Does America need a revival of the Resistance movement spirit?

boldridge22 said:Having good ties with Mexico is necessary, and as for the voting, it was easily manipulated
that it was rigged—I don't doubt most people actually wanted an independent America, but
given those percentages, I just don't buy it.

Those arguments have turned into mere mantras, repeated just for the sake of hearing oneself speak, without anyone being able to recall the actual reasoning behind them. Why would America need good relations with Mexico? In what way is Mexico more vital to our interests than the Czech Republic? Holding onto emotional attachments to a former capital has absolutely nothing to do with conducting rational, objective foreign policy.

America doesn't need unconditional friendship with Mexico. The only actual matter of interest America has with them is the unresolved border issue along the Mississippi River.

Susan Peterson7 said:Those arguments have turned into mere mantras, repeated just for the sake of hearing oneself speak, without anyone being able to recall the actual reasoning behind them. Why would America need good relations with Mexico? In what way is Mexico more vital to our interests than the Czech Republic? Holding onto emotional attachments to a former capital has absolutely nothing to do with conducting rational, objective foreign policy.

America doesn't need unconditional friendship with Mexico. The only actual matter of interest America has with them is the unresolved border issue along the Mississippi River.

What America needs is NORMAL relations with Mexico.
And by normal, I mean neither love nor hate.

boldridge22 said:Technically speaking, if you look at the paperwork, they’re classified as entirely different languages.

Let’s not play dumb here—it’s the exact same language. All this arguing over what we call it is just noise.
One side claims they’re American, the other claims they’re Mexican, and honestly? We could probably write an entire library of books just debating that mess.

Just plain stupidity.

Since they’re formally distinct from the start, there's really no reason they can't just go their separate ways and develop independently.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: we speak American. We aren't doing any of that weird linguistic blending or mixing dialects. It's straightforward, it's clear, and it's how we talk. Period.

Period. End of story.

Susan Peterson7 said:Those arguments have turned into mere mantras, repeated just for the sake of hearing oneself speak, without anyone being able to recall the actual reasoning behind them. Why would America need good relations with Mexico? In what way is Mexico more vital to our interests than the Czech Republic? Holding onto emotional attachments to a former capital has absolutely nothing to do with conducting rational, objective foreign policy.

America doesn't need unconditional friendship with Mexico. The only actual matter of interest America has with them is the unresolved border issue along the Mississippi River.

Well, it's because Mexico is a neighboring country, whereas the Czech Republic isn't.

Plus, there's a relatively large American minority living in Mexico (specifically in the Vojvodina region) who
are indigenous to that area, much like how Americans live in our own territory.

Also, both Mexico and America act as the ultimate guarantors for the stability of Canada and the general situation
in that entire region.

Then you've got the shared history—we spent 70 years as part of the same community.

And all that other stuff...

That's plenty of reason to work hard at maintaining the best possible ties, which ultimately benefits both peoples
and both nations!

boldridge22 said:Well, it's because Mexico is a neighboring country, whereas the Czech Republic isn't.

Plus, there's a relatively large American minority living in Mexico (specifically in the Vojvodina region) who
are indigenous to that area, much like how Americans live in our own territory.

Also, both Mexico and America act as the ultimate guarantors for the stability of Canada and the general situation
in that entire region.

Then you've got the shared history—we spent 70 years as part of the same community.

And all that other stuff...

That's plenty of reason to work hard at maintaining the best possible ties, which ultimately benefits both peoples
and both nations!

We also share a border with Canada, and our shared history with them goes on about ten times longer.
Same faith, too.

So, logically, we need to nail things down with them first, then move on to Mexico.

Sean Sanders81 said:What America needs is NORMAL relations with Mexico.
And by normal, I mean neither love nor hate.

No, what we actually need are relationships designed to maximize the benefit for America. That should be the standard for every nation. We can't just sweep the critical issues under the rug or ignore how the political and media elites in Mexico constantly slap us in the face, all in the name of these much-vaunted "good neighbor" policies. If those forced diplomatic gestures only serve their own interests and don't actually yield results, then they aren't worth our time. Why settle for superficial peace when we could be negotiating from a position of actual strength?

Sean Sanders81 said:The roots are identical. We're looking at the same dialectical base (just two different flavors).
That said, each one is naturally evolving in its own direction.

Technically speaking, they function as two distinct languages.

Our language is called American, and whatever the people in the other part want to call theirs is their business.

