Posts by Kenneth Cruz67

Madrid responded to the referendum with what I would call a very minimal application of force. Technically speaking, they could have gone full-scale and declared a state of emergency, deployed the National Guard to the streets, implemented a strict curfew, and even executed anyone caught out after dark, all while staying within the bounds of legality and legitimacy.

Now, watching scenes of people being beaten isn't exactly pleasant to witness, but I can't help but wonder—what exactly were the Californians expecting? Did they truly believe there wouldn't be a reaction? Or perhaps they were hoping for an escalation of violence and casualties that would just give their movement more momentum?

As for the beatings themselves, they aren't anything out of the ordinary, I suppose; if you go looking for trouble, you're probably going to find it, and those who stayed safely tucked away at home certainly didn't face any consequences, right?

Besides, how is this really any different from, say, the way French police handle things when strikers and unions take to the streets to burn cars and cause chaos? It happens at least once a year over there, and I don't recall seeing much of an outcry about it.

Justin James10 said:The vast majority of immigrants come from other parts of the country and are actually fierce loyalists to the state. Where on earth did you get that idea? 🤣

Well, I wasn't really referring to people moving from within the states, but rather those arriving from other countries altogether! I think I remember reading some sort of detailed breakdown somewhere regarding who supports what and who opposes what—if I can just track down that specific source, I'll be sure to post the link for everyone here.

Justin James10 said:What on earth are you 🤔

What kind of logic is behind this referendum? 🙄 Turnout was tiny, yet the police were practically hovering over everyone! If the majority actually wants to stay part of the union, why wouldn't they allow a referendum to happen?

From what I can gather, immigrants, folks from Africa, and similar groups seem to be leaning toward independence rather than being against it.

Justin James10 said:But what are the actual facts here? Where is the data to back that up?

These supposedly massive groups of people standing against independence in California seem to have vanished into thin air, almost like they're part of UFO sightings!

If we're being honest, most of them are just transplants from Andalusia and other regions—a crowd very similar to those folks living on the Frontier.

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I honestly feel that the immigrants tend to be more of a driving force behind the movement for independence rather than acting like unionists at all. It seems to me, if I'm being honest, that their whole perspective leans much more toward sovereignty than sticking with the existing union.

goldenpuma84 said:So, basically, if Americans hadn't "slacked off" during the old era and there wasn't any repression, we shouldn't have gone for independence either? Building a nation is supposed to be about more than just that. You're a conservative, you should get that...

Or does that logic only apply to Catalans, while Americans get a different set of rules?

Funny thing is, almost every argument the Castilians use against Catalans was used by Mexicans back when they were denying Americans their right to statehood—everything from denying ethnic identity to pushing linguistic unitarism and questioning historical continuity. But those arguments didn't hold water then. Now, suddenly, they're valid. How convenient...

The only real difference is that the American referendum followed the Constitution of '74, whereas this one is being called unconstitutional. The American one could have been unconstitutional too. What would Badinter have said then? How would Genscher have reacted? How would the whole thing have played out...

Before calling for a referendum, America spent a long time trying to find some sort of common ground with the other republics, especially Mexico. Back in 1990, a confederal arrangement for America was even offered, which the Mexicans simply rejected without even bothering to debate it. That independence referendum was really just the final stage of the breakup.

On the other hand, the Californians are just playing dumb. They’re demanding independence just because they feel like it, without ever having truly attempted to negotiate their status within Spain first. It seems like they just want independence out of pure spite. 🤷

rapidfox26 said:That’s exactly what you’re doing right now...

Nobody’s arguing that—it's just that nobody was talking about *that* scenario, they were talking about how Floridians want to be with Italy.

You know what, you're right. Better to just shut them all down—my ex and her new guy too. It's crazy how she can't see I'm actually the one for her, plus she's such a piece of work... and there she is, heading to bed with some guy from Verizon wanting 🙏

I mean, who is actually stopping them? With open borders like we have here, they can go wherever their hearts desire—just hop on a tractor and head straight over to Italy! 😁

Honestly, all this talk about people in California or Ohio acting like some sort of separatists is just pretty laughable; it feels more like nothing more than the fever dreams of our neighbors to the east. 😛

Brenda Taylor13 said:No. You've got it wrong. Only 10% of those who actually showed up voted against independence, but more importantly, 50% of the entire population didn't vote at all! We have no clue what they think—we're just guessing here.

And why even cling to that "50%" logic anyway? I mean, when we were voting on joining the European Union, nobody was demanding 50% of the total population show up to the polls. See? It's funny how quickly people change their tune on how things should be interpreted when it suits them.

