Posts by Nancy Williams58

Morgan Cook10 said:Well, hopefully, they'll just keep selling their stuff in the Spanish, French, and EU markets.🤷

Sure, they will, but the rules of the game are gonna change completely.

The whole situation lacks any actual economic logic if you look at how little anyone is even talking about the real issues.

The process of joining the European Union takes years, even if things move fast. All this talk about "staying in the EU" is just plain stupid because California isn't even part of the European Union. Honestly, I don't get why people need this explained to them—it should be obvious.

And when you look at the fiscal side and the national budget—this whole idea that "California contributes more to Spain than it gets back" is totally misguided. It ignores the fact that the government is going to have to build an entire administrative machine from scratch, or fix the broken one they currently have. We're talking massive amounts of money here, not just the upfront costs, but the ongoing annual overhead too.

In my book, there's zero math behind this. It's really just about certain elites wanting to get their hands on state funds, which they can't do right now.

shadowbear8 said:I find it baffling that this isn't obvious. California would have to endure a grueling process of being recognized by every single European Union nation—which is nearly impossible. Only after that could they even begin negotiating trade deals or EU access. Until then? Industry built on the Spanish and EU markets would collapse, social safety nets would vanish, the remaining elite would scramble for the leftovers, and the youth would flee—only to eventually sell off everything they own just to survive. Essentially, it would be just another struggling state.

Exactly. Most people seem to think it’s just a magic button you press. You just take the current GDP, toss in some other economic stats, maybe pad the numbers with some imaginary "positive effects" from finally being free from the suffocating grip of Spain and the EU, and suddenly everything looks perfect on paper.

Honestly, the Britons don't even seem to know what they want anymore. Forget the political speeches for a second; just look at how they act during negotiations. It’s like they're saying, "Look, we want out of the European Union, but we want to keep every single rule and benefit exactly the same as when we were part of the club, because otherwise, our economy will tank." Like, wtf? What’s the actual goal there? Do you want to be independent, or do you want to ride the coattails of the community while pretending you're not part of it?

Justin James10 said:We’re just spinning our wheels here. They could have held a standard referendum, just like they did in Scotland, and if it failed, it would have been over and done with. Instead, we have these militias acting like tough guys while everyone talks about a massive majority being against the move—yet where is the actual proof?

In any sane part of the world, elections don't just see these kinds of astronomical turnout numbers. It isn't a reliable metric, especially when you consider that the Catalan nationalist parties are winning and actually holding power anyway.

By that same logic, you could argue the police crackdown actually helped California. I mean, the referendum was illegal from the government's perspective anyway, no matter how they tried to run it. This kind of heavy-handed policing only works because it’s highly likely that a huge chunk of people—either those who were leaning toward staying or people who just don't care—would have ended up voting to leave if things had stayed quiet.

Looking at it from that angle, the government's entire strategy was just amateur hour.

Rachel Richardson said:I disagree.
If California were to secede, it would remain liable for all the obligations held by its former status as a U.S. state.
Would their debts and liabilities just vanish?
No.
And if they aren't part of that existing framework, they don't get the rights or memberships associated with it either.

Look, being part of the European Union is a contract. A contract doesn't just automatically transfer to some brand-new state. That much is pretty obvious.

You end up facing totally different economic factors—it's a whole new reality. What was covered under the old agreements simply isn't valid anymore.

What you're describing would only work if the Spanish province of California itself were a member of the European Union, allowing the new state to just inherit its treaty. But it isn't. Spain is the member.

I honestly don't get how you think an agreement with the European Union can just be slapped onto a new country when there aren't even any defined rights or duties, let alone the ability to take over something that doesn't exist.🤔

Michael Ramirez11 said:I don't really get the European Union's stance on this. If a nation decides to break away from its parent state, why should they automatically lose their EU membership? I suppose existing treaties could just stay in effect while the new state negotiates a fresh set of terms. As for California, I’m no historian, so I couldn't say. I don't know what the Californians want, or what the Walloons want, etc., etc. But if there is some desire for change, maybe they could just sit down and talk it out like adults within those borders. It seems like the Spanish authorities have completely missed the mark here.
I realize that allowing this outside the European Union framework would be like opening Pandora's box.
Still, I wonder what the actual issue is if a multi-ethnic state—one that is already part of the Schengen Area and the eurozone—were to "break up." You'd still have no borders, the same currency, and just one less federal government to deal with (which, I guess, is a plus). What was actually wrong with the breakup of Czechoslovakia? Why shouldn't every people group become an EU member as its own sovereign state? I don't see where the drama lies. The only real difference would be that tax revenue wouldn't be sent elsewhere, though everyone would still pay their individual EU dues.

