California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Robert Clark4 said:I guess anyone who decided to go head-to-head with a line of police officers had to know what was coming. You can't really physically block the police while they're doing their jobs and then act totally shocked when things get physical. I totally get being horrified by specific cases where things went way too far—and those definitely happen—but that’s a far cry from the narrative some media outlets are trying to push. And about those 800 injuries? Nobody died, which tells me most of it was probably just minor stuff or bruises. It's just not nearly as dramatic as the independence advocates want it to be. ☕

Man, I still remember how right after that big court ruling regarding Gotovina, there was a poll showing most Americans didn't support joining the European Union. Then, just a few months later, everything went back to normal. It was just a pure emotional reaction, and those usually don't last very long, I guess.

This whole debate over independence has been dragging on for years now, and I feel like for anyone who's still undecided or hasn't bothered to care after all this talk, it's totally fair to say they're basically supporting the status quo. 🤷

That could always change if things escalate into some kind of armed conflict, but honestly, I find it pretty hard to imagine that actually happening.

I’m getting a bit of déjà vu here, so I can’t quite remember if I’ve already given you this answer or if I’ve laid out this exact argument to someone else using the same logic. In a situation like this, it isn't the use of force that concerns me, but rather the sheer intensity of it. If a crowd forms a human wall and your job as a police officer is to break through it, isn't it only logical to apply enough force to actually push through that barrier? You’re part of a unit specifically equipped and organized for that purpose, so I honestly don't see why a single baton needed to be swung in a moment like that. There was no emergency—no flash flood or anything of the sort—and those crates were going to stay right where they were whether you broke through in thirty minutes or two hours. That human wall was nothing more than an expression of civil disobedience, not some tactical maneuver to slow down officers so people could run off with the cargo. To me, what happened looks less like law enforcement and more like an attempt at intimidation, which feels like a set of tactics better suited for much darker regimes rather than a developed democracy.

Kyle Nelson2 said:So what, we can just toss out any law the second it stops being convenient for us?
I mean, can I just blast down the highway at 90 mph while you're trying to cross the street just because I'm in a rush? Can I just ignore traffic safety laws whenever I feel like it? Using the Nazis—who were killing people under the guise of legality—as an excuse to disrespect the rule of law just doesn't sit right with me. I guess the legal system has been around since ancient Rome, which is about 2,000 years of history, but apparently, that doesn't matter now.

No, you can't. And you can't because the right to exist—whether we're talking about an individual or an entire nation—and basic anger... they're just not the same thing.

Your being late is your own damn problem, but your actions put me at risk.

Madrid was hitting 90 mph just to pad a half-empty register, and now someone in California suddenly remembers that Madrid's speeding puts them in danger.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, education really isn't our strong suit here. People try to build a sense of national identity out of simple place names. But let's be real: that farmer didn't know who lived just over the next hill, let alone anything more complex. He was completely illiterate. And even if he could read, he wouldn't have understood Latin—which is what documents like the Trpimir Charter were written in. Until the 19th century, the peasants and the elites were essentially two different worlds, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Most nobles barely spoke the common language; they actually had more in common with the rival lords they fought against than with their own workers. Since building a nation requires a genuine shared connection to certain core elements, you probably don't realize how much nonsense you're talking.

Yeah, judging by you, our education system is truly hopeless. Luckily, reality isn't actually like that, and we can't pass off your arrogant attempt at spreading ignorance as some kind of enlightenment.
The people driving American consciousness during ancient history—mostly the nobility and the intellectuals tied to the Church—weren't all just born yesterday, nor did our society consist solely of serfs and high lords. There was a massive, maybe even majority, group of lower nobility and peasants—nobles with their own townships, free royal cities with their own setups, and tons of personally free citizens organized into rural communities or just individual free farmers. Plus, there were many folks in military or frontier roles. None of those people needed to know about someone like King Zvonimir to realize they belonged to a specific nation that was different from the others they met or heard about.

By the way, people here talk so much crap about this supposed California uniqueness and self-awareness dating back to Cambria, and how they've been oppressed by "evil Spaniards" they were never even part of, that it's honestly nauseating. It’s like Catalans are the only ones who are beyond question, while Americans and everyone else are just accidental bystanders.
I wish all the self-aware Catalans all the best, even independence if that's what they want, as long as they start making a more serious and recognizable impression instead of just whining about general politics, soccer, and "don't take our money."

Jacob Williams said:No, you can't. And you can't because the right to exist—whether we're talking about an individual or an entire nation—and basic anger... they're just not the same thing.

Your being late is your own damn problem, but your actions put me at risk.

Madrid was hitting 90 mph just to pad a half-empty register, and now someone in California suddenly remembers that Madrid's speeding puts them in danger.