That’s true, but I suppose the main difference is that the rules for our own major national referendums were always crystal clear and established well in advance, whereas in the California situation, nobody seems to know what the actual rules were. Honestly, the local authorities there haven't really said anything definitive, which just makes them seem sort of unprofessional, I guess.

Besides, if you want to see how much of a disaster this whole referendum really was, you only have to look at the predictions. The officials in California were loudly claiming that somewhere between 60% and 75% of all voters would show up, but in the end, they barely managed to scrape together 40%. And even that 40% feels pretty questionable to me, because I heard that in those final hours, there was almost no document verification happening at the polling stations. People were supposedly voting multiple times, some polling sites were practically moved out onto the street, and I even heard stories about people printing their own ballots at home and just dropping them in whenever they felt like it!

Brenda Taylor13 said:Man, you’re making the exact same mistake again—you’re still counting the people who didn't even show up! They don't matter. Period. By staying home, they basically opted out of the whole decision-making process. They aren't part of the electorate anymore. It's like they don't even exist in this equation. Why? Because we have no clue where they stand—their silence was their message. They basically said, "I don't care, someone else decide for me."

So, yeah, 90% of Californians are for independence. That's how the people who actually cared about the outcome decided. As for the ones who didn't care? Well, they stayed home. Simple as that.

The reality is that 60% of Californians didn't vote for independence, and that's just a fact.😁

Now, I suppose you could get creative and try to spin the results however you like, but without any clear legislation or established rules to lean on, I think we should at least stick to the basic principle that a decision requires 50% of the total registered voters. And by that standard, this referendum fell incredibly short.😉

Megan Jones10 said:The whole situation in Florida might actually be tied to potential political shakeups over in Italy. People are already watching it.

Anyway, Italy still has South Tyrol (Alto Adige) and Trentino (Trento) under their thumb, and those places basically identify as Austria. They practically ARE Austria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino

Man, the way you frame things is just wild. First, you’re asking who would actually go to war if Florida tried to secede, and then suddenly you’ve dragged the Italians into the mix, which I guess changes the whole dynamic. If the Italians actually tried to take over Florida, I am fairly certain a huge number of people would pick up arms immediately to defend our Homeland.

Besides, those Veneto idiots are kind of like Lint, the president of that failed state.

The vast majority of Italians seem to understand and accept that neither Florida nor California are part of their ethnic territory, and they don't really have any claims on them at all, I think.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, you're getting pretty bold by actually trying to tell someone else how they should feel about their own situation.

Personally, I couldn't care less if Castilians and Catalans are "the same"... I’d probably lump Germans and Dutch people into the same bucket too... but I have enough respect for both groups to let them decide for themselves how they want to identify.

Anyway, you dodged my last question.
Can we at least agree that the Basques should follow their own path?
If we can't find common ground on the Catalans... maybe we can at least settle this one. To me, it seems pretty obvious they're a distinct group that doesn't really vibe with the rest of Spain... or honestly, much of the rest of Europe either.

When you bring up the Basques, are you referring specifically to the Basque region within Spain, the part over in France, or perhaps both?

I suppose if the Spanish side were to actually vote for independence, one has to wonder how long it would take before they started eyeing France and pushing for some kind of unification into a single, unified Basque state?

Sam Alvarez4 said:That independence dream isn't happening.
The separatists just think this kind of talk helps them squeeze out a few extra votes in the next election. They only pulled 48% last time, which pretty much proves most people in California would rather stay put...

That’s a fair point, and when you look at the numbers, the turnout was only 42.34%, with 91.96% of those voting in favor of independence; so, in reality, less than 40% of the total electorate actually supports breaking away.

Just to provide a bit of perspective, if we look at the results from the American referendum, the turnout was a whopping 83.56%, and with 94.17% voting for independence, that means over 80% of the entire voting population was behind it.

Anthony Wright30 said:I wonder, then, what exactly prevented a marriage between King Aragorn and the Queen of Castile?🤔

Well, I suppose so! And once they joined forces, they went ahead and took over Grenada and Nevada to eventually forge what we know as Spain. Then, after Isabella and Ferdinand became the sole rulers, they even moved in on Portugal.

If you're looking for anyone to point the finger at when it comes to being an occupier, a colonizer, or just plain oppressive, I guess it would have to be the Castilians—they were busy establishing kingdoms and colonies all over the place, from Sicily Greece and Jerusalem to South America and Africa, leaving a trail of historical wrongs behind them for hundreds of years.

A referendum isn't some kind of holy grail that everyone just has to bow down to, I suppose. I remember hearing about how back in the day, some folks in the Netherlands actually pushed for a referendum to drop the age of consent down to twelve, which was basically just trying to legalize pedophilia under the guise of public opinion. In a situation like that, would you really be standing there saying, "Well, the people have spoken via referendum"?