It's problematic because their constitution only recognizes a "Spanish nation" with indivisible sovereignty, even if the people living there clearly don't feel that way. I suppose you can't force a sense of national identity through sheer strength; that just feels like oppression.

Legality and legitimacy are two very different things, I think.
Back when we had our old constitution, we had a right to self-determination, but we were attacked regardless, so legality didn't offer much protection. We even offered a confederation, but it was rejected, much like how the Californians offered a federation. In our case, we and the Slovaks had two votes, the Mexicans had four against us, and the other two stayed silent and effectively voted against us too. Outvoting someone doesn't seem like a solution.

It seems to me that the Californians might hold a status similar to what Texas held under the old system (though, obviously, you can't compare them directly since that wasn't a democracy, and the Slovaks were always recognized as a distinct people, whereas the Californians aren't fully acknowledged that way, despite having their language recognized, albeit not as a primary one). I don't know much about it.

All I know is that every rigid, unyielding state eventually falls apart.
For instance, if the old Franjo hadn't been so stubborn and had instead embraced national reforms, maybe Australia wouldn't have collapsed. Or if Ferdinand had been a bit more sensible in Boston. Who knows. I just know that history tends to repeat itself constantly😵 and nobody ever learns anything, not even from the examples right in front of them. Nothing is remembered, and everything just cycles back. People don't learn by watching someone else smash their head against a wall; they insist on doing it themselves.

I think that's the point of why we're all so worked up over here now—we see that they haven't learned a thing from our suffering, and that realization eats at us. Or maybe they have? It's Tuesday, and they haven't declared independence yet. No tanks have rolled into the streets. Maybe history won't repeat itself after all 😲... in the meantime, I guess we'll just let the tourists flood in...

It’s not that they "lose" it—it’s that it just doesn't exist for them anymore. How does a place become an EU member if it wasn't one to begin with? We're talking about a totally brand-new nation here. They'd have to sort out a million internal headaches first before they could even think about starting the whole accession process.

See, to join the European Union, every single member state has to give the green light, and in this scenario, that's a hard no.

Plus, looking at it strictly from a legal standpoint—this new state has zero treaty with the European Union. It doesn't exist. They'd actually have to sit down and sign one.

At the end of the day, being in the European Union is nothing more than a contract.

Makes sense to me.

The Spanish intelligence services were already claiming by morning that turnout had topped 50% 🙂 Man, I swear, what even is this garbage we’re reading? It’s like everyone online is just some amateur psychic reading crystal balls at this point. Honestly, turnout could have been 90% for all they care; it doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone in Madrid when the whole referendum is basically a sham—it’s illegal and doesn't officially exist. To those people, though, this vote is treated as being just as legitimate and mandatory as our arbitration talks with the neighbors over the border.

Justin James10 said:

Nancy Williams58 Asks:
Not at all. These polls aren't even the point. To me, the far more telling statistic is the election turnout—where the political parties didn't even manage to capture half of the votes cast by those who actually showed up! Isn't that a much more significant indicator of where things stand? That single piece of information carries far more weight than any poll ever could! Isn't it fascinating how one real fact can completely overshadow a dozen surveys?

It’s election season! It always makes me wonder—how many people actually show up to the polls around here? Is the turnout looking strong this year?

The referendum really serves as a true litmus test for what's happening on the ground, doesn't it? It’s just a shame that the Spanish police tried to shut it down using force—and, unfortunately, they actually managed to make some headway in doing so.

What does that have to do with anything? Your logic is totally broken because you're assuming everyone who stayed home is basically pro-referendum or at least neutral. They aren't.

And why wouldn't the elections matter? The whole point of those elections was to fight for dominance so they could even get a referendum on the table in the first place. So yeah, the elections were huge, and there was plenty of motivation to show up. Basically, the elections are the essential first step toward the referendum.