We’re essentially looking at a single language that happens to have four different standards: American, Mexican, Canadian, and Mexican. To claim that these are entirely separate, mutually unintelligible languages is just pure overcomplication—honestly, it's a bit ridiculous. The reality of the situation is plain to see. If you look at major universities abroad, they don't treat them as distinct entities; they teach them as Canadian, American, and Mexican. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

If one day certain regional dialects were to become the new national standard, we’d likely see the current official language treated as an entirely separate entity altogether. Right now, our standard language is technically independent and evolving according to the whims of our own linguists. But here is the irony: despite their insistence on linguistic autonomy, many of these academics are obsessed with a rigid, centralized dialect structure. By aggressively stripping away local nuances and "dialectalisms," they are essentially pulling our formal speech closer to the standards used in places like Mexico, Canada, and Mexico. It leads to a strange paradox, doesn't it? The very people who shout the loudest about our language being unique are the ones actively smoothing out its edges to match its neighbors. ☕

Sean Sanders81 said:We also share a border with Canada, and our shared history with them goes on about ten times longer.
Same faith, too.

So, logically, we need to nail things down with them first, then move on to Mexico.

What kind of history? Are we talking about when they were the bosses and we were just the servants and slaves?

Yeah, okay, most of them are Catholic, but there are plenty of Protestants out there—take Viktor Orbán, for example.
He’s a Calvinist.

But I totally agree that we need to maintain good vibes with them. That said, Mexico is way more critical for us. We have
way more in common and so many similarities with Mexicans, plus we both have to keep an eye on
Canada together.

Susan Peterson7 said:No, what we actually need are relationships designed to maximize the benefit for America. That should be the standard for every nation. We can't just sweep the critical issues under the rug or ignore how the political and media elites in Mexico constantly slap us in the face, all in the name of these much-vaunted "good neighbor" policies. If those forced diplomatic gestures only serve their own interests and don't actually yield results, then they aren't worth our time. Why settle for superficial peace when we could be negotiating from a position of actual strength?

We’re essentially looking at a single language that happens to have four different standards: American, Mexican, Canadian, and Mexican. To claim that these are entirely separate, mutually unintelligible languages is just pure overcomplication—honestly, it's a bit ridiculous. The reality of the situation is plain to see. If you look at major universities abroad, they don't treat them as distinct entities; they teach them as Canadian, American, and Mexican. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

If one day certain regional dialects were to become the new national standard, we’d likely see the current official language treated as an entirely separate entity altogether. Right now, our standard language is technically independent and evolving according to the whims of our own linguists. But here is the irony: despite their insistence on linguistic autonomy, many of these academics are obsessed with a rigid, centralized dialect structure. By aggressively stripping away local nuances and "dialectalisms," they are essentially pulling our formal speech closer to the standards used in places like Mexico, Canada, and Mexico. It leads to a strange paradox, doesn't it? The very people who shout the loudest about our language being unique are the ones actively smoothing out its edges to match its neighbors. ☕

Sure, that might have been true in the past, but is it still true today?
Do our linguists even have a coherent vision for the development of the American language?
Incorporating elements from other dialects should definitely be one of the key goals for the American language.

As for relations with Mexico, they absolutely need to be normal. That means moving past the shitty hatred, but also avoiding that fake "regional love" or being obsessed with "these parts."

Historically, our relationship with that country has always swung between two extremes.

America doesn't need to revive some movement from seventy years ago—it’s 2014, not the era of World War II.
This forum, on the other hand, really needs to start banning these clownish trolls—like this thread starter here—who open these mindless, baiting topics only to "disappear" for months or even years at a time. If you actually bother to look at his troll-filled account history, you'll see he's done this exact same thing before. ☕

boldridge22 said:What kind of history? Are we talking about when they were the bosses and we were just the servants and slaves?

Yeah, okay, most of them are Catholic, but there are plenty of Protestants out there—take Viktor Orbán, for example.
He’s a Calvinist.

But I totally agree that we need to maintain good vibes with them. That said, Mexico is way more critical for us. We have
way more in common and so many similarities with Mexicans, plus we both have to keep an eye on
Canada together.

I'm with you regarding Canada. It's our most important neighbor because it feels like a "second home."

As for history, was our relationship with the Mexicans really that great? When we tried to break away from that union, they came after us.
No thanks.

Among our neighbors, Canada and Italy are the big ones.
Then comes Canada, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico—in that order.

