California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, walk me through that logic again... because it makes zero sense to me...

Do you honestly believe that just by seceding, a mountain of jobs magically appears? Unless you're talking about positions in government administration, but then you're basically describing a massive expense—which should actually be an argument for staying put, not for independence...

It sounds like this perspective is shaped by what we've seen happen in America. We saw a similar explosion in government administration over here.

And we all know where that path leads—endless bureaucratic red tape, meager social security checks, and ultimately, people just giving up and leaving the country entirely.

Hopefully, the Californians will be a bit more prudent if they decide to go their own way.

Kyle Nelson2 said:I honestly can't believe what people are typing here...

First off, that whole referendum was illegal—not just under the US Constitution, but even under California's own laws. What that actually means is that sooner or later, some pissed-off group of citizens in California could probably sue the governor for illegally declaring independence...

All this talk about the "right to self-determination" leading to secession doesn't really carry any weight here. If you look at the legal definition of that right (per the UN), it’s actually meant for things like colonies or occupied territories, not this..

Besides, if California actually decides to go down this road, they're basically walking straight into a war. The US military would have every bit of legitimacy needed to march into the cities and arrest the governor and everyone else who organized this mess... Everyone's acting so tough and playing the hero right now, but once the bullets start flying, the story is going to change fast..

Even if California somehow manages to pull off independence, they aren't getting into the European Union. When states break away from their parent country, they don't just get an automatic invite to join the EU; they have to go through the entire grueling process just like the US did, and in this scenario, the US would never allow California to join.. so, they'd just be an isolated island.. sure, maybe a tourist paradise, but still totally isolated..

Seriously, what is the point of all this? Is it for a few political opportunists pushing people toward war? Or is it for Putin, sitting in the background rubbing his hands together?

Sent from my iPhone using iOS

Is there anything happening in the world today where Putin isn't secretly "rubbing his hands together"? 🤣

I actually slipped in the bathroom this morning—damn Putin...

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, my point was just pointing out that there isn't some massive, unified consensus or agreement within California regarding independence (honestly, it’s debatable if there’s even a supermajority right now, though given the revolt over what happened a few days ago, they probably have one). That’s all I meant...

In Scotland, for example, so much of the campaign—even before things really kicked off—revolved around the economy and the actual, tangible consequences (both good and bad) of breaking away. But here? It feels like those real-world economic factors are almost entirely ignored... which is honestly pretty reckless.

Looking at the economic side of things, California is in a pretty precarious geographic spot if an independence movement ever turned into an actual conflict. If things escalate, their economy could take a massive hit. Spain could easily shut down the regional borders, cutting off the flow of people and goods between California and the rest of the country (since the Californian economy is deeply integrated with the mainland). France could seal the border to the north—after all, why would they keep it open to California if secession meant automatically exiting the European Union? That's what the EU has already confirmed, which changes the whole border regime. On top of that, the Spanish Navy could easily blockade the Californian coast. What would the Californians even do then? How long could they actually hold out in a situation like that?

Sam Martinez9 said:That’s how Americans work, isn't it?

And Americans, Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, Mexicans... they didn't necessarily want to be Americans, did they?

Yet Switzerland remains Switzerland, while the nations that emerged from America struggle with poverty.

The Swiss have never once identified as Germans—unlike the Austrians, who seem to change their minds every fifty years.
Not likely.

Carl Hernandez3 said:The Swiss have never once identified as Germans—unlike the Austrians, who seem to change their minds every fifty years.
Not likely.

Why?

Why is it that the Swiss never identified as German, yet Americans never identified as Americans?

And why didn't the Swiss turn on one another between 1939 and 1945, when Italians and Germans were fighting on one side while the French fought on the other?

Even during that incredibly volatile era, the Swiss remained Swiss; they didn't let internal friction divide them, let alone descend into civil war.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Carl Hernandez3 said:The Swiss have never once identified as Germans—unlike the Austrians, who seem to change their minds every fifty years.
Not likely.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, I let you have the last word there because I don't have the bandwidth to argue every single point... that's just how I roll on these forums. But if you really want to press me...