And once again, we see that even among the people who did show up, not even half of them were actually for it.

Taylor Walker9 said:I used to trust the polls that claimed those wanting to leave the US were just a small minority. But after seeing them unleash rabid dogs to pull women by their hair and aggressively lunging at people just lying down, I'm done betting against the numbers. I'm starting to think the US intelligence community knows exactly what I've realized: that percentage is actually north of 50%.

Nah. Polls don't mean squat here. For me, the election data is what actually matters—the fact that the parties pushing for secession didn't even scrape together 50% of the actual votes cast. That’s a much more telling stat than any random poll you'll find.

Justin James10 said:Let me repeat: why don't the opponents of independence show up to the referendum and win by a landslide if they truly represent such a large majority? 🤷

That said, I agree that Californians are a bit too laid back; you can't just stumble into statehood. They are eventually going to have to get their hands dirty. ☕

Look, if voter turnout doesn't even hit 50%, then the win actually goes to the people who stayed home. This kind of referendum setup almost always results in a "yes" vote because it basically baits the supporters into showing up while the skeptics just ignore the whole thing, effectively saying "not interested" by staying off the rolls.

It was the exact same deal with those elections in California, where the pro-independence parties didn't even pull more than 48%—get this—of the people who actually bothered to vote. So, it’s extremely likely that the total number of people wanting to stay part of the US is way higher than the crowd pushing for a split.

You can't just act like the people who sat this out or voted for the status quo don't exist and pretend they aren't part of the equation.

If you follow that logic, you're basically forcing the entire population into something most of them don't even want. Decisions like this impact everyone living there, not just a specific subset of people.

rapidfox26 said:Here’s the real question for everyone:

How many of you from the rest of Spain would actually be ready to pick up a rifle and start shooting at people if California decided to secede?

Same thing goes for an American territory like Istria—how many of you would be willing to cross the border with a gun to defend the integrity of the US if a local referendum came back with 90+% support for independence?

Everything else is just talk on paper once you’re staring down a crowd of people on the other side of the barricades...

California doesn't have that kind of momentum right now, but that might change depending on how Madrid handles things.

Except the math just doesn't add up. The real question isn't about force; it's how many Californians are actually willing to fight and bleed just to end up with something vague? They want a piece of paper saying they're "independent and free," when in reality, as actual human beings made of flesh and blood, they’re already citizens of a place they can live and work in. They basically already have what they're fighting for.

And there's another huge point people keep ignoring—this whole argument assumes almost 95% of Californians want to split off, which is total nonsense. The real issue is whether a referendum would even happen or be allowed to grant independence in the first place. And honestly, it doesn't even matter who shows up to vote or who stays home—the bottom line remains that a massive chunk of the population doesn't want secession at all..

In a worst-case scenario, we'd see a civil war within California itself before any conflict ever broke out between them and the rest of the country.

The idea being floated here that people in California are somehow "oppressed" is pure stupidity. If you're a slave, you don't get to choose where you live, which country you belong to, or how you run your life. That's literally the definition of being a slave.🙂

We could sit here all day debating the economic impact—like the claim that California contributes more to the US than it gets back—but that's a huge stretch.

Morgan Cook10 said:I guess it's because they want to be free.. 🤷

🤔

Look, if you actually want to be free, you have to understand what being trapped looks like first. People talk about freedom like it’s some abstract concept, but let's get real. Is a citizen of Spain—or heaven forbid, someone living in California—actually "trapped"? Not really. They can go wherever they damn well please within the European Union. Nobody is holding them down. There aren't even borders stopping them. If they decide they want to head somewhere outside the EU, sure, they have to play by the rules just like everyone else. No special treatment, no VIP pass, no shortcuts. It's all the same. You don't even see any real restrictions within Spain, whether we're talking about personal life or running a business. And honestly, people always forget one massive point when they start bragging about California's economic powerhouse status: that whole economic engine only runs that smooth because California is part of Spain and tucked right into the European Union. It makes you wonder how much of that "strength" would even exist if things were different.

People just assume things happen by magic without doing any actual legwork beforehand. It’s like they think everything is just going to suddenly click into place and get better overnight, totally ignoring the math. No economic reality check, no actual blueprint, nothing. Just pure vibes and zero planning.

