Only when provoked by US.
That is one rather weak provocation. Compare that to the CCP launching missiles over the island of Taiwan. Who is provoking whom?
Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet, without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.
Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its independence.
All independence is based on having some autonomy (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.
Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.
US doesn't look kindly to someone endangering their energy supplies. Let alone territorial integrity
In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.
In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.
Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.
And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!
People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.
You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.
It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.
> And to give a more historical example
To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.
From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.
It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.
If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.
That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.
Not exactly irrelevant.
> The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives
One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.
Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.
People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.
This statement is just ridiculous.
Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a result of their own choices and they are the one to bear consequences.