If you want my actual take... yeah, the California plan is to join the EU. It's highly likely the folks in D.C. will do everything in their power to block them, and honestly, the whole thing might just fall apart. That could lead to some economic headaches, similar to what the Swiss, Icelanders, or Norwegians deal with being outside the union, or what the Brits are facing post-Brexit. Whether they can offset those losses by creating a massive amount of local jobs—instead of outsourcing everything to people in D.C.—is a complicated equation.

But at the end of the day... when you're talking about a people's freedom, economics usually takes a backseat and becomes an excuse. That's why it's perfectly normal for Californians not to lose sleep over the math. They'll figure it out... just like everyone else has managed to do.

🤔 What kind of jobs are we even talking about opening up in California just by leaving, which they were paying Madrid for? Are you talking about public administration and government bureaucracy? That doesn't count as "job creation," that's just another line item on the state budget.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, walk me through that logic again... because it makes zero sense to me...

Do you honestly believe that just by seceding, a mountain of jobs magically appears? Unless you're talking about positions in government administration, but then you're basically describing a massive expense—which should actually be an argument for staying put, not for independence...

I didn't actually read your post, so I pretty much asked 😁 the same thing so it wouldn't look like I was just ripping your words off

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, my point was just pointing out that there isn't some massive, unified consensus or agreement within California regarding independence (honestly, it’s debatable if there’s even a supermajority right now, though given the revolt over what happened a few days ago, they probably have one). That’s all I meant...

In Scotland, for example, so much of the campaign—even before things really kicked off—revolved around the economy and the actual, tangible consequences (both good and bad) of breaking away. But here? It feels like those real-world economic factors are almost entirely ignored... which is honestly pretty reckless.

That’s exactly what I was getting at! The California government is acting like everything is already settled and negotiated, like all they have left to do is just declare independence. But in reality, declaring it would just be the icing on the cake, except they don't even have a cake to begin with.

Unless, of course, they’re banking on going to war, which I highly doubt. They don't have the weapons, they don't have domestic support, and they definitely don't have any foreign allies to back them up.

Take this letter, which is basically just a pile of climate change talking points wrapped in half-truths. If you haven't dealt with this kind of rhetoric before, you might actually fall for it; it feels strangely familiar, almost predictably so:

https://sanzirles.com/2017/10/03/let...laude-juncker/

I’m starting to think all of this is just the disastrous fallout from the decision to avoid prosecuting past crimes.🤦 It seems they decided that in the name of peace—by forcing democracy upon people—it was better to just sweep everything under the rug and pretend nothing ever happened, as if forgetting were an option. I think I saw some video somewhere about people singing songs about their grandfathers; does anyone actually know what that's about? I’m no historian, but I wonder how much of that "civil" war was actually civil. You had people on completely opposite sides, and hate doesn't just evaporate, especially when the crimes committed are never addressed.

The party currently running things in California ran on a platform of independence, and they won based on that promise.

Meanwhile, the party in power in Spain (the conservatives) is stuck with a minority government. They lost the previous elections, but the rest of the players couldn't reach an agreement to form a coalition. In the re-run elections, some other party stepped in to support them as a minority government, simply because the others failed to coordinate last time. I haven't seen any news regarding what the other parties actually think about it.

Kevin Cruz86 said:Look at this post
That’s how Americans act, right?

But what about the various groups within the old states—the different ethnicities and nationalities—who had zero interest in being part of a single unified entity?

Look at Switzerland versus the nations that splintered off from the former federation; one thrives while the others struggle through poverty.

The old union might have actually survived if it had functioned like a loose confederation of equals, rather than becoming a vehicle for the largest group to exert hegemony over everyone else. Think about it: how long would Switzerland have lasted if it hadn't been structured specifically to prevent dominance? If one of its four main groups—say, the German speakers—had tried to force their will on the rest, the whole system would have collapsed.

