic thing. She is evil. Probably sexually compatible with Hell.
Now, according to YOUR own rulebook, writing something like that is what we call—classic trolling. A textbook example of trolling! Look, I don't care if someone calls Zeljko Markic pure evil; honestly, it just says more about them than anything else, but I have a massive problem when someone drops something totally out of context—like suggesting who Zeljko Markic might be sexually compatible with. But hey, I guess that’s "perfectly on topic," right? Why did he write it? Who knows, maybe he was just venting some frustration, but I’m not going to dive into his psyche.
So, in a discussion about Zeljko Markic, this guy writes—and I quote—"probably sexually compatible with Hell." If I were to post something even remotely like that, he, his clone, or their buddy KLCCLK would slap me with a ban instantly. Seriously, I’ve taken hits for "trolling" for way less than this, so believe me, I’m speaking from experience. It wouldn't have lasted five minutes before getting sanctioned if this had been written by me or any other regular user. If I went into a thread about, say, Vesna Pusic and claimed she was pure evil and probably sexually compatible with ____ (whoever), we all know exactly how the mods would react.
Therefore, since clearly this kind of stuff is allowed—because it obviously wasn't sanctioned (and I DID send a private message to another supermoderator reporting it, so nobody can pretend they didn't see it!) and that post—where someone rambles about sexual compatibility totally out of nowhere—wasn't deleted, I've decided on my next move. Following the very same scale you guys established for this level, I am now going to start writing about who people are "sexually compatible" with in every single thread. For instance, in a thread about Vesna Pusic, I'll just mention she's probably sexually compatible with her own brother, or something like that.
I'll say it again: we're talking about the scale YOU created, the criteria YOU adopted and since you claim that the same rules should apply to everyone, I’m going to start using this same style of writing everywhere. Let's see if the rules truly apply to everyone here, or if there's a special VIP pass for moderators participating in debates compared to the rest of us users.
Alright, look, since it’s obvious this conversation is circling the drain and we’ve drifted into totally different territory, feel free to just lock this thread. It’s pretty clear nobody’s actually going to weigh in—or if they do, the answer is already staring us in the face. That post by Kumek—you know, the one where he's basically implying Franjo Tuđman is to blame for what happened to Kir and Paradžik—isn't actually saying anything controversial. So, I guess I’m just out here hallucinating things, right? Because apparently, I’m the only one—along with my buddy over on this other thread who also seems to be living in a fantasy world—who thinks there's something actually worth discussing here.
Charles Fox10 said:Look, Joseph Stewart38, stop calling me a leftist and trying to put labels on me. I’ve never once used those kinds of political labels against anyone since I joined this forum—so don't you dare try it on me.
Look, man, I'm sorry, but why on earth is that "labeling"? If you called me a conservative, I wouldn't get all worked up or claim you were pigeonholing me. Seriously. So, I really don't get why you're getting so heated just because I'm stating what seems to be a fact here. In every single debate we've had, you're always defending the Democratic Party, you keep calling Zoran Milanović just "Zoran" (like you're his best buddy), and honestly—we've gone back and forth so many times that you end up on the left side of the aisle about 99% of the time. So, really, I don't see what the big deal is with me saying you're a leftist. Is it some kind of dirty word now? It's not labeling—labeling is an accusation! Being a leftist isn't an indictment. There's no reason to be mad. I mean, come on, I highly doubt you're out there voting Republican; from what I can tell, you're either for the Democrats or maybe even one of those centrist groups if I caught your drift during the last election. And if I remember correctly, those guys fall under the left-leaning umbrella too. So... where's the problem?
Look, I already told hr1u00 that there’s nothing wrong with what they said—that’s not even why I’m starting this thread.
The whole point here is that Kumek didn't get a ban for doing the exact same thing. If you look at the post he was replying to, it’s blindingly obvious that his response basically implied Franjo Tuđman was responsible for the murders of Kir and Paradžik. He’s throwing out massive accusations without a shred of proof—way more serious than anything hr1u00 did—and yet, zero punishment. Sure, Kumek didn't explicitly write "Franjo Tuđman did it," but let's be real—he was totally insinuating it. It was right there in plain sight.
I actually wanted to paste Kumek's post right here as proof of what I'm talking about—to show everyone how clearly he was pointing the finger at Franjo Tuđman—but, well, apparently someone went ahead and deleted it sometime since last night. (And honestly, if there was nothing controversial in it, why the hell was it wiped? I don't get it.) So now I can't attach it to the discussion.