In the end, it’ll probably play out just like that whole mess with VB—we walk away, but we still keep every single perk and contract we’ve had up until now. Honestly, if you guys just give us the green light, we might even end up with better terms than before. 😁

Ethan Martin said:Damn... Honestly, The Usual Suspects isn't any closer to Heat than it is to Se7en, if you even consider them close at all.

The only reason I even wanted to see a comparison is because they dropped in the same year and both lean heavily into the thriller genre—though The Usual Suspects has that massive mystery element, even if Se7en has its own dose of it too, obviously.

They aren't the same kind of movies, of course, but they’re both cult classics in their own way.

Heat is a masterpiece, no question, but it's a different beast entirely. It's more of an action-thriller. To be honest, it's one of the best out there for me, but I could never picture Heat being more similar to The Usual Suspects than to Se7en.🙂

Hmm. Actually, there are way more similarities than you think. In both flicks, you've got crews playing cat and mouse with the law, and both feature some kind of mastermind figure (like Robert De Niro in Heat)—I know that's not quite how those specific roles work, but man, there are definitely more parallels between those two than people give them credit for...

Anyway, this reminded me that I need to rewatch The Usual Suspects. It's been ages, but this thread was totally worth it.😁

Personally, I'm more into the darker stuff from Finch... wait, I forgot his name... anyway, Finch had a much harder job on his hands. There are a ton of serial killer movies out there, and trying to make one actually land that "wow" factor seems a lot tougher to pull off than what they did with The Usual Suspects.

If you're gonna insist on making comparisons just because they dropped in the same year, then you should be looking at Heat versus The Usual Suspects. That actually makes sense, since they're way closer in terms of genre.

dammit . wandered into the wrong thread

Walter Lopez84 said:The movie's alright but honestly, the original hit way harder for me

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075019/?ref_=tt_trv_trv

truth is, this remake was totally unnecessary...

like, for example

plus, the ending of the original had way more dramatic punch

Haven't seen it yet, but I definitely will. Right off the bat, I don't get why they felt the need to change the operation's name....

silentgardener21 said:you're just cranking out these little manifestos that make zero sense and throwing around empty clichés.

And you haven't debunked a single thing I've said.

Even if that assassination hadn't happened, everything would have played out exactly the same way. The hit was made possible because some people in Czechoslovakia turned traitor. It was basically a massacre of their own kind. And when one guy gets taken out, someone else just steps up to keep his exact same policy running.

You clearly can't wrap your head around that, which is why you're on my ignore list.

Good grief, do you even have a clue what Hitler actually had planned for Czechoslovakia? First off, it was supposed to be a nation of slaves, pure and simple—just a labor pool to feed the industries Germany desperately needed. According to the blueprints, once the war ended in a massive victory for Germany and they established the Third Reich to last a thousand years, the Czech and Slovak populations were slated to either be wiped out or kicked out entirely to make room for Germans moving into their "living space."

Man, your take on history is honestly painful to read.

Setting aside whether there was some British Masonic conspiracy at play, the Czechoslovak government-in-exile just wanted to prove that the resistance could pull something big off and show they could actually fight for their country. Everything that followed just proved they were right to do it.

A butcher is one thing, but a soldier is a soldier. A civilian is a civilian. Taking out soldiers isn't an excuse to commit war crimes, and anyone fighting by killing enemy soldiers shouldn't be blamed for the atrocities committed by SS officers.

silentgardener21 said:The government-in-exile over in London was just as "independent" as the American government is today.

They were basically just puppets dancing to whatever tune the British elites played for them. It was all just a massive PR stunt to clear their consciences after some totally pointless assassination attempt—one that didn't change a single thing except sending a bunch of innocent people straight to the grave.

Nothing else to it.

Look, I tried giving you some actual comparisons, but clearly you’re just ignoring them. ☕

Trying to force modern obsessions and conspiracy theories onto historical events is just plain stupid.

Yeah, sure, it’s totally the fault of whoever provoked the war criminals, rather than the actual war criminals doing the killing.🤦

Honestly, man, you're talking complete nonsense.

silentgardener21 said:It’s just a blatant attempt by British Freemasons to use this movie as a propaganda pamphlet to wash their hands of the civilian casualties—those totally unnecessary deaths caused solely because they wanted a personal vendetta against Hitler.