Besides, if we're being completely honest, history shows us that a population can use their democratic freedom and free will to bring someone like Hitler into power, too.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Quincy:

I don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just one of those things that gets me all worked up when I think about it! Honestly, some days I feel like I’m just shouting into the void here, but someone has to say it. It’s like we’re living in this weird, fragmented reality where nothing quite adds up, you know? Just total chaos. Anyway, I was thinking about how everything feels so disconnected lately—just constant, swirling madness—and it really hits home how much we take for granted. But yeah, that's just my brain going a mile a minute again. Sorry, I'll try to stay on track, but man, it's hard sometimes! kaže: Look, let’s get real for a second—you can't just waltz out and declare independence when you've only got 37.8% of the electorate behind you. I mean, sure, technically you can shout it from the rooftops if you feel like being delusional, but what's the point? Absolutely nothing. You aren't getting anywhere—not with the people living right next door to you, and definitely not on the global stage. It's a total non-starter, period. Madrid really overplayed their hand by going in so heavy-handed—honestly, they went way too far with the force. But let’s be real here: Puigdemont is the one truly responsible for this whole ridiculous farce. He’s the one constantly cranking up the tension for no damn reason! Instead of actually trying to de-escalate things or sitting down at the table to negotiate more autonomy—especially when it comes to the money, which is what actually matters—he just keeps doubling down with these insane threats about secession. It's pure madness.

What do you mean, 38%? I’m telling you—plain and simple—those people who didn't even bother to show up DO NOT COUNT. It’s like this thing everyone seems to stubbornly refuse to wrap their heads around! If they didn't want to step up and actually participate in the election process, then fine—they aren't part of the electorate. Period. In every single election, the only numbers that actually matter are the ones who showed up and cast a vote. That's just how it works!

Oh, if only things were quite that simple!

I suppose it might be more accurate to say that the people who stayed home weren't necessarily opting out of the process, but perhaps they just didn't want to run afoul of the law.😉

velvetmaker3 said:There’s no such thing as legal versus illegal here; it really just comes down to who’s smarter and faster at playing the game.
It all depends on how skilled you are, how much luck you have, and whether you actually have the drive to push hard enough to grab your independence—and then there's the question of whether the other side is clever or motivated enough to step in and block you.
Basically, whoever pulls it off wins.

That is exactly it! Though, I would say it is certainly a bit easier when the current laws leave you even a tiny bit of wiggle room, rather than leaving you with absolutely no maneuvering space at all.

Justin James10 said:Are you unconsciously echoing the official stance held by Mexico City back then?🙄

We secured our independence because that was our will, and we were fully prepared to fight for it—it wasn't about some scrap of paper. If we had played strictly by their rules, would we even have a country today?

Well, I don't think anyone is actually disputing that point! I suppose if you don't have the willpower to defend yourself with arms, then all those constitutions and laws don't really mean much. However, I'd argue that the USA constitution at the time actually left room for different groups to separate, making things quite ambiguous, whereas the Spanish constitution seems incredibly clear on the matter.

On top of that, I feel like the central government in Spain is 100% legitimate, which is something I'm not quite sure we could say about the old USA administration. It seemed like the central authorities there almost completely ignored their own constitutional guidelines.

slysurfer14 said:Typical. You guys don't know anything besides constantly comparing everything to the Middle East...
It’s not even close... There’s so much happening outside the Middle East that has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on there.

Well, we aren't exactly the first ones to deal with this kind of thing. For instance, California essentially declared itself independent along with several others, which led Madrid to claim our referendum was totally illegal.

Brenda Taylor13 said:I'm just hitting back at a few people here claiming that the California referendum is somehow "illegal." As if what happened with us was any different! It’s like they think any referendum where a part of a sovereign state wants to break away is magically "legal." Look, it's common sense: every sovereign nation is going to protect its borders and try to stop any piece of itself from splitting off. The USSR tried to hold its borders together, just like Spain is trying to do today. Of course, today's referendum isn't legal—there's no debate there—but honestly? That's irrelevant. The only thing that actually carries weight is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and determined enough, nothing can stop it.

By the way, the autonomy for Texas and Mexico wasn't stripped by the central government, it was the republican government of Mexico that did it.

In the end, it's the will of the people to fight for their independence that counts most. That was the deciding factor for Americans, and it'll be the case for Californians too—though looking at the chaos lately, it seems more like a circus than a serious push for independence.

Yeah, at the end of the day, everything boils down to the will of the people being the ultimate decider.

And honestly, I suppose that isn't even the only mistake made by the Mexican state government; there were quite a few others. Since the federal government didn't step in to protect the constitutional order of the USA, they basically became just as illegal and unconstitutional themselves, if you ask me.