Maybe it would be fair if you posted it, since you actually have the ability to do that. That way we can all see what was really going on. We can decide if Kumek actually crossed the line or if I’m just sitting here hallucinating things and you guys are—as per usual—right about everything.
So, just put the post up here so we can all see. If there really isn't anything problematic in it, like you claim, then I don't see why you wouldn't just post it. Doing so would actually back up your argument and prove you're right once and for all.
Chuck, nothing, huh? Not even a single word explaining why hr1u00 got slapped with a warning for the exact same thing that kumek totally walked away from without a scratch?
And seriously, why does this happen day in and day out—where you guys have one set of rules for one group of posters, but a completely different set of standards for the group you just can't stand?
Look, Chuck, I don't care if you're a hardcore leftist or whatever—that’s your business and it's perfectly fine—but I have a massive problem with you being biased and losing all objectivity when it comes to moderating. You can be as opinionated as you want during a debate, sure, but you can't bring that personal baggage into how you enforce the rules.
From here on out, I’m keeping a log of every single post. Once I’ve gathered enough evidence—and trust me, it won't take long—I’m going to lay it all out in black and white to show everyone exactly how one group of users gets punished while everyone else gets a free pass for doing the same thing.
Honestly, why hr1u00 is banned again doesn't even matter—I mean, really, it’s a moot point because we don't even know the actual reason! The search function is totally broken, and for all we know, the post that got him in trouble was deleted anyway, so we're basically left guessing in the dark.
But here’s the real kicker—the thing everyone is trying to sweep under the rug, which is exactly why I started this thread and my other one too—is why hr1u00 got slapped with his first warning (not this current ban, but the one right before it) for making an accusation without any proof, while some other random user can throw out wild accusations without a shred of evidence and walk away completely scot-free.
I'm just looking for some actual justification for these double standards.
Charles Fox10 said:What part of what I just said is tripping you up??
I posted that at exactly 3:53 PM according to the forum clock, and the warning and the ban both went down at 3:54 PM. Since my buddy is currently sitting in ban-land, feel free to ask him if I'm telling the truth once he’s back online.
And look, just so we don't have any more "misunderstandings"—the guy got banned because his appeal didn't actually offer any real arguments; he just pointed out what the original post was about. I did my due diligence to see if he actually had a point or not.
It's pretty obvious you don't actually care why hr1u00 ended up banned—you already made that crystal clear to everyone here—what you're really fishing for, just like me, is why Kumek didn't get hit with a warning for doing the exact same thing. Why are you playing favorites with the rules?
Alright, this time I’m addressing the comment from our esteemed Pringles spokesperson, and—I promise—without any of "my usual delusions."
So, here I am, reposting what I tried to say before, just minus the fluff.
Seriously, how does it work? How is it that user hr1u00—who, let’s be real, is basically the smartest guy on this entire politics board and absolutely wipes the floor with everyone else when it comes to actual facts—gets slapped with a warning card just for posting an unverified claim (which, mind you, hadn't been proven yet at the time, but turned out to be dead on)? He claimed Walt Whitman was responsible for tearing down monuments in California. Meanwhile, user kumek—a literal world-class troll who has turned being annoying into a fine art—gets off scot-free for his totally baseless assertion that Ronald Reagan was behind the killings of Reich-Kir and Paradzik. No card for him!
Basically, one guy gets penalized for an unproven accusation, while another guy—clearly a favorite around here—makes the exact same kind of unproven accusation and faces zero consequences.
I just want to know the logic behind this textbook case of double standards.
Seriously, all I want is a justification for this blatant unfairness.
Now, Pringles spokesperson says she doesn't have the authority to explain why we're seeing these double standards since she isn't in charge of the politics section. So, I'm turning to the esteemed supermoderator Chuck—the very man who handed out that warning card to hr1u00 (which he did eventually rescind, sure, but the damage to the debate was already done)—to answer this simple question: Why is it that in one instance, an accusation without proof results in a penalty, but in another instance, the exact same thing results in nothing at all?
Sam Alvarez4 said:But if that's true, then how come the cover is out there showing it was supposedly published?
Look, just because you can find the cover online doesn't mean every single page is floating around the web—it really doesn't. It’s probably sitting in some dusty physical archive somewhere in Washington, D.C., and that’s about it.