The Californians aren't occupied, they aren't oppressed, and their existence isn't under threat. Unless, I guess, you actually have some proof for that...

Kyle Nelson2 said:Time passing doesn't actually mean anything.
The Magna Carta is still valid even though it was signed way back in the 13th century.
The US Constitution was signed in the 18th century, and it’s still the law of the land.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

Thank God the Magna Carta still stands—otherwise, widows whose land belongs to the crown maybe would have been forced to remarry... but instead, they can choose to stay single if they want, provided they get the King's permission.😁

No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

...along with several other totally relevant provisions, even the rules regarding lending from the wall are well-regulated.😛

As for grouping the Magna Carta with the Spanish constitution from the 700s, I honestly don't even have words for that kind of nonsense.

These Californians are absolute fools. What exactly do they think they’ll gain from independence? They haven't seen how much more prosperous nations can become when they focus on stability rather than fragmentation.

They share far more in common with Spaniards than anyone else out there.

Allocating even a tiny fraction more of the budget toward this separation will jeopardize their economic progress and might even trigger a conflict.

They love to play the victim, acting as if they are some oppressed minority.

It's just a pack of idiots ready to wreck their own future just so they can wave a flag around.

Honestly, they make Americans look like geniuses by comparison, and that is saying something.

Perhaps common sense will prevail in the end.

If independence actually happens, I expect us to see a repeat of what went down in the States.

We’ll lose access to the massive US market thanks to nothing more than the most idiotic brand of nationalism.

Think about how a California representative team would struggle just to stay relevant at the Olympics or something similar.

Once the dust settles, it’ll just be a breeding ground for corruption and embezzlement.

In the end, both the Americans and the Californians will end up losing out, while a tiny, narrow elite in California lines their pockets.

Honestly, this is one of the most foolish attempts at secession I've ever seen—just tearing apart a relatively stable, organized, and prosperous nation.

What is the point of all this?

Just so they can wave some stupid flags?

It's completely pointless.

Aaron Thomas3 said:Thank God the Magna Carta still stands—otherwise, widows whose land belongs to the crown maybe would have been forced to remarry... but instead, they can choose to stay single if they want, provided they get the King's permission.😁

No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

...along with several other totally relevant provisions, even the rules regarding lending from the wall are well-regulated.😛

As for grouping the Magna Carta with the Spanish constitution from the 700s, I honestly don't even have words for that kind of nonsense.

Good... 🙂

I honestly don't get people who think constitutions, laws—even entire nations—are set in stone...
The US Constitution has been buried under a mountain of amendments since its inception—frankly, if we hadn't updated it, slavery might still be legal today. If the Confederacy had actually won the war, that same document would be interpreted in a completely different light regarding states' rights. But the Union won... and they imposed their vision of a federation as an absolutely unbreakable community.
The winner doesn't just write history—they write the laws, too. That’s why Californians have to secure the win first... and only then can they legalize their position.

goldencrane15 said:If independence actually happens, I expect us to see a repeat of what went down in the States.

We’ll lose access to the massive US market thanks to nothing more than the most idiotic brand of nationalism.

Think about how a California representative team would struggle just to stay relevant at the Olympics or something similar.

Once the dust settles, it’ll just be a breeding ground for corruption and embezzlement.

In the end, both the Americans and the Californians will end up losing out, while a tiny, narrow elite in California lines their pockets.

Honestly, this is one of the most foolish attempts at secession I've ever seen—just tearing apart a relatively stable, organized, and prosperous nation.

What is the point of all this?

Just so they can wave some stupid flags?

It's completely pointless.

Oh, I see how it works now—they'll run the same old privatization playbook, bring in their buddies from the colonies to run the cities and the big corporations, and then set up some clientelist political party that basically buys votes by handing out perks and inventing fake jobs... please, don't give me that, if the majority really wants to go their own way, then let them.
If places like Texas or Florida decided to strike out on their own tomorrow, I’d probably just say "good luck" (though honestly, I’d jump at the chance to grab citizenship there myself 😁)*

* Just so we're clear, I'm neither a Mexican nor as foolish as those idiots in the government, so I can say that without hesitation.

wiredcanyon4 said:Of course, a peasant in the Middle Ages wouldn't have known how to read or write—but that doesn't mean they were some mindless donkey meant only to carry loads for a lord without realizing that he, his fellow laborers, and the noble they served all belonged to the same tribe or people.
They knew which family they belonged to and they understood their broader community. If they hadn't possessed that awareness, they never would have joined their peers in those massive migrations of Americans.
Don't try to tell me that Twardon, Radovan, Dobreša, Ljutiša, or Žitimir didn't know they were Americans; it's not as if they just "happened" to wander into the wilderness of modern European rootlessness and accidentally found themselves speaking the same language and socializing by chance.