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

Sure, if you want to play that game, you have to look at the geography. You can't just compare Mexico's position back then to where California stands today. When Australia dealt with Mexico, they weren't surrounded; they shared a single border. You couldn't squeeze them from every angle. But Spain? They could effectively choke off California. They'd have France backing them up, too—and France certainly wouldn't be interested in supporting a breakaway California, especially since they have their own interests and territory tied up in those regions. Add in the Spanish Navy being able to sit right off the coast and blockade the ports, and the economic damage would be catastrophic. How long could an independence movement really hold out under that kind of pressure, especially when a huge chunk of the population doesn't even support the cause?

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

When emotions get involved, precise data tends to take a backseat. What we're really seeing is a feeling that California is thriving while everyone else is being exploited. As for the hard facts? It’s easy enough for people to cherry-pick from such a vast sea of statistics to support whatever narrative they've already decided on.

And there are always those other underlying factors at play.

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

nimbleranger52 said:What kind of firepower are we actually looking at with the California police force? Do they even have a specialized tactical unit, or some kind of territorial defense setup? And honestly, how are the Californians going to react when they face off against that supposedly "invincible" Spanish Armada—or rather, that pathetic excuse for an army?
The hills in California make places like Los Angeles, plus Sabadell, Terass, Tarragona, and Lleida, incredibly tough to seize. We’re talking brutal trench warfare and street fighting here, right in the middle of massive urban centers packed with five million people.
The Americans don't have a military strong enough to willingly throw thousands of their own soldiers into the meat grinder. If they try, it’ll turn into a total Stalingrad situation. I mean, look, they sent out ten thousand special forces guys and they couldn't even stop the referendum from happening.

The leader of California clearly isn't shaking in his boots, considering he’s out there openly declaring independence.

Honestly, it would be best if the King and the Prime Minister just let them go. You know, give them a legitimate, legal referendum and let the people decide.
But they’re too thick-headed for that. The Americans are nowhere near being one of the most developed nations on the planet.

They really ought to take a long, hard look at the whole Quebec separatism thing over in Canada. Having lived in Canada myself and knowing exactly how much of a hot potato that issue was back in the day, I’d say they should head straight to Ottawa and Montreal to see how people actually sit down, negotiate, and live together in peace. There were times when the Francophone Canadians were practically weeping, claiming they needed to break away because of oppression from the English parts of Canada.
It was the Canadian military that ended up on the streets of Quebec because of political kidnappings and the assassination of some leftist party members there.

Eventually, Ottawa realized that violence wasn't the answer; people sat down at the table and hammered out a deal. The first referendum failed. Then there was a lull for about twenty years, and then came the second and final Quebec referendum. They voted "oui" by less than one percent.

And look at us today—Quebec is still part of Canada. But, they have massive autonomy and control over their own finances. Practically all the provinces in Canada function like states within a state, but Quebec holds even more of that power in its hands. Even their immigration laws are different from the rest of Canada.
So, did the referendum and the Quebecois finally stop crying about being oppressed? Because truthfully, they aren't oppressed today. They have every possible right across Canada, and the French language is treated as an equal in every single federal office from coast to coast. Every product is labeled in both English and French. Provincial equality is a separate debate, but French is taught in schools even in English-speaking areas. Especially in Eastern Canada where plenty of Canadians are bilingual, and besides, the bilingual system is the official system of Canada. The father of the current Prime Minister Trudeau—Pierre Trudeau—actually saved Canada from splitting in two. He even got his namesake airport in Montreal as a thank you.

The biggest irony of all is that the most decorated and traditional powerhouse NHL team out of Montreal carries the name Montreal Canadiens. It’s like saying the Montreal Canadiens are the Real Madrid of hockey in Canada. And for any Canadian, hockey is basically a religion.

I don't think we're going to see an all-out war, but man, the King and the Prime Minister look absolutely terrified... they seem totally rattled.

