• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I believe in Interventionism to allow the market to work, but still have room for government investments if needed. I also support Free Trade, at least for now, we need access to foreign goods to boost our industry.
As an interventionalist myself I see reason in this.
Jerry Nightmore
 
I support Mayor Terrance's run again, although I guess there isn't much surprise to that. I suspect this will be a quiet primary, seeing as only one party has their nomination in the air.
 
I would like to know the Entente's canidates stances on economic policy.
((I know you already voted, but hey :happy:, you never know.))

I, Bradley Smith, believe in leaving the economy to the great American people. Capital Hill should focus where our talents are needed most, combating the Tripartite and Santiago Pacts.

((As a occupational capitalist/investor, Smith doesn't like interventionism, and believes the economy is perfect. Mind you, this is before the Great Depression and recessions like the one we currently in. I'm actually and interventionist in real-life, don't know what i was thinking...))
 
I would like to know the Entente's canidates stances on economic policy.

Like my fellow candidate, Senator Smith, I believe in zero tariff, non-interventionist economic policy. I would even support import subsidies if they would help the American consumer or capitalist.
 
I endorse Mister von Ritter in the primary.

- Marinus van Mayer
 
Name: Michael Sullivan
Age: 36 (b. 1880)
Occupation: Governor of Illinois (first term)
Affiliation: Democrat-Labor
Biography: Born in Chicago, second of five children, parents Christopher Sullivan (Irish-American journalist) and Magdalena Kowalski-Sullivan (Polish-American secretary). Attended public school, graduated from state university majoring in political science with a minor in journalism. Interned at a DLP senator's office during final year of college, rose rapidly in party ranks despite occasional unorthodox opinions on socialism in a republican society. Served as alderman in Chicago, then as state representative for a heavily DLP district, before finally ending up as the Democratic-Labor candidate for governor. Won general election by promising to cut down on governmental corruption, support for labor unions, and strong oversight and regulation of corporations. Recently won his second gubernatorial primary, virtually guaranteeing election in the fall.

Sullivan has become increasingly vocal in his opposition to the Democratic-Labor party leadership, citing their "weak-willed endorsement of an Emperor's lapdog" (referring to the DLP coalition with the Federal party and Terrance) and "inability to articulate a coherent position on behalf of working Americans". His re-election campaign has featured not just policy positions regarding Illinois, but a broader vision encompassing the rest of America, clearly laying the foundation for a future presidential candidacy. He is strongly opposed to any military intervention either in Europe or South America, referring to any potential war as "adventurism designed to distract the electorate". He has also expressed wariness regarding the rapidly-growing economy, calling it "a train running full steam on shaky rails".

Rather than announce or even hint at future presidential ambition, he has instead scheduled speaking tours around the Midwest and industrial Northeast with the stated goal of reviving the Democratic Labor Party's declining membership and speaking to issues relevant to "the welfare of the working man and the social future of our republic".

Sullivan.jpg

Michael Sullivan, Governor of Illinois​
 
Last edited:
Hensdale
 
Hensdale

((Slow last couple of days...))
 
There is no reason to vote for Hensdale, which is why I have been laying low.

I support Mr. Hensdale for the future presidential race, even if he is uncontested in the primaries.
 
Nightmore for the Entente Party
 
You are correct; there is no real need to express our support. However, it has been dreadfully quiet in Washington, so I felt the need to break the near unbearable silence.
 
For everyone who is still uncertain, I would like to point out the four more years of Hensdale will ensure peace and prosperity in the United States of America. I am sure, that over my last four years in office, I have shown I am a man of unwavering principle who will stand true to his word. A vote for Hensdale in this upcoming election will ensure this great nation will continue on its current path. Everyone should ask themselves, Why change horses mid-stream?
 
Because Mister President, when a horse is mired mid-stream, it must be abandoned before it takes its rider down with it.

I mean no offence to your person. You have been a great president, presiding over a time of peace and prosperity. But that is no longer enough. Stability at home can only come from stability abroad. We cannot stand back as the maelstrom descends, pledging non-intervention. To be isolationist is to be irrelevant. To wash our hands of the world is to wash away our influence. Our name is a parody to the Great Powers; Germany and Russia dismiss us without a second thought, while Great Britain and France begin to question our reliability.

Respect cannot be won through words; it must be earned through action. We must make our enemies respect us, so that from Berlin to Saint Petersburg, not a man will dare look askance at an American for fear of the hand of God that will come crushing down upon him. Only a strong America can preserve the peace across the globe. Only a strong America can intervene in Africa and Asia to forestall the imperialist advances of the reactionary powers. Only a strong America can do credit to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and set our nation above all others - primus inter pares.

A strong president is a necessity for a strong America.

- Marinus van Mayer
 
Now here, Mr. Secretary, is where we differ.

Your belief in a strong America is a just one, do not get me wrong - But I believe it is a misguided one if it should depend on the United States meddling in the affairs of Europe. The Founding Fathers created this nation, forged in a period of turmoil and revolt. We were founded on the guiding principle, the very idea, of equality to all mankind. Our credit to the Founder Fathers, good sir, is upholding freedom and democracy in our own nation, not bringing it to people that may or may not want it. Our own Civil War was fought on differences between two factions that have been worked out, and we are now a united, strong country. Looking at it through our perspective, Europe has two factions where both sides disagree on something. In our own Civil War, did we have intervention from a European Power?

While I am not saying all it will take is one war and all of Europe will be united and powerful, I am saying that they did not meddle in our affairs. What gives us the right to step in? How does our founding principle of equality translate to invading other nations? You may claim to be spreading the American Way, but why must it be forced? We chose our own Government by revolting from the most powerful nation on this Earth at the time. If another people wishes to have our same freedoms, they may either revolt, or simply move to our country.

War, Mr. van Mayer, War is not the option.
 
I'm glad to see members of the quite a few members of the Entente party endorsing my candidacy. Let's lead America to glory!
I think this shows that Americans realize they need to handle their business in their own backyard before we go messing around with the Crowned Kings of Europe.
 
I Nicholas Kildwell join the Entente Party and vote for Nightmore.
 
Excuse me, but I seem to have lost the sense of time. What year is it?