The sheer nonsense being posted here is staggering.

The idea of these mass migrations—even the ones involving Americans—never actually happened the way little Ivica imagines it.

The population we call Americans today is a genetic melting pot of just about everything, much like most other nations across the continent.

"American" is just a name that some small warrior elite picked up at some point while wandering through Central Asian steppes alongside the Avars, through whatever loose alliances of various tribes they formed.

Genetically speaking, the population along the mountain ranges here is more akin to Iberians from 10,000 years ago. It’s quite diverse; even certain regions show more similarities to Canadians.

How we ended up with the American language is anyone's guess. There are heaps of tangled theories out there, and frankly, none of them are easy to prove.

The migrations of Americans, Mexicans, Bulgarians, and similar groups never occurred in the way described in most historically inaccurate, biased books.

Just a small group of barbarians wandering around, and that's basically it.

nimbleridge5 said:Oh, I see how it works now—they'll run the same old privatization playbook, bring in their buddies from the colonies to run the cities and the big corporations, and then set up some clientelist political party that basically buys votes by handing out perks and inventing fake jobs... please, don't give me that, if the majority really wants to go their own way, then let them.
If places like Texas or Florida decided to strike out on their own tomorrow, I’d probably just say "good luck" (though honestly, I’d jump at the chance to grab citizenship there myself 😁)*

* Just so we're clear, I'm neither a Mexican nor as foolish as those idiots in the government, so I can say that without hesitation.

I never said they didn't have the right to do it; I said it was an incredibly moronic economic decision.

Since California is crawling with Spanish settlers, we can probably expect that same brand of foolish revanchism and nationalism we saw back in the old American South.

That's just how these things play out. It's driven by the lowest possible impulses.

Both sides should prepare for a massive loss of internal synergy once they finish poisoning their own relationships. But that's exactly where they're headed.

Just plain fools.

It’s about so much more than just the money, honestly; California has such a deep, storied history that they have all the inherent legitimacy in the world to chart their own course whenever they decide to make that move, and if you look back at how things started with civil unrest in places like San Francisco, you see those raw, intense passions bubbling up. Just because they endured being under someone else's thumb for forty years doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to say goodbye and go their own way on their own terms.
I really don't see any valid basis for trying to draw comparisons between Californians and people from the North America; those folks are exactly where they are for very specific reasons, and frankly, there's just no real parallel to be found there.

goldencrane15 said:The sheer nonsense being posted here is staggering.

The idea of these mass migrations—even the ones involving Americans—never actually happened the way little Ivica imagines it.

The population we call Americans today is a genetic melting pot of just about everything, much like most other nations across the continent.

"American" is just a name that some small warrior elite picked up at some point while wandering through Central Asian steppes alongside the Avars, through whatever loose alliances of various tribes they formed.

Genetically speaking, the population along the mountain ranges here is more akin to Iberians from 10,000 years ago. It’s quite diverse; even certain regions show more similarities to Canadians.

How we ended up with the American language is anyone's guess. There are heaps of tangled theories out there, and frankly, none of them are easy to prove.

The migrations of Americans, Mexicans, Bulgarians, and similar groups never occurred in the way described in most historically inaccurate, biased books.

Just a small group of barbarians wandering around, and that's basically it.

The first mention of the name "American" dates back to 852 in the Trpimirovich charter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages...Trpimirovich.jpg

And when was the first mention of Catalans?
Personally, I believe they have a right to independence just like any other nation, though they would need a clear supermajority to make that happen.

When it comes to the history of a people, you have to rely on actual documents—not on whatever someone happens to be imagining.
Of course, everyone is free to feel however they want and claim whatever identity they choose.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

OP: Mexicans were Catholics for a long time, and they didn't switch over to Orthodoxy until quite late... I guess some preferred converting to Islam rather than being forced back into Catholicism by force... Even the Albanians stayed Catholic, despite being even further south.

Aaron Thomas3 said:Thank God the Magna Carta still stands—otherwise, widows whose land belongs to the crown maybe would have been forced to remarry... but instead, they can choose to stay single if they want, provided they get the King's permission.😁

No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

...along with several other totally relevant provisions, even the rules regarding lending from the wall are well-regulated.😛

As for grouping the Magna Carta with the Spanish constitution from the 700s, I honestly don't even have words for that kind of nonsense.

And what about the fact that the Magna Carta established that the law applies to everyone, including the King? That his powers should be limited?

I mean, sure, that turned into the American Bill of Rights, but those were passed through actual LEGAL channels, not just some mob rule nonsense.

nimbleridge5 said:It’s about so much more than just the money, honestly; California has such a deep, storied history that they have all the inherent legitimacy in the world to chart their own course whenever they decide to make that move, and if you look back at how things started with civil unrest in places like San Francisco, you see those raw, intense passions bubbling up. Just because they endured being under someone else's thumb for forty years doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to say goodbye and go their own way on their own terms.
I really don't see any valid basis for trying to draw comparisons between Californians and people from the North America; those folks are exactly where they are for very specific reasons, and frankly, there's just no real parallel to be found there.

