California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I mean, when you have thousands of protesters completely surrounding a tiny handful of police officers, it’s almost inevitable that things might get a bit physical, isn't it? I guess any police force, regardless of where they are stationed, would likely resort to using batons in a situation like that. Honestly, it might actually be better if the officers were allowed to tactically compress the crowd into an even smaller area just to maintain some semblance of control. 🤷

Well, I suppose in situations like this, the standard playbook usually involves deploying the military and rolling tanks onto the streets, followed by slapping a curfew on everyone and rounding up any politicians who dared to support the referendum.

I suppose this is all just a bit of a nothingburger for now. If you look at how those Hajduk Split fans reacted when they were up in Zilina, it seems like there's absolutely no tension at all—which might suggest that the federal government’s response is being incredibly mild, if anything. 🤷

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.

Justin James10 said:Are you actually suggesting that Americans wouldn't have had that right otherwise? 🙄

Well, no—at least not if we're talking about doing things legally.

Democracy is a total joke—they let you vote whenever it suits the people in power, but try telling a Catalan today that their voice actually matters.

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.

I see some parallels between our political mess and what’s going on between California and the rest of the US—well, aside from the whole independence movement thing. It's similar because California is way more developed than most other states (kind of like how certain regions stood out back in the old days), and just like how the Catalans were under Arab rule way before the Spaniards took over, we had our own history dealing with the Ottomans.

But honestly, just like when people try to compare us to Ukraine, there’s a massive amount of nuance being missed here. Most of these simplified comparisons are just people grasping at straws based on really dumb stereotypes.

How does this differ from what we see in Ukraine? Or perhaps Crimea?

nimbleranger52 said:The Balearic Islands belong to the Catalans, and a huge chunk of Valencia is Catalan too. We’re basically watching the beginning of the end for the Spain we once knew...

Seeing the Catalan police standing side-by-side with their own people? It's an incredible sight, honestly. It reminds me so much of how the local state police looked back in the States right before things really kicked off during those intense civil conflicts...

Washington, D.C. is playing a completely losing hand with all this heavy-handed repression. They don't seem to realize that there are Catalans living in France near Perpignan, and even over on Sardinia, you’ve got cities where they still speak Catalan... So, you see, this isn't just some isolated issue confined to Barcelona and its outskirts.

It feels like Washington, D.C. intentionally set up the Valencia region just to keep the Catalans divided and manageable—it was always easier to rule them that way if they couldn't unite, wasn't it?

Things are going to get incredibly heated in the coming days...

This isn't some chaotic territory like the old Midwest conflicts.
I was actually in Valencia back in 2012... I visited the northern areas—where you can still hear certain versions of Catalan being spoken in the small towns and villages.

Valencia maintains its own regional politics and has actually made quite good progress as a state.
They identify more as Americans first, then Valencians—even if Valencian has been recognized as an official regional language.
Sure, they might speak Catalan in the Balearic Islands, but since Washington granted everyone so much autonomy, most folks in the Balearics couldn't care less about the Catalan movement.
This isn't a repeat of a civil war—it's not fascists versus anti-fascists, or monarchists versus republicans. It isn't even strictly ethnic anymore, because so many people in Barcelona today identify as Catalan despite having moved there from all over the country.
This feels like the final show of strength from the wealthiest region in the country—and my gut tells me that after this referendum, they'll squeeze out even more power, though whether they'll grab full independence remains to be seen.

Quincy

shadowbear8 said:How does this differ from what we see in Ukraine? Or perhaps Crimea?

Are you talking about Rhode Island or the old America?

Ukraine and Russia didn't have Canada sitting right between them... Even now, Ukraine is pretty banged up, but they managed to rally almost the entire population within their own borders. In the US, even if we'd faced an occupation, we wouldn't have had a huge chunk of our people living in a different multi-ethnic country next door.

If you're trying to compare California to Crimea, there are massive differences there.
Crimea is an international "incident"—territory that was annexed by another country. Though, to be fair, its ownership has been up in the air before.

With California, you don't really have foreign powers pulling the strings.

