California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Taylor Walker9 said:Italy can't lift a finger as long as they have US bases on their soil, and the same goes for Germany. You think anything stopped them from taking action back in 1990 after the Berlin Wall fell? Just a reminder: back in 1990, there were massive protests demanding that Florida and California be returned to Italy.

It was those overseas agreements that kept them in check—and if you actually think America has more global clout than Italy, you're being incredibly naive. If violence broke out against Italian citizens in Florida, it definitely wouldn't go unnoticed.

Charles Fox10 said:That might be true, but you should probably ask them their side of the story first.☕

Why exactly would we even bother asking them?

Harold Anderson3 said:So where does that leave us? Don't you think Washington, D.C. basically backed itself into a corner with its own policies, essentially forcing the issue of the referendum and the subsequent vote FOR independence?

I mean, what could they have possibly done that was bad enough to make some of them want a referendum in the first place?

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.

Using force out of Madrid is obviously wrong—there’s absolutely no justification for it.
As if those results actually mattered...

velvetmaker3 said:

I guess I don't really have much to say about this. Maybe there isn't much to say. velvetmaker3 says:
I'm telling you, it's just not possible.

California has every right to demand some kind of referendum, and trying to deny that or compare it to something like Iowa is just plain wrong. It shows you either don't understand the situation or you're intentionally pretending you don't.

Why couldn't it just be anyone?
Isn't the most important thing just the will of the people actually affected by the referendum?

Or maybe not?

If that referendum in California can be challenged, then fine—but if it can't, then nobody else's can be either.

So?

How can you even ask "why"?

Look, if you can't see the massive historical, constitutional, administrative—hell, any kind of difference—between something like Scotland or California and a tiny little place like Ohio, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to comment on this thread. And I’m not saying that to be a jerk... I mean it. Why are you even here?

But yeah, fine—any referendum can be legally contested. You've got me there, obviously.

velvetmaker3 said:If shots are fired, someone wins—it could be one side or the other.

So, what you're saying is Italy would just step in to stop an uprising from people trying to break away from US territory? What do we call that? Aggression? Irredentism? Or is it just a fight for freedom?

Just ask the Mexicans what they actually achieved with all that shooting in Mexico. All you'll get is an uprising followed by a massive crackdown later on.
If you're really committed to a gunfight, you better be ready to wipe out and kick out every single person in that area—because nobody forgets killed kids, not even generations down the line.

Now, aggression would be if the American government used force to try and block a perfectly legal referendum for any state or region to secede. Hypothetically speaking, obviously. And that rule applies to pretty much any country in the world.

velvetmaker3 said:That was a while ago, and in the meantime, they've been given everything. Now it might end up looking like it would have been better if they hadn't received anything at all, because they don't seem to appreciate what they've been given.
Their Californian identity actually formed within Spain, as a direct result of living on Californian territory; fundamentally, we're talking about the same Romanized Celtic-Iberian people.
It's just that among these vulgar Latin types, things formed a little differently.

While it’s usually the root of most mistakes, I’ll assume you haven't spent a few months over there in the last twenty years talking to regular folks, or perhaps the California elite, in terms of wealth or political clout.

I have. My phone hasn't stopped buzzing since yesterday—WhatsApp, Viber, or just calls from people who clearly still care about me. I'll allow myself the luxury of thinking I might know more than others. I could be wrong, of course. I'm not certain.

They have a right to a referendum, a right to express their views, and a right to ask those views be respected. I'm convinced they wanted nothing more than basic human respect, which they didn't get. Instead, they got batons and brutality—things they were sure would never happen on their streets again. Unfortunately, they did.

I'm even inclined to believe—and some of them seem to agree—that even if the referendum had been perfect, the results wouldn't have been spectacular. But sadly, things will never be the same there as they were before last Wednesday.

Brenda Murphy3 said:How can you even ask "why"?

Look, if you can't see the massive historical, constitutional, administrative—hell, any kind of difference—between something like Scotland or California and a tiny little place like Ohio, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to comment on this thread. And I’m not saying that to be a jerk... I mean it. Why are you even here?

But yeah, fine—any referendum can be legally contested. You've got me there, obviously.

The criterion is the will of the people who actually show up to vote, isn't it?

I guess you'd challenge one person's results but not someone else's.

Every situation is unique, of course, but those people trying to draw parallels between the US and California should probably be the first ones to take that into account.

But if the standard is democratic will, then every referendum is legitimate. By that logic, a vote in Ohio or Florida would be just as valid; they should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want independence or not. If they wanted to establish their own separate state—which would just be another American state—and they expressed that through a referendum, you wouldn't make an issue out of it, would you?
You'd probably just say it's the democratic will of those people and they have the right to decide their own future, right?

Jacob Williams said:Sorry buddy, but we aren't all masochists. There are some "sadists" in here too... ☕

Sadist or not, kid. It’s just not happening.

Do you want to know why? Well, the President of the USA has already stated he supports the integrity of Spain,
which means the administration of the most powerful nation in the world isn't backing the Catalans. Not that the European Union is either—look at the major players, Germany and France. Even the UK won't step in.

