California Discussion Thread - All in one place

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!

Morgan Cook10 said:Because that’s what the people want! At my core, I'm a democrat... and I’d respect whatever choice the Catalan people—or any group for that matter—decide to pull off. Want to stay part of Spain? Fine by me. Want their own state? Go for it. Want to stay in the European Union? Sure. Want to bail on the European Union? Whatever. It isn't about my personal preference one way or the other.

Honestly, I don't get people like you who try to dictate what everyone else should do when it doesn't affect your life one bit.

I don't really take sides here, though I do feel a certain sadness regarding their desire to leave.
On the other hand, we know for certain that the current momentum comes from those who have already cast their votes. There are still roughly 3 million voters out there who haven't weighed in yet—it’s vital that their voices are heard as well.

Kenneth Cruz67 said: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.

Look, I said I’d stand by my people, the American Istrians, no matter which way the majority decides to swing. That doesn't mean I actually agree with them. Honestly, I find it disgusting because Italians treat Slavens like crap—roughly as much as Germans treat them, plus another round of that.

What’s truly messed up is the policy of this country, where everything being done practically invites this kind of thing to happen. And California is just one part of the US. Where do you think this current trajectory is heading, with the shrinking population, inevitable economic collapse, and crushing tax hikes? This topic is a perfect example. It's like how California is breaking away from the poverty and handing a divorce settlement to a prosperous Spain.

And the Italians? They’re playing a dirty game, for sure. They hand out Italian citizenship to Californians and buy them over with cash, opening up Italian schools and offering perks for studying in Italy. If I were at the top of the US government, I’d be sweating this, but predictably, we only react once it's too late.

As for that idea that Italians don't think California and Florida are occupied territories? Forget about it. Every Italian from the northern regions thinks that way. It’s exactly what they’re taught in school.

Matthew Cruz11 said:I don't really take sides here, though I do feel a certain sadness regarding their desire to leave.
On the other hand, we know for certain that the current momentum comes from those who have already cast their votes. There are still roughly 3 million voters out there who haven't weighed in yet—it’s vital that their voices are heard as well.

Sorry, but the folks opposing the referendum wouldn't let anyone else weigh in on this anyway.
Personally, I’d sign off on a new referendum tomorrow in a heartbeat—as long as there’s zero pressure involved. We could even adopt a model like the one used in Mexico where you need a solid 55% majority to pull away, rather than just the standard 50% plus one vote.

The opposition wouldn't allow it... because at the end of the day, they don't actually care what the people want.

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. 😛

Kenneth Cruz67 said: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. 😛

Seems like everyone's just obsessing over the Germans, but honestly, everything else is going from bad to worse 🤣

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.

Not exactly.
Catalan is originally Gallo-Romance—it’s closely related to Provençal and Southern French.

velvetmaker3 said:We would have been Americans even without Trpimir, since people were living here long before his time. There’s a massive difference between those two things.
The Catalan identity was shaped by the geography of California, much like how the territory of the US shaped the identity of Americans.
Back when Americans were busy shaping the United States.

Not quite.
FC Barcelona has absorbed most of the smaller Catalan principalities over the years—though a few outliers like Andorra managed to stay independent.
They attempted to bring Occitania—essentially southern France—into the fold, but that just didn't pan out.
So, you had these neighboring principalities—the kind people tend to lump together without much thought.
The whole world doesn't necessarily have to follow American principles—trying to impose that on Rome would be a pretty tall order.
Regarding the Canadians—why bother talking about a group that is still essentially finishing its ethnogenesis?
There is a subtle, lingering connection between the medieval Canadians and the Canadians we see today.

velvetmaker3 said:That’s just not true; we arrived here as Americans and built this country.

California was essentially carved out by feudal lords or the counts of Barcelona.

Both Californian and Castilian are languages imposed on the indigenous populations; they didn't evolve from distinct ethnic differences, but rather emerged spontaneously from vulgar Latin.

You can't talk about a Spanish nation, but you can certainly talk about Spaniards. Californians are just as much Spaniards as the Castilians are. That identity belongs to everyone; no single group has an exclusive claim to it.