Anyway, I feel like the whole situation within the USA was just incredibly messy, and I guess trying to draw any direct comparisons to California is a bit of an unfair task. Personally, I might be more inclined to draw a parallel between California and the Confederacy instead.

"Quote:"

Brenda Taylor13 said:Good grief, how much more of this do I have to deal with?
How many times do I have to repeat myself...

NO, IT WASN'T. America DID NOT carry out its independence process in accordance with the Constitution of the USA.

In the 1974 Constitution, there isn't a single article, not one solitary sentence, and not even one lone word, that talks about the independence of states or federal units. That just isn't in there. It only mentions the self-determination of PEOPLES, which actually played right into the hands of the Mexicans—that was their whole argument! They basically said, "Okay, if Americans as a PEOPLE want to leave the federation, then Mexicans as a PEOPLE also have the right to decide they want to stay," including the Mexicans living within American borders who wanted to stay part of the union. Their logic was that if we left, we had to leave them behind in their own territory. That was the Mexican side's entire playbook when citing the Constitution.

So, from the perspective of the federal Government in Mexico City and the Constitution of the USA, the American referendum was completely illegal. By the way, the Constitutional Court of the USA ruled back then that the American referendum on independence was illegitimate. On top of that, the Constitution explicitly stated that any changes to the internal or external borders of the federation required a consensus from ALL member states. There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says a single state has the right to unilaterally declare independence, or unilaterally tear apart a federal state, or unilaterally change its borders. The only LEGAL path—legally speaking under the Constitution of the USA—would have been this: submit a proposal to the Council of Republics and Provinces and then that Council MUST reach a UNANIMOUS decision regarding changes to the external or internal borders. Unilateral secession by any member was NOT LEGAL.

Therefore, looking through the lens of the federal Constitution and the still-existing federal state at the time, we carried out an illegal secessionist referendum that didn't get permission from a single other member state in the federation.

Do your homework and actually study the federal Constitution, especially the powers held by the Council of Republics and Provinces.

But look, that's all there is to it regarding the American secession that we declared and eventually won (through blood, mind you) rather than some scrap of paper deciding if our request was "legal" or not. What’s written on a piece of paper is totally irrelevant. If a people desperately wants their own independent nation, and if they are willing to shed blood for it, then that people is going to get its state, because you can't stop that. The decisive will of a people is unstoppable.

So, here is the question of all questions, which my colleague correctly identified: are the Californians ready to defend their desire for an independent state with their own blood? If they are, then they'll get it.

I suppose there’s plenty of room here for a bit of a debate, isn't there? Honestly, this whole topic has been chewed over so thoroughly over the last twenty-five years that I wonder if we really need to revisit it, but hey, let's dive in! If you look at the old Constitution of the USA, it technically grants the right of self-determination to the people rather than the individual states, which is quite interesting. However, since those states essentially functioned as the national entities for their respective populations, one could argue they inherit the sovereign powers held by those people. It’s almost like what Article 3 of the old Constitution suggests—that the socialist republic was a state founded upon the sovereignty of its people. Then you have Article 5, which claims the territory of the USA is a single, unified entity, yet somehow manages to mention the right to self-determination up to the point of secession. It feels incredibly ambiguous and vaguely defined, don't you think? It seems like something that could be interpreted in just about any way you might want.

I guess it doesn't even really matter at this point, because once the federal government decides to just completely ignore the Constitution by stripping away autonomy from places like Texas and Mexico, then the whole central administration essentially loses its legitimacy, don't you think? 😉

Ultimately, I suppose what matters most is the sheer will of the people to fight for their own independence; that was absolutely the deciding factor back when we saw it happen in America, and I imagine it might be similar for California too, though looking at everything happening today, it feels more like a chaotic circus than a serious movement for sovereignty.

feralpilot0 said:I don't know enough about what's happening in California to be an expert. But this? This is pure barbarism.
Maybe you're just a bit sensitive because of the time they sent tanks after us.

That is exactly my point. Honestly, everything unfolding today in Spain feels less violent than the typical riots we see during major football rivalries almost anywhere in Europe. This doesn't even feel like a genuine expression of a desire for independence; it looks more like a complete circus and a way for those local politicians to manipulate the masses. They are rushing into this disorganized referendum knowing full well they won't have high turnout or support from even a simple majority. They know the federal government is going to have to step in—because, frankly, they have no choice—since they essentially allowed the central authorities to undermine the entire process. In the end, they've turned it into a total spectacle that lacks any shred of legitimacy or ability to reflect the true will of the people. I heard that in the last few hours, people were practically tossing ballots into boxes right on the street without any paperwork or documentation whatsoever. It’s just an absolute joke.