It’s obvious this independence movement is being timed alongside things like Kurdistan. Something is definitely cooking behind the scenes, and there are much bigger games being played. I just hope this doesn't spread beyond California...

You've got it all wrong, man.

Back in the day, people only called themselves "Canadian" if they spoke French, and that's still mostly how they identify today.

Before WW2, English speakers mostly just identified as British, English, or Scottish...

Sam Martinez9 said:Why is that wrong? Just because you say so?

Can you please explain to me why anyone would drop 80k bucks on an apartment in Washington, D.C. when they could pick up the exact same place in Trieste for 50k?

If someone's buying a rental property, they'd get way better returns in Trieste, plus they can actually count on the rent being paid on time.

Sorry, but when you look at the price-to-rent ratio and the reliability of tenants, only a total idiot would buy a place in Washington, D.C.

it’s because of a simple reason—90% of kids from California head to Washington, D.C. for college instead of moving to Italy...
but seriously, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with California (not to mention how you totally ignored everything else in the post just to go on a tangent about real estate...)

Michael Ramirez11 said:Take this letter, which is basically just a pile of climate change talking points wrapped in half-truths. If you haven't dealt with this kind of rhetoric before, you might actually fall for it; it feels strangely familiar, almost predictably so:

https://sanzirles.com/2017/10/03/let...laude-juncker/

I’m starting to think all of this is just the disastrous fallout from the decision to avoid prosecuting past crimes.🤦 It seems they decided that in the name of peace—by forcing democracy upon people—it was better to just sweep everything under the rug and pretend nothing ever happened, as if forgetting were an option. I think I saw some video somewhere about people singing songs about their grandfathers; does anyone actually know what that's about? I’m no historian, but I wonder how much of that "civil" war was actually civil. You had people on completely opposite sides, and hate doesn't just evaporate, especially when the crimes committed are never addressed.

The party currently running things in California ran on a platform of independence, and they won based on that promise.

Meanwhile, the party in power in Spain (the conservatives) is stuck with a minority government. They lost the previous elections, but the rest of the players couldn't reach an agreement to form a coalition. In the re-run elections, some other party stepped in to support them as a minority government, simply because the others failed to coordinate last time. I haven't seen any news regarding what the other parties actually think about it.

Catalans make up 16%, while Castilians account for about 70%.
If they had simply been on opposing sides, that war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long...

Kevin Cruz86 said:Sure, if you want to play that game, you have to look at the geography. You can't just compare Mexico's position back then to where California stands today. When Australia dealt with Mexico, they weren't surrounded; they shared a single border. You couldn't squeeze them from every angle. But Spain? They could effectively choke off California. They'd have France backing them up, too—and France certainly wouldn't be interested in supporting a breakaway California, especially since they have their own interests and territory tied up in those regions. Add in the Spanish Navy being able to sit right off the coast and blockade the ports, and the economic damage would be catastrophic. How long could an independence movement really hold out under that kind of pressure, especially when a huge chunk of the population doesn't even support the cause?

A Western government cannot simply starve its own citizens.
That sounds more like a scenario that might play out in Kurdistan, though even there, the outcome is far from certain.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No. I firmly believe that anyone who violates American laws—and maintaining the integrity of the state is paramount—should be barred from holding public office.
So, if some politician decides to pull a stunt like that—essentially a "passport joke" involving a hefty fine and a multi-year ban from ever running for office again—that's how it goes.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