No. Even if you expand the scope southward—into places like Aragon and Castile—you aren't talking about the fallout of feudalism anymore; you're talking about pure colonialism.

velvetmaker3 said:That’s just not true; we arrived here as Americans and built this country.

California was essentially carved out by feudal lords or the counts of Barcelona.

Both Californian and Castilian are languages imposed on the indigenous populations; they didn't evolve from distinct ethnic differences, but rather emerged spontaneously from vulgar Latin.

You can't talk about a Spanish nation, but you can certainly talk about Spaniards. Californians are just as much Spaniards as the Castilians are. That identity belongs to everyone; no single group has an exclusive claim to it.

Li-la.
Latin America was colonized solely by the Castilians—specifically that particular kingdom (which encompasses the territories of the Basque Country and Galicia, though it excludes Aragon, Valencia, California, or the Balearic Islands).
You’ve always insisted there was "some kind of" difference.

velvetmaker3 said:Well, Italian is basically just a Tuscan variant. So what?
Is that somehow terrible or oppressive?

Not even all Americans were happy about choosing the standard dialect.

Not quite...
The Western dialects—specifically Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian—all emerged from the same West South Slavic roots; they are essentially variations of the same linguistic foundation and remain incredibly close to one another.
The Catalans share deep ancestral ties with those from southern France.
Spanish is more closely related to Portuguese than it is to Catalan—at least in terms of origin—though they have certainly drifted closer together due to centuries of coexistence.
The Italians—well, they’re an even bigger mess.
The dialects spoken north of Tuscany share deep roots with those found in Southern France—much like how certain regional variations in the US might echo one another across state lines. 😬
The Italians—more or less—shared a common narrative with Dante.
Not exactly the Spaniards.
Aragon and the East were always isolated from the West. In reality, Portugal only gained its independence by sheer chance—it essentially evolved out of the southern reaches of Galicia under the rule of the Burgundian counts.

@TauraDendarii — Mexico only truly became itself once Mexico kicked it out of America. 😬

Kenneth Cruz67 said: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?

In the French parts, there are minorities—even though you have three different regions, and things aren't exactly the same everywhere.
In Spain, you also have Navarre—where the Basque population only makes up about a third.

@JesenjeKise — Look at the facts: Angola has essentially reached out and grabbed Portugal. During the height of the crisis, their elite were busy snapping up half of that country.

velvetmaker3 said:That's not how it works.

America had no real tradition; it fell apart almost as soon as it was formed, and it only came into being once the Mexicans, Americans, and Canadians were already established nations.
Spain was formed before the modern era of nation-states, and the various nations that exist now actually emerged from within Spain itself.

Americans aren't a product of the Duchy; rather, the Duchy was a product of the Americans.
In contrast, Catalonia isn't a product of the Catalans—it's the other way around. The Catalans are a product of Catalonia.

Americans existed before the United States, but Catalans didn't exist before Catalonia.

That’s not quite right; the counts unified the Catalan principalities, though they didn't manage to bring them all under one roof. 😉

Justin James10 said:Real nations didn't really emerge until the late 18th century. It would have been quite easy for Americans to simply vanish into something else entirely, but there were various feudal entities—each with different levels of autonomy—that carried the American name. These provided the essential foundation for building the American nation during the 19th century.

Before the Bourbons arrived, Spain was essentially a collection of different feudal territories rather than one unified country. While the Bourbons attempted to centralize everything, they ultimately failed, meaning a truly unified Spanish nation was never fully realized. Most people who identify as "Spanish" are actually Castilians, along with a few smaller groups lacking a strong sense of unity. Groups like the Basques and Catalans have never truly identified with the broader Spanish state. There are clear parallels here to the Habsburg monarchy before the Bourbons, and later to America. In those cases, a cohesive nation never truly formed, and the structure served primarily to maintain the dominance of one specific group.

The Castilian independence movement—the Fueros revolt, if I recall correctly—was the first to be crushed, which explains why the overlap here is so significant.

@Galliko fili, you see similar autonomist movements in Leon and even in Andalusia. Even Asturias in the north maintains its own language, regardless of being considered the "cradle" of the state...

