The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

I vote Yes the District of Columbia Representative Amendment.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. So if I had four children and all of them wanted to have something different for dinner. One wants chicken another salad, another hamburgers, and another wants pasta. What do you do then? How do you choose one from another? Or do you just say were having sandwiches? Which would mean you are a dictator because you just dictated what they were going to have but they didn't want. Your ideals Mr. Spencer would not work. You are fragmenting a society, into different groups of people. Also, how could you have a politician for each different group of people, that would go into thousands of politicians, then who would pay for their salaries in a economic depression? That would just increase the depression for years to come. As well it the power could not to put in the hands of a few strong men, would they not bicker and kill each other over absolute power? And what if the "representatives" disagree with these all powerful leaders or propose a law that the leaders do not agree with. Will they be killed? Finally, what if a farmers' child does not want to be a farmer but being surrounded by farmers' and such how could they just do what they want! Or do you decide what other children must do? These are the questions left on answered by your ideologies.

-C. Blancharde

Riccardo93 said:

((Jerry Nightmore, or perhaps one of his other relatives, consistently, and insanely, argued for American warmongering and world domination; very hawkish, very insane. Maybe your parakeet is his reincarnated spirit, then...))

Click to expand...

((Is Nightmore no longer around? I was expecting his support. Though I'm sure this Senator and his parakeet will considering most of the Progressives are quite pacifistic.))

There are thousands of politicians as is, the difference being under my system they're arranged by profession rather than geography. I also do not propose dictatorship or absolute power, merely increased power in the hands of fewer people. In Britain the Prime Minister has substantially more power than our President but would you call it a dictatorship? Are they killed now if they disagree with the executive? Your accusations are completely absent of facts. Why under my system would the child have to be a farmer? He can choose and later switch his profession just as he does now, the difference shall be in the execution of the profession, with things like price controls, standardised wages, government oversight, state unions that co-operate with the representatives of business, with the power of government mediating to ensure that both get a fair deal and both workers and management do the best they possibly can for the sake of the nation.

((He be still be around, I dunno. He's about 60 now, so maybe. You actually could get some support, mainly from the crazy Progressives, Longstrum and Willis.))

Though it is a moot point, I will vote for Congressman Blancharde.

((One vote and it's for the only guy running for the Republicans. I can see this primary season being pretty flat...))

BigBadBob said:

Well, you did flood the first post-Primary Post page with debate, so people may be waiting for it to die down in fear of any votes posted during debating season being lost among the walls of text.

Click to expand...

((True, true. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.))

I would like to know your economic plan, if you were to be elected, Senator Willis and pet.

Well first off I would build troops in small armies at a time, so I didn't crash so early on. Then I would instill a state capitalism system and build factories of high selling items like luxery furnitures. I would also give subsides to big corporations that are struggling, like Willis Cannery.

I will vote Aye on DCRA. I also enthusiastically endorse my father's good friend, Blancharde.

Senator Max Ritter, R-MA

I vote yes on DCRA. I vote Blancharde. It is only fair that Laissez Faire must return to us with a truly free-market adherent, not with the enactor of harsh interventionist reforms.

Peoples of congress! I return to you after many years of diplomatic service in war-torn Europe. Our former enemies are growing ever strong, and the crisis makes us weaker than ever. Should we lose our hegemony in Europe, our great peace may come to an end. I do not wish another Great War. Fascism worries me, not because of ideological conceptions but because it is based on revanchism. Revanchism on those who control world politics today. America should not intervene in further conflicts unless a majority vote is passed or American soil is attacked directly. I know this may seem very anticipated and unneccesary in the moment, but it might be useful one day. When I was young and naive, I rallied on the streets with fellow patriots in the eve of the Great War, seeking peace and demilitarization, and now for the first time in many years we can actually do this legitimately through legislation. So I present my bill to congress.

NEUTRALITY ACT OF 1936

• The United States of America will not invade or initiate hostile activities on foreign soil.
• The United States of America will raise naval strength to protect its free trade from any belligerent nation.
• All North American troops in Europe or foreign soil are to return to the mainland.to
• The United States will not prohibit or impose restrictions on trade with any belligerent nations.
• The Neutrality of Act of 1936 should be only rendered invalid if passed with a majority vote or if American soil is attacked directly without provokation.
• The United States are prohibited from selling arms or munitions to any nation in Europe if a military conflict starts.

I also want to resign from Congress. I am old man who wishes nothing but see his grandchildren and tend his family estate in Alabama. I hope my nephew and pupil Adlai Carlsson takes my seat on congress one day.

(( New Character ))


Name: Adlai Carlsson
Occupation: lawyer
Background: Studied on Yale. Fought on the Great War as a navy officer. His father was an important executive in a renowned fruit exploiting company operating in Latin America. He had a choice between diplomacy and business and chose diplomacy. He became very close friends with his uncle, former ambassador/senator William III Carlsson, and became a fan of his passionate defense of peace but grew wary of his unorthodox state capitalist views and racism. He is now making his bid for Senator of Alabama after the recent resignation of his uncle.

A sound proposal, Ambassador Carlsson; it has my support. And may I ask for your birth year, Mr. Carlsson; it appears there is no record for it (also, that would also apply to Mr. Willis, I believe)

Mr. Willis, it may appear to some that your support for subsidies may have personal motivations.

WHAT? Preposterous!

I cast my primary vote for Phillip McCahill.

I vote Yes to the DCRA.

While I support the Neutrality Act, I believe the clause requiring a supermajority for repeal is not strictly legal, especially since it's being passed with a simple majority. With that clause removed, I would vote for it.

I must disagree with your proposal Mr Carlsson, not only because it would endanger the stability of Europe at this crucial time in the continent's history, but because it will limit the ability of congress to act in America's best diplomatic interests.

I agree that we should not be militaristic or aggressive, and as such the clauses that increase the majority needed for a declaration of war will receive a cautious welcome from me.

However, I see no clause where we can act in defence of our allies. Instead what I see is a foolhardy proposal to unilaterally withdraw troops from Europe; a move that will surely undermine the security and stability of the region and, due to the continent's global influence, the entire world. I see a clause that prevents congress from placing restrictions on overly aggressive countries or repressive ones, such as the new Nazi state being forged as we speak in Germany. I see a clause that increases the size of the navy, which seems to me entirely hypocritical for a supposedly pacifistic bill. I see a bill that assumes loftily and idiotically that the United States can remain totally impartial if war were to break out in Europe.

This is a bill that undermines the ability of our Secretary of State and congress to act. This is a bill that is both hypocritical and unrealistic. This is a bill that threatens the stability of the world. As such, this bill shall never receive my support, nor I would hope the support of my idealogical allies.

((Also, what if American soil is attacked with provocation? Can congress invalidate the bill then?))

This "Neutrality Act" is preposterous! How are we supposed to be thought of the BEST! I vote nay!

((Voting hasn't started yet; we're only discussing it... voting will start with the elections I should think))

((Voting for DC bill has started; but Neutrality Act is just being discussed))

((Don't tell him, he'll be sad that he voted at the wrong time.))

((We'll keep it secret from him if you do too...

On a serious note, it's more to people following suit and making BBB annoyed, so I hope you don't feel we're trying to punish you in any way!))