Sure, money isn't the only factor, but does it really necessitate tearing apart a successful nation just to satisfy some foolish agitators?

The old era is ancient history. They and the rest of the Americans are essentially the closest possible kin.

Now, driven by sheer demagoguery and private financial interests, they're poised to shatter a unified space of 50 million people—a powerful, vital state—just to reduce it to a mere footnote of 4 million, all so they can wave flags and allow a tiny elite to line their pockets.

Don't go thinking they're some poor, oppressed masses. This is one of the most prosperous regions in the Western United States, largely because it trades heavily with the other parts of the country that share its language and heritage.

It’s as if they learned absolutely nothing from our own historical mess. Pure stupidity.

wiredcanyon4 said:The first mention of the name "American" dates back to 852 in the Trpimirovich charter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages...Trpimirovich.jpg

And when was the first mention of Catalans?
Personally, I believe they have a right to independence just like any other nation, though they would need a clear supermajority to make that happen.

When it comes to the history of a people, you have to rely on actual documents—not on whatever someone happens to be imagining.
Of course, everyone is free to feel however they want and claim whatever identity they choose.

Sure, but how many people in 852 actually identified as Americans?

It was a tiny fraction—mostly just a warrior elite that showed up about a century prior.

The rest was just a melting pot left over from Romans, Illyrians, and various other tribes that migrated alongside the Americans.

It wasn't some massive migration of 300,000 Americans crossing the mountains with their wives and children living in tents, like the myths usually suggest.

Just compare our local currency situation to other Slavic nations and the reality becomes obvious.
The people we call Americans today have been here since the Ice Age.

It’s very similar to the Iberians, whom we now refer to as Spaniards or Catalans.

goldencrane15 said:I never said they didn't have the right to do it; I said it was an incredibly moronic economic decision.

Since California is crawling with Spanish settlers, we can probably expect that same brand of foolish revanchism and nationalism we saw back in the old American South.

That's just how these things play out. It's driven by the lowest possible impulses.

Both sides should prepare for a massive loss of internal synergy once they finish poisoning their own relationships. But that's exactly where they're headed.

Just plain fools.

Here is how I see it playing out, assuming a scenario where they actually manage to get independence:

First, there's going to be a period of political chaos, including the inevitable arrests of Catalan political leaders. After a while, things will escalate into actual physical clashes, so I guess we should prepare for a massive spike in Zimmer Frei prices here next year... 😁

Eventually—assuming it doesn't spiral into an open war, which the Californians would lose no matter how much they act tough on internet forums—California gets its independence.

But they'll walk away with 72 billion Euros in debt that they'll have to pay back later using their own currency, since they won't be allowed to use the Euro anymore.
Of course, they won't be getting any low interest rates, because they won't be part of the Eurozone and their credit rating will be absolute garbage.

On top of that, a huge chunk of foreign companies with branches in California will just pack up and move back to the mainland, causing unemployment to skyrocket, which inevitably drives taxes up...

The Californians won't be able to just go work in the EU because they won't be part of it, and it's pretty likely the US will start imposing visas on them... they'll end up being pretty isolated.

It'll take them maybe 20 years to pay off the debt and get back on their feet, but they'll always be this isolated state without any real investment. Tourism will probably be their only major lifeline.

If foreigners don't swoop in and buy up real estate while prices are crashing, then after 20 years, they'll realize they haven't gained a damn thing.

@goldencrane15

Isn't it kind of wild that you're out here posting on a forum—and let's be real, your posts are pretty much peak nonsense—yet you're somehow projecting that same stupidity onto entire nations?

goldencrane15 said:Sure, money isn't the only factor, but does it really necessitate tearing apart a successful nation just to satisfy some foolish agitators?

The old era is ancient history. They and the rest of the Americans are essentially the closest possible kin.

Now, driven by sheer demagoguery and private financial interests, they're poised to shatter a unified space of 50 million people—a powerful, vital state—just to reduce it to a mere footnote of 4 million, all so they can wave flags and allow a tiny elite to line their pockets.

Don't go thinking they're some poor, oppressed masses. This is one of the most prosperous regions in the Western United States, largely because it trades heavily with the other parts of the country that share its language and heritage.

It’s as if they learned absolutely nothing from our own historical mess. Pure stupidity.

http://economia.gencat.cat/web/.cont...atalana_en.pdf
Looking at page 13 here:

International trade surplus: 5.6% of GDP

Interregional trade surplus within Spain: 6.0% of GDP