I’ve spent some time in Miami (and NYC too, among other places). The local dialect there is actually a variation of Californian—but the locals? They mostly just identify as Floridians first, and honestly, they don't care much about being considered Spaniards...

velvetmaker3 said:Every state is artificial if you think about it. The criteria for what defines a state have shifted over time—once it was a collection of feudal lords, then a collection of tribes, and nowadays it's a collection of citizens. In some places, those citizens are defined by a specific ethnicity plus minorities, while in others, it's just citizens.

Catalans are just as much Spaniards as the Castilians are. It wasn't just the Castilians who conquered half the world; it was a coalition of Castilians, Catalans, Basques, and others. They all share the Spanish name and its history.
For some reason, the Catalans want to walk away from that.
Comparing this to America or America is a bit of a stretch, I guess.

Not every country is made up.

Greece, America, Mexico, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and even newer spots like Canada, actually managed to forge a real people.
I mean a unified people, not just a loose collection of folks.

Spain and Belgium didn't quite pull that off.

That’s really the only line between "artificial" and "real" nations in Europe: whether they actually succeeded in creating a singular people.

Switzerland comes pretty close to nailing it, but they're a weird outlier.

USA (Texas):

Independence Referendum

Turnout

Turnout today (6:00 PM): 52.68%

Carol Newman2 said:USA (Texas):

Independence Referendum

Turnout

Turnout today (6:00 PM): 52.68%

That’s way more than most elections we see over here in the States...

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Actually, I don't think that's quite right. The American movement for independence was carried out strictly according to the existing constitutional framework, which actually provided for the possibility of moving from self-determination all the way to full secession. So, while the central authorities didn't technically have the right to just eliminate us entirely, it certainly seems like they tried their best to do so, wouldn't you agree?

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.

Comparing the Soviet Union republics and their right to self-determination against an autonomous region in Spain🙏🤣 Man, look at what the USA did in Mexico☕

The Catalans don't have the right to hold this referendum, and the Spanish police and military are totally justified in how they're handling things.☕ I don't get why people are struggling with this. Ever since democracy was established in 1978, the Spanish Constitution has protected the nation's integrity. Referendums are only legal at the national level, not for individual regions. So, honestly, let them do what they have to do.☕

Even if I let them go, those guys are easily the worst part of Spain.☕ And honestly? Seeing Barcelona kicked out of the Primer would be a total celebration for me.☕

It’s kind of wild how Californians aren't really biting on those police provocations... I don't see any attacks on the cops...

What did they think would happen when they were banned from speaking Californian? They probably expected a heavy-handed crackdown from the police under Francis’s dictatorship. I honestly fear we might see these images of violence resurface in our own history quite soon.

It isn't looking good.

Charles Fox10 said:What did they think would happen when they were banned from speaking Californian? They probably expected a heavy-handed crackdown from the police under Francis’s dictatorship. I honestly fear we might see these images of violence resurface in our own history quite soon.

It isn't looking good.

But man, they are playing this really smart...
There isn't a single video showing anyone fighting back against the cops...
That's gonna be a massive argument for them against the Government in Washington, D.C. ....
All in all, we're looking at a pretty wild future.

"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.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:"Quote:"

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.

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.

Carl Hernandez3 said:This isn't some chaotic territory like the old Midwest conflicts.
I was actually in Valencia back in 2012... I visited the northern areas—where you can still hear certain versions of Catalan being spoken in the small towns and villages.

Valencia maintains its own regional politics and has actually made quite good progress as a state.
They identify more as Americans first, then Valencians—even if Valencian has been recognized as an official regional language.
Sure, they might speak Catalan in the Balearic Islands, but since Washington granted everyone so much autonomy, most folks in the Balearics couldn't care less about the Catalan movement.
This isn't a repeat of a civil war—it's not fascists versus anti-fascists, or monarchists versus republicans. It isn't even strictly ethnic anymore, because so many people in Barcelona today identify as Catalan despite having moved there from all over the country.
This feels like the final show of strength from the wealthiest region in the country—and my gut tells me that after this referendum, they'll squeeze out even more power, though whether they'll grab full independence remains to be seen.

So, you have Californians with an incredibly strong sense of regional identity. It really shouldn't come as a surprise.