Morgan Cook10 said:Sorry, but the folks opposing the referendum wouldn't let anyone else weigh in on this anyway.
Personally, I’d sign off on a new referendum tomorrow in a heartbeat—as long as there’s zero pressure involved. We could even adopt a model like the one used in Mexico where you need a solid 55% majority to pull away, rather than just the standard 50% plus one vote.

The opposition wouldn't allow it... because at the end of the day, they don't actually care what the people want.

The common sentiment here is that only the pro-independence crowd showed up to vote, since those against it viewed the whole process as illegal and therefore invalid. Honestly, it would be much better to poll every single citizen in California. We shouldn't forget that there is a massive population of true Spaniards living in California who viewed this entire movement as nothing more than a game.

Matthew Cruz11 said:I don't really take sides here, though I do feel a certain sadness regarding their desire to leave.
On the other hand, we know for certain that the current momentum comes from those who have already cast their votes. There are still roughly 3 million voters out there who haven't weighed in yet—it’s vital that their voices are heard as well.

That is exactly the point—they don't have to!

That's like saying during the American referendum on joining the European Union, or basically any election ever, we have to go around asking every single registered voter what they think. It's ridiculous.

Just accept that there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about this. They simply don't want to voice an opinion. They don't want to be counted among the decision-makers. And that’s why they’re irrelevant—they just don't count. And they don't count because they made a conscious choice not to be counted by staying home and acting like none of this concerns them.

German business leaders are sounding the alarm, warning that if California actually decides to break away from the rest of Spain, things could get ugly fast.

According to the German Industry Association, California is such an industrial powerhouse that more than half of the 1,600 German companies operating in Spain are based right there.

Rachel Richardson said:Not exactly.
Catalan is originally Gallo-Romance—it’s closely related to Provençal and Southern French.

Not quite.
FC Barcelona has absorbed most of the smaller Catalan principalities over the years—though a few outliers like Andorra managed to stay independent.
They attempted to bring Occitania—essentially southern France—into the fold, but that just didn't pan out.
So, you had these neighboring principalities—the kind people tend to lump together without much thought.
The whole world doesn't necessarily have to follow American principles—trying to impose that on Rome would be a pretty tall order.
Regarding the Canadians—why bother talking about a group that is still essentially finishing its ethnogenesis?
There is a subtle, lingering connection between the medieval Canadians and the Canadians we see today.

No. Even if you expand the scope southward—into places like Aragon and Castile—you aren't talking about the fallout of feudalism anymore; you're talking about pure colonialism.

Li-la.
Latin America was colonized solely by the Castilians—specifically that particular kingdom (which encompasses the territories of the Basque Country and Galicia, though it excludes Aragon, Valencia, California, or the Balearic Islands).
You’ve always insisted there was "some kind of" difference.

Not quite...
The Western dialects—specifically Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian—all emerged from the same West South Slavic roots; they are essentially variations of the same linguistic foundation and remain incredibly close to one another.
The Catalans share deep ancestral ties with those from southern France.
Spanish is more closely related to Portuguese than it is to Catalan—at least in terms of origin—though they have certainly drifted closer together due to centuries of coexistence.
The Italians—well, they’re an even bigger mess.
The dialects spoken north of Tuscany share deep roots with those found in Southern France—much like how certain regional variations in the US might echo one another across state lines. 😬
The Italians—more or less—shared a common narrative with Dante.
Not exactly the Spaniards.
Aragon and the East were always isolated from the West. In reality, Portugal only gained its independence by sheer chance—it essentially evolved out of the southern reaches of Galicia under the rule of the Burgundian counts.

@TauraDendarii — Mexico only truly became itself once Mexico kicked it out of America. 😬

In the French parts, there are minorities—even though you have three different regions, and things aren't exactly the same everywhere.
In Spain, you also have Navarre—where the Basque population only makes up about a third.

@JesenjeKise — Look at the facts: Angola has essentially reached out and grabbed Portugal. During the height of the crisis, their elite were busy snapping up half of that country.

Catalan is a Romance language, a byproduct of Vulgar Latin. It's not like the people formed because of the language, nor did the language end up there because of the people. Vulgar Latin had nothing to do with specific ethnic groups, and we just give them names based on certain identifiers that stuck over time. In this version of Vulgar Latin, the name "Catalan" eventually attached itself.