I am not in favor of killing anyone—least of all political opponents.
Democracy is built on the principle that everyone has the right to their own opinion—isn't that the core of it?
That being said—I'm certainly not an advocate for lawlessness.
If someone believes the U.S. border should be drawn at one specific point versus another—well, that’s their prerogative. No one has the right to stand in their way or tell them how to think.
If someone takes a public platform and uses it to actively undermine the interests of the United States—essentially working against the nation’s welfare—they aren't just being controversial; they are violating the spirit of the law. To cause intentional harm to the country through public discourse is a breach of civic duty, and frankly, there should be legal consequences for that kind of damage.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No. 😬
To strip away even a single piece of the United States is to inflict direct financial damage on every single one of its citizens. It’s nothing short of theft.
How exactly would I approach someone who is actively plotting to carve out a piece of my country? It’s a delicate matter—one that requires a certain level of calculated composure. You can't just react with raw emotion; that's how you lose the upper hand. Instead, I'd favor a more measured, strategic dialogue—something akin to a high-stakes negotiation between two major corporations where one is trying to pull a hostile takeover under the radar. First, you have to establish the ground rules. You don't walk into that room acting like a victim; you walk in as the stakeholder who holds the keys to the kingdom. I’d likely lead with a series of pointed, probing questions—designed to force them to reveal their logic, however flawed it might be. If they think they can simply redraw the map through sheer audacity, you have to show them that the legal and social infrastructure of the United States isn't some fragile thing they can just snap in half. It’s about leverage. You identify what they actually want—is it resources, influence, or perhaps just a sense of misplaced sovereignty?—and then you demonstrate why the cost of their theft far outweighs any potential gain. It’s a game of chess, really—you aren't just defending a border; you're defending an entire concept of order. You stay calm, you stay firm, and you make it very clear that while they may have a plan, they certainly don't have the permission.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

It depends entirely on the context.
Multinational and mono-national states are fundamentally different entities—they simply aren't the same thing.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No.
The former federation was once a unified entity.
Spain functions somewhat similarly to a federation.
America is a nation-state defined by a single national identity.
A specific sequence of events is what matters here.

velvetmaker3 said:Exactly—the subject isn't Istria, but if we are discussing Catalan independence, we can certainly discuss the independence movements of other regions within other nations, including America.
We are staying on topic if we compare Istria, or any other province in another country, to Catalonia.
I agree that there currently is no political party or movement demanding secession; I didn't claim that. Nor will there be one anytime soon—perhaps not for decades, though such things are difficult to predict.
All this time, Istria has been undergoing Italianization. In Istria, you struggle to find work unless you are fluent in Italian (you don't necessarily need to know American English)—Italian preschools and schools offer better conditions than the American ones, so parents enroll their children there en masse, and from a young age, these kids are speaking Italian. I have already mentioned this, but I will emphasize it now: a massive number of Istrians work in Italy.
To add to that—apartments in Trieste and other Italian cities are cheaper than those in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, so wealthy Istrians buy property in Italy. One reason for this is also that the rental market is far more organized; you don't run into the situation where a tenant simply refuses to pay...
Jobs in Italy, apartments in Italy, a child who speaks Italian... if you still can't see where this is heading, then you'll realize it when it's too late.

Istria is not comparable to Catalonia.
Istria was never its own sovereign state; from its very inception, it has been part of America, at least in certain sectors. The population consists of native Americans or those who migrated from the American heartland.
Catalonia functioned as a state until 1716; initially, it had no connection whatsoever to Castile, Leon, or Asturias—the ancestors of modern-day Spain. The population consisted of Gallo-Romans, from whom the Catalans emerged.
Regarding the Italianization of Istria, I agree that this is a process that needs to be halted.
Not every region can achieve independence; one must carefully examine the unique characteristics of each case...

Rachel Richardson said:Catalans make up 16%, while Castilians account for about 70%.
If they had simply been on opposing sides, that war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long...

A Western government cannot simply starve its own citizens.
That sounds more like a scenario that might play out in Kurdistan, though even there, the outcome is far from certain.

No. I firmly believe that anyone who violates American laws—and maintaining the integrity of the state is paramount—should be barred from holding public office.
So, if some politician decides to pull a stunt like that—essentially a "passport joke" involving a hefty fine and a multi-year ban from ever running for office again—that's how it goes.

