-
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.
Reminds me vaguely of the Secretariat of the South... remember how that autonomy worked? If the Union is so great, why break away from it?
((Well, the War election would seem to be the exception to the rule, as the other two official one's merely landslided. So, unless two unity tickets form, which would require a situation similar to antebellum America, it seems to be a lopsided system. I see your cabinet reasoning, and I say a good idea; hopefully war will be averted))
((Well, the War election would seem to be the exception to the rule, as the other two official one's merely landslided. So, unless two unity tickets form, which would require a situation similar to antebellum America, it seems to be a lopsided system. I see your cabinet reasoning, and I say a good idea; hopefully war will be averted))
If the people want to "break away", let them. If they want to stay part of the union, let them. I will support the will of the people. I only wish for more autonomy, so that we might govern with better efficiency and govern closer to the views of the people of New England.
I believe each state already has plenty autonomy, seeing as we are the United States of America, and each State send 2 representatives to the national Senate to shape decisions and laws. Each region does not need even more, state is plenty.
That's your views. Fine . I respect your view. But I seek more autonomy for the people of New England. I have already stated some of the reasons why I want more autonomy.
Preparing for war implies you desire to fight.
I also see no reason to grant New England any autonomy. They have been allowed to act as they wanted for years now, as leaders of American independence to one of the most powerful regions, if they are not already such, in the Union.
Mr. Khur, you keep trying to detach yourself from politicians who started mudslinging, attacking others, and issuing outrageous statements. When you say I am a fear-monger, is that not attacking me? You are no more innocent than the rest of us, Mr. Khur. You called the Republican administration a bunch of jackals, you wanted to keep those sympathetic towards slavery out of Congress. Then your party switches from calling us mad liberals to reactionaries. Those who have enjoyed the mud should admit to it. Both factions are guilty, yes, but that means both factions are guilty.
((Brockman believes there is a time for secession, but not for what the South seceded over ITTL.))
I also see no reason to grant New England any autonomy. They have been allowed to act as they wanted for years now, as leaders of American independence to one of the most powerful regions, if they are not already such, in the Union.
Mr. Khur, you keep trying to detach yourself from politicians who started mudslinging, attacking others, and issuing outrageous statements. When you say I am a fear-monger, is that not attacking me? You are no more innocent than the rest of us, Mr. Khur. You called the Republican administration a bunch of jackals, you wanted to keep those sympathetic towards slavery out of Congress. Then your party switches from calling us mad liberals to reactionaries. Those who have enjoyed the mud should admit to it. Both factions are guilty, yes, but that means both factions are guilty.
((Brockman believes there is a time for secession, but not for what the South seceded over ITTL.))
((I can see one example of when a unity ticket should have formed. Think about Mandrake's unilateral landslide victory. Maybe in hindsight the crushing defeat was necessary to do away with the Reconstruction era parties. But a largely non-partisan war hero nomination? If ever there was a time for the other two parties to be allowed to form a unity ticket, that was it.))
I agree with Secretary Khur; while I support autonomy, and states' rights, I do not support the dissolution of the Union. If a state dislikes the course of the nation, it has two Senators to fight against the offending legislation. If it is a major problem, many states will oppose it, and the House will likely as well. If it is not a major problem, then it may only require minor amending, or pass as is. I don't think secession is the proper course for a state.
((well, generally (unintended pun), a general, or war hero, enjoys immense support, and a unity ticket would have little chance of winning. But I can see why, since it would at least balance it better; but when its a normal candidate, like you and myself, a unity ticket doesn't really make much sense; especially when the third party is a more third way, or moderate party. The Whigs and Democrats were somewhat different, but fused to prevent a radical party from rising. The two Republican Parties formed from the weakness of the parties preceding it; but this ticket formed as a more radical (since it supported a socialist), more hawkish, party, against a small government, dovish, party.))
((well, generally (unintended pun), a general, or war hero, enjoys immense support, and a unity ticket would have little chance of winning. But I can see why, since it would at least balance it better; but when its a normal candidate, like you and myself, a unity ticket doesn't really make much sense; especially when the third party is a more third way, or moderate party. The Whigs and Democrats were somewhat different, but fused to prevent a radical party from rising. The two Republican Parties formed from the weakness of the parties preceding it; but this ticket formed as a more radical (since it supported a socialist), more hawkish, party, against a small government, dovish, party.))
Unlike Mr. Jarvis, I believe secession should be used, but only as the last measure. If we face cruel repressions like that which Great Britain forced upon us prior to 1776, then there should be a reason to secede. However, anything less should not resort to secession and dissolution.
What is wrong with more autonomy? Should we not be able govern ourselves more without our arm being forced by Washington?
I do not advocate secession, only more autonomy.
Have the bikering politicians ground out a policy for the Philipines should the worse come to pass and we find ourselves at war with Spain?
Quote me on calling you a fear-monger, for I never used that word. And it does not matter if both sides do mud-sling, it matters that the Republicans started the tradition. Do you know who else wished to keep the those sympathetic to slavery out of Congress? President Williams of the Republican Party issued the command to keep all pro-slavery politicians out of American politics.
Nothing is wrong with more autonomy; I'm a proponent of states' rights. But I feel that your too much in favour of secession, which would destroy this great Union.
As for the Philippines, I say we should do nothing about them; I do not support a war with Spain, and I do not support building an American Empire!
Your attacks were equivalent to me fear-mongering; both sides have been slinging mud since 1836; and I did not support that move by President Williams. Slavery is abhorrent, but they have a right to speak their minds; regardless, slavery was banned, and it was a moot point.
As for the Philippines, I say we should do nothing about them; I do not support a war with Spain, and I do not support building an American Empire!
Your attacks were equivalent to me fear-mongering; both sides have been slinging mud since 1836; and I did not support that move by President Williams. Slavery is abhorrent, but they have a right to speak their minds; regardless, slavery was banned, and it was a moot point.
It's is for the people of New England to decide weather to stay or leave the Union. I shall support whichever they choose. I request the people of New England be allowed to vote on the issue of more autonomy .
Are you satisfied, Mr. Khur?
We should not have any ambitions on the Philippines. Any ambitions would be a demonstration of imperialism, plain and simple.
((Above))
Well, you did accuse me of fearmongering; slipped my mind (of course, it was a few pages ago)
Well, you did accuse me of fearmongering; slipped my mind (of course, it was a few pages ago)
Again ((since this post is now irrelevant)), we should not invade, colonize, occupy, or otherwise interfere with the Philippines; it would be imperialism, despite the claims of this administration, or its supporters. It is not in our hemisphere, so our occupation of it is not held within the Monroe Doctrine; it would be an illegal seizure (as I believe Cuba and Puerto Rico would be, Cuban Liberty Act or no).
Well, at least we figured out the magic quote.))
That does not say I called you a fear-monger. And Jarvis, the tradition of mud-slinging was started by the Whig Party during the last attempt by my grandfather to run for President, and was unheard if before then.