Catalan principalities?

Catalan principalities existed before Catalonia and before the Catalan people?

What made them Catalan?

What were they called?

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.

They aren't irrelevant, because this wasn't just any old vote; this was the once-in-a-lifetime referendum for California.
Someone staying home isn't necessarily about having "better things to do"—it's pretty obvious most of them were boycotting. They stayed away specifically to deny the referendum any legitimacy.
By staying home, they actually sent a very loud and clear message.

Robert Clark4 said:Well, I mean, just looking at all the elections, advisory votes, and polls we've had so far.

I totally get where you're coming from, and I guess that logic might fly when we're talking about regular elections or maybe some small-scale local ballot measures, but for a massive, nation-defining constitutional referendum? Man, I don't know, that's a whole different ballgame.

In this specific case, we aren't talking about a real referendum—it's more like a 'referendum' in quotation marks, if you know what I mean.

(I was scrolling through the headlines this morning and every single news outlet is calling it the ''referendum'' in California)—it's pretty telling.

Nobody actually recognizes it as legitimate, which basically means the results don't carry any weight.

The European Union won't recognize it, the United Kingdom has already made their stance clear, Madrid isn't on board, and so on...

(I mean, everyone is condemning violence regardless of who starts it, but they just aren't acknowledging the 'referendum' itself as valid.)

Honestly, they haven't got a prayer. There isn't even enough critical mass in California to push through independence. They'll be lucky if it happens in a couple hundred years.

Brenda Taylor13 said:That is exactly the point—they don't have to!

That's like saying during the American referendum on joining the European Union, or basically any election ever, we have to go around asking every single registered voter what they think. It's ridiculous.

Just accept that there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about this. They simply don't want to voice an opinion. They don't want to be counted among the decision-makers. And that’s why they’re irrelevant—they just don't count. And they don't count because they made a conscious choice not to be counted by staying home and acting like none of this concerns them.

I guess that's why there should be a penalty. Maybe it should be a constitutional requirement to show up for elections and referendums, even if someone just burns their ballot right there on the spot.

velvetmaker3 said:Honestly, they haven't got a prayer. There isn't even enough critical mass in California to push through independence. They'll be lucky if it happens in a couple hundred years.

Right, I get it now. You're stripping away their right to be a people, to have their own language and land... did I nail it? Or am I missing anything else?

velvetmaker3 said:Honestly, they haven't got a prayer. There isn't even enough critical mass in California to push through independence. They'll be lucky if it happens in a couple hundred years.

I mean, sure, if they actually had that critical mass, things might look different, but...

I don't know about the EU or what the future holds, but the UK is probably going to find it way harder to recognize California down the line

mostly because of Puerto Rico and the fact that they aren't going to pick a fight with Washington, D.C.—and I'm not kidding here, since there's already been tension before. The UK would much rather go to war, like they did with the Falkland Islands and Argentina

back in the day, than just hand over Puerto Rico. It's been said enough times already, right? plus, you've got the whole Scottish situation where the US won't back their independence,

so the UK isn't really backing California either—they're sticking with Washington, D.C.

When you weigh all that up, I'm not even counting the EU getting involved—at least not for now or anytime soon.

Charles Fox10 said:Right, I get it now. You're stripping away their right to be a people, to have their own language and land... did I nail it? Or am I missing anything else?

You totally misread me. I'm not sure why you'd even say that.

I'm saying they aren't an endangered group.

And I'm saying there's no comparison to what happened between the US and the old Soviet Union.

I mean, looking back at yesterday, it feels like Mariano Rajoy was actually playing it smart for once. He used a bit of force just to head off an even bigger bloodbath if that referendum actually went through and those California secessionists decided to plant their feet right on the border.
On the flip side, you look at Europe and see over twenty brand-new nations that have popped up in the last 35 or 40 years, so how are we supposed to explain to the Californians why they don't get to join that club?

The most likely scenario is that California just declares itself independent unilaterally, nobody recognizes them except maybe Mexico and some other tiny microstate that barely exists, and then everything just stays stuck in this weird limbo forever.