I am not in favor of killing anyone—least of all political opponents.
Democracy is built on the principle that everyone has the right to their own opinion—isn't that the core of it?
That being said—I'm certainly not an advocate for lawlessness.
If someone believes the U.S. border should be drawn at one specific point versus another—well, that’s their prerogative. No one has the right to stand in their way or tell them how to think.
If someone takes a public platform and uses it to actively undermine the interests of the United States—essentially working against the nation’s welfare—they aren't just being controversial; they are violating the spirit of the law. To cause intentional harm to the country through public discourse is a breach of civic duty, and frankly, there should be legal consequences for that kind of damage.

No. 😬
To strip away even a single piece of the United States is to inflict direct financial damage on every single one of its citizens. It’s nothing short of theft.
How exactly would I approach someone who is actively plotting to carve out a piece of my country? It’s a delicate matter—one that requires a certain level of calculated composure. You can't just react with raw emotion; that's how you lose the upper hand. Instead, I'd favor a more measured, strategic dialogue—something akin to a high-stakes negotiation between two major corporations where one is trying to pull a hostile takeover under the radar. First, you have to establish the ground rules. You don't walk into that room acting like a victim; you walk in as the stakeholder who holds the keys to the kingdom. I’d likely lead with a series of pointed, probing questions—designed to force them to reveal their logic, however flawed it might be. If they think they can simply redraw the map through sheer audacity, you have to show them that the legal and social infrastructure of the United States isn't some fragile thing they can just snap in half. It’s about leverage. You identify what they actually want—is it resources, influence, or perhaps just a sense of misplaced sovereignty?—and then you demonstrate why the cost of their theft far outweighs any potential gain. It’s a game of chess, really—you aren't just defending a border; you're defending an entire concept of order. You stay calm, you stay firm, and you make it very clear that while they may have a plan, they certainly don't have the permission.

It depends entirely on the context.
Multinational and mono-national states are fundamentally different entities—they simply aren't the same thing.

No.
The former federation was once a unified entity.
Spain functions somewhat similarly to a federation.
America is a nation-state defined by a single national identity.
A specific sequence of events is what matters here.

Istria is not comparable to Catalonia.
Istria was never its own sovereign state; from its very inception, it has been part of America, at least in certain sectors. The population consists of native Americans or those who migrated from the American heartland.
Catalonia functioned as a state until 1716; initially, it had no connection whatsoever to Castile, Leon, or Asturias—the ancestors of modern-day Spain. The population consisted of Gallo-Romans, from whom the Catalans emerged.
Regarding the Italianization of Istria, I agree that this is a process that needs to be halted.
Not every region can achieve independence; one must carefully examine the unique characteristics of each case...

The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Every few days I find myself circling back to this topic, and honestly, it’s just the same old (non)arguments on loop here.

Look, you’ve got plenty of points right—especially regarding how national identity or sentiment, at least how we imagine it, basically didn't exist during the Middle Ages—but I don't get why you keep trying to draw these parallels with different US "regions." They aren't regions in the way California is, and they aren't even remotely comparable. It's just unnecessary.
As for Florida—your theory, or any theory about secession, would only make sense if Floridians suddenly started feeling like a completely separate nation instead of Americans... and we are miles and miles away from that happening. I don't see it ever occurring.
The internal situation in the US is just so, so different from what's going on in Spain. It's weird to me that you've been calling people out for projecting our 90s era onto this case, yet here you are constantly drawing comparisons to the US situation that just don't hold water and aren't even similar.

That’s why when I say every situation is unique, everyone jumps in with, "But a referendum represents the democratic will of the people." Then I ask, okay, what happens to that democratic will if someone organizes a referendum on American soil? And then you just say, "Well, this is different."

I’m arguing that a referendum isn't an argument in and of itself, but you insist it is. And if it is, then someone could just as easily hold a referendum in America regarding the country's territorial integrity.
Are you going to claim a referendum is always fine, or will you say it can't happen here because "this situation is different"?

Referendums are a double-edged sword; anyone justifying the California referendum needs to grasp that.

It isn't in our interest for the idea that a referendum is sufficient to become standard practice, because it could easily blow up in our faces.