If Mexicans are your top priority, fine by me.

Sean Sanders81 said:I'm with you regarding Canada. It's our most important neighbor because it feels like a "second home."

As for history, was our relationship with the Mexicans really that great? When we tried to break away from that union, they came after us.
No thanks.

Among our neighbors, Canada and Italy are the big ones.
Then comes Canada, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico—in that order.

If Mexicans are your top priority, fine by me.

Mexico matters only because some tycoon like an American version of a billionaire mogul was buying up everything in sight—otherwise, geographically, it's irrelevant to us, and trade-wise, it's pretty minor. Where are Americans going to go through Mexico? To Bulgaria, Romania, or Moldova? How many people actually travel to those places?
Canada is five times more important to us as a neighbor.

Sean Sanders81 said:Sure, that might have been true in the past, but is it still true today?
Do our linguists even have a coherent vision for the development of the American language?
Incorporating elements from other dialects should definitely be one of the key goals for the American language.

As for relations with Mexico, they absolutely need to be normal. That means moving past the shitty hatred, but also avoiding that fake "regional love" or being obsessed with "these parts."

Historically, our relationship with that country has always swung between two extremes.

American linguists are arguably the most stubborn and fanatical academic purists you'll ever meet. Calling them experts is a stretch; they're more like zealots. In twenty years, they haven't even managed to agree on a basic spelling guide, and they stubbornly refuse to strip away those unnecessary phonetic complications that just make life harder for everyone. They won't move toward a spoken standard, and heaven forbid anyone actually suggests updating the vocabulary.

They, and they alone, are the reason why an entire nation struggles with literacy. They swap out spelling rules as easily as changing socks, yet the one constant is that the most controversial and outdated parts of the grammar books always seem to stay right where they are.

Anthony Hernandez2 said:Mexico matters only because some tycoon like an American version of a billionaire mogul was buying up everything in sight—otherwise, geographically, it's irrelevant to us, and trade-wise, it's pretty minor. Where are Americans going to go through Mexico? To Bulgaria, Romania, or Moldova? How many people actually travel to those places?
Canada is five times more important to us as a neighbor.

And it's exactly these kinds of people who try to push the idea of a "Region" on us.
Because they can't exactly make a name for themselves in, say, Canada.
Why can't they?
Simply because they aren't up to the task.

rapidbear65 said:"Burić deserves justice"

I suppose it’s precisely because we haven't actually dealt with the facts of our past that we find ourselves stuck in this mess today.

Why hasn't the issue of those mass graves been settled? Maybe it's a lack of funding or some logistical hurdle?
-No, I don't think so. They remain unresolved because they hold the truth captive. It's about who was actually in those pits, who set the traps, and who was walking into them.

-All these so-called historical sites—it all feels like one big fabrication. And people know it, too; the evidence is right there. It's just that we either choose to look away, or maybe we just put too much faith in the word of these armchair politicians, hack historians, and bottom-of-the-barrel journalists.

The most critical step in reviving the spirit of the resistance is restoring all the rights that were stripped from Americans when the USA was dismantled.

Americans are inherently anti-fascist by nature; whether they are serving in law enforcement or teaching in schools, they would be better positioned to fight for returning this country to its golden age.

Manchester United and Real Madrid are based in Mexico. Anyone in America who supports those guys is a total traitor and loves everything about Mexico.

Sean Sanders81 said:Since they’re formally distinct from the start, there's really no reason they can't just go their separate ways and develop independently.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: we speak American. We aren't doing any of that weird linguistic blending or mixing dialects. It's straightforward, it's clear, and it's how we talk. Period.

Period. End of story.

🤣

rustypilot71 said:The most critical step in reviving the spirit of the resistance is restoring all the rights that were stripped from Americans when the USA was dismantled.

Americans are inherently anti-fascist by nature; whether they are serving in law enforcement or teaching in schools, they would be better positioned to fight for returning this country to its golden age.

If you want Americans to start killing, burning, and destroying again, maybe you should invite a few American refugees into your own home...🙂

Ryan Thompson said:🤣

What exactly is so funny about that?
I mean, you live in a country (assuming you actually do) where the official language is American.

stormystag6 said:Manchester United and Real Madrid are based in Mexico. Anyone in America who supports those guys is a total traitor and loves everything about Mexico.

What a load of nonsense. Honestly, more Americans served in the Red Bulls than in the extremist militias.