There might be some protests here and there, sure, and plenty of negotiations... but in the end? The chances of an independent Catalonia are maybe 1%? Nothing more...☕

velvetmaker3 said:The organizers easily made up for the ones that were seized. This whole referendum was out of control, especially since there weren't any observers present.
Just imagine if voting worked like this here: you bring pre-filled ballots from home, toss them in the box, then hit a few different polling stations just to drop off a handful more each time.
The referendum is completely illegitimate—not because it was illegal per se, but because there was absolutely zero oversight during the voting process.

And where on earth is Pusićka? Hasn't she finished her little tour visiting "moderate democrats" in Iraq and Syria yet?

Hey velvetmaker3, when's your birthday?

Maybe we should ditch the news sites and just grab a used baton as a gag gift...

https://craigslist.com/example-link

Since you're clearly such a huge fan of theirs.

Megan Jones10 said:Just ask the Mexicans what they actually achieved with all that shooting in Mexico. All you'll get is an uprising followed by a massive crackdown later on.
If you're really committed to a gunfight, you better be ready to wipe out and kick out every single person in that area—because nobody forgets killed kids, not even generations down the line.

Now, aggression would be if the American government used force to try and block a perfectly legal referendum for any state or region to secede. Hypothetically speaking, obviously. And that rule applies to pretty much any country in the world.

The Mexicans beat the Albanians, and then a superpower stepped in and completely shifted the momentum.

As you can see, a successful application of force can tip the scales toward anyone, maybe even toward Madrid.

Megan Jones10 said:It was those overseas agreements that kept them in check—and if you actually think America has more global clout than Italy, you're being incredibly naive. If violence broke out against Italian citizens in Florida, it definitely wouldn't go unnoticed.

A treaty is just a scrap of paper if there isn't a superpower backing it up. America doesn't care much about the internal standing of this country, but they do care that borders within the European Union aren't being redrawn, even if border shifts are always tempting in Europe. I'm convinced Italy will try to make a move again the moment this European order collapses—and it will collapse, because everything has an expiration date. Once that happens, those Treaty of Versailles agreements won't mean a damn thing.

Steven Bennett5 said:Sadist or not, kid. It’s just not happening.

Do you want to know why? Well, the President of the USA has already stated he supports the integrity of Spain,
which means the administration of the most powerful nation in the world isn't backing the Catalans. Not that the European Union is either—look at the major players, Germany and France. Even the UK won't step in.

There might be some protests here and there, sure, and plenty of negotiations... but in the end? The chances of an independent Catalonia are maybe 1%? Nothing more...☕

That doesn't change the fact that our own pathetic leaders couldn't even react to that brutal crackdown on people 👎

While our local idiots try to lecture Kim Jong Un, we seem perfectly content to just look the other way regarding what is happening in Europe during the 21st century—even though we've been through something very similar ourselves.🤮

velvetmaker3 said:The criterion is the will of the people who actually show up to vote, isn't it?

I guess you'd challenge one person's results but not someone else's.

Every situation is unique, of course, but those people trying to draw parallels between the US and California should probably be the first ones to take that into account.

But if the standard is democratic will, then every referendum is legitimate. By that logic, a vote in Ohio or Florida would be just as valid; they should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want independence or not. If they wanted to establish their own separate state—which would just be another American state—and they expressed that through a referendum, you wouldn't make an issue out of it, would you?
You'd probably just say it's the democratic will of those people and they have the right to decide their own future, right?

No, the will of the people isn't the only thing that matters, though you're kind of onto something there... the issue is that people in Ohio aren't a distinct nation, whereas Catalans are a nation and currently part of Spain. Spaniards exist in the same way that former American used to (not that that matters right now), but even if you look at it through your lens—which is honestly pretty basic—you still can't compare an actual nation to folks from Ohio... it's just nonsense.

velvetmaker3 said:I mean, what could they have possibly done that was bad enough to make some of them want a referendum in the first place?

Well, I honestly don't think anyone would be pushing for a referendum if things were actually going well for them. You had this centralized government essentially siphoning off everything produced in places like Barcelona and sending it straight over to Madrid through taxes. If they had just granted them more autonomy—say, fiscal independence—and allowed for a fair pre-referendum campaign where both sides could actually speak, we probably wouldn't be standing here today. They might have still voted YES regardless, but looking at what happened in Scotland, there's a real chance they wouldn't have. As it stands now, it feels like we're headed toward more bloodshed, which will inevitably lead to some pretty catastrophic images being broadcast to the rest of the world.

US policy is DEFINITELY not going to recognize California's independence

And you won't see any support from Greece, Mexico, Slovakia, or Cyprus either—they didn't even recognize Mexico

It seems like Berry is pretty much the only one in the USA who’s actually said anything about this.☕

Bernardić was the first to condemn the violence in California, yet the President and Prime Minister remain silent.

nevažnost said:Just look at the 2011 census results for Orange County and Delaware and settle this dilemma once and for all. Once the number of Americans drops below 50%—which it’s already way above in both counties—then we can start having this conversation.

I mean, I guess Americans could also just decide they want to secede from the USA.