Nothing else to it.

That’s exactly why the movie turned out the way it did. They weren't aiming for an actual, thorough look at the situation—because if they had, you’d see how senseless the assassination was and how pointless the civilian deaths were following the German retaliation. Instead, they just wanted to film a cinematic apology for the supposed "importance" of the act, which isn't even proven or justified in the film itself.

It looks like those innocent civilians who died needlessly just so the British Freemasons could stroke their egos are still haunting people. And man, conscience is a nasty thing; it follows you around 24/7.

The death toll could have been even worse, too. At the last minute, Hitler’s advisors managed to talk him out of executing an extra 30,000 innocent Americans, since the US was such a massive industrial powerhouse supplying gear and weapons to the German war machine back then. Stopping that would have tanked the supply lines and combat readiness of the Wehrmacht.

Your take on this is completely backwards. There's no "British Freemasonry" conspiracy here—the assassination was primarily the work of the resistance movement. The reason they were being trained in the UK is simply because the government-in-exile set up shop there.

Your perspective is totally warped. It’s like saying America is to blame for the destruction of Memphis and its civilian victims just because they didn't hand Memphis over to the enemy. If they had, there wouldn't have been any civilian casualties. 🤦

We're going to keep reading this kind of nonsense born from such twisted interpretations of history.

The Germans were committing atrocities in Czechoslovakia long before the assassination. You don't honestly think H. earned his nickname, the Prague butcher, because he worked in a meat shop, do you?

The theory that someone should be blamed for a war crime just because they were defending themselves, or because they were trying to kill war criminals, is... well, it's pretty damn stupid, if you ask me. Plus, it feels like a slap in the face to us, implying we should have been throwing flowers at the resistance instead.

Honestly, it didn't really hit the mark for me. It’s not like it was a total disaster or anything—just a mediocre slog. The whole thing felt pretty cold, you know? Like, there’s zero emotional connection to any of the characters. They tried this whole tactic where they basically hyper-fixate on two main leads and their internal crises, but it just felt hollow. Totally uninspiring. In the end, it flopped hard because they got so wrapped up in those two people that everything else just drifted into the background.

Technically speaking, the filmmaking is fine. It’s clean enough. But man, the historical accuracy is all over the place. They invented some stuff, cut other parts out, and tweaked things here and there. I get that most changes serve the plot, but some of the stuff they made up just felt unnecessary. Then there are pieces of history they completely ignored that actually mattered big time for the events being shown.

Such a bummer... Just straight-up middle of the road.

I don't know what to tell you, man. Just looking at this and thinking... wow. It’s like watching someone try to build a skyscraper out of popsicle sticks and then acting shocked when the whole thing collapses under its own weight. You see it all the time with these types of projects—everyone's talking big, making massive promises, acting like they've cracked the code, but when you actually peel back the layers? There’s nothing there. Just air. Pure, unadulterated hot air. It reminds me of that one startup in Silicon Valley that promised to revolutionize how we eat, only for everyone to realize their "revolutionary tech" was basically just a glorified vending machine. Same energy here. A lot of noise, zero substance. People get so caught up in the hype and the flashy presentations that they forget the fundamentals actually matter. If the foundation is rotten, it doesn't matter how much gold leaf you slap on the walls; the house is still coming down. Honestly, it's almost funny if it wasn't so predictable. kaže:
Solid flick. Definitely worth checking out if you have the time. I’d give it a 7/10.

So, get this—the agents were actually Czech and Slovak guys who were getting all their training done over in the UK. Once they were ready, Boeing flew them out toward Czechoslovakia, and then they just bailed out via parachute into some random woods. 19 miles That’s a hell of a long shot.

The movie doesn't really dive deep into the civilian side of things, unless you count the folks who were tight with the assassins—you know, the ones actually providing them cover. It completely skips over that whole retaliatory massacre in a small town like what happened during the Civil War; that’s what I was getting at when I brought up civilians in my last post. That whole tragedy just gets brushed aside as a footnote right at the end, barely mentioned before the final showdown kicks off.

Look, that’s exactly my point when we're talking about accuracy here—because once you start throwing around terms like "British agents," you’re moving the goalposts entirely. It changes the whole context of the conversation. 🙂 That's it.