The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

My only feeling is shame, for what the US of A have become.

Did the FRA pass, by my count it was 7-7 tie? Unless there were votes presented not publicly?

Well,if it was 7-7 (that's what I counted too), BBB will support it because it's his bill, so it passes anyway 8-7 (where the other vote comes from it still a mystery, but it's kind of academic)

I hold a firm belief, and I think it is a good and optimistic belief, that if we can as a nation find the money to fight global war then we can find the money to heal, educate, and assist the old, unemployed and poor. Just as industrialisation brought great prosperity to those who embraced it, this socio-economic model that we have embraced will bring great prosperity to us and those who follow in our footsteps. Through the passing of the TPA we have expanded the scope of the safety net provided by the state. This is not a charity, this is ensuring that from cradle to grave every man or woman in the United States may live without fear of death or poverty or homelessness. That every man or woman won't have to fear for their finances should sickness befall them. That every child is given a proper education and that in future each generation shall be more skilled, more productive, more intelligent than the last. That every old person may have a few years towards the end of their lives to leave the gruelling work of the factories or fields. That every soldier out there, fighting across the world as I speak, knows they have a greater society to return to, that the peace we will build shall be one based around these principles of fairness, compassion, and respect for your fellow man. The FRA is to ensure that we posses the financial ability to maintain such a system.

Fancy rhetoric, Presidente Terrance.

Yeah; there really isn't much else to say, except that they're very well crafted sentences...

Mikeboy said:

Through the passing of the TPA we have expanded the scope of the safety net provided by the state. This is not a charity, this is ensuring that from cradle to grave every man or woman in the United States may live without fear of death or poverty or homelessness.

Click to expand...

Mr. President,

I would like you to explain how you have given all Americans eternal life. That is quite a feat.

Senator Johnson

I would object to any ambitions of the holy grail on the basis of rapid overcrowding; not to be at all disrespectful, but it is better that people die of old age than clog up the resources of the planet causing starvation, power shortages, congestion and generally decreasing the standard of living for all who are alive.

I agree, which is why the Holy Grail I found in my back yard I threw away last week.

And alas, the FRA does pass by a slim margin, albeit under shady nepotistic circumstances.

This coming election must be devoted to repealing not only these egregious attacks on the Constitution just passed, but also on overturning all the wartime powers granted to the president and the federal government!

The Holy Grail should be nationalized and given to US military research centres for proper protection, maybe somewhere near Groom Lake, to ensure the commies dont sieze it.

Now I wanted to discuss more serious businesses: political parties. Which are still in existance, their ideologies and proposed foreign policy. I want to know if the antiwar lobby wants to separate from their political parties and create a pacifist party vs. interventionist party system, as lately foreign policy has had more importance than other policies and quite frankly the large share of pacifists/non-interventionists are badly represented in the current political system. I am sure Jarvis agrees with me.

I don't think there currently are any interventionists in the Republicans, so a pacifist party already exists. We've recently seen a surge of independents who have voted pro-war, but where their vote shall be placed come election time I don't know.

It does seem that, more or less, the Republican Party is the antiwar party, considering that Hensdale supported limiting our involvement in Europe, and all our candidates have been opposed, to varying degrees, to imperialistic expansion.

The Grail, if it exists, must belong to America. God wills it!

I'm afraid, General Mandrake, that you are completely wrong; the Grail, if it exists, should be destroyed (see reasons given earlier). And anyway, if we were to keep it, who should have it? How is it morally acceptable to allow the citizens of one country eternal life but no other? Is it morally right to prolong the lives of those in developed countries who will already live 5 times longer on average than those in other parts of the globe who could benefit more? How is it acceptable for one man, one government or one organisation to decide who lives and who dies based on their narrow moral outlook, that, with absolute power would surely tighten into authoritarianism? If we possessed the Grail, how could we prevent our country from becoming a theocracy governed by the bearer, where any act of non-conformity would end in the crushing of all that that person believed in? Was in not this wanton abuse of power that we went to war in Europe to prevent?

Now to many of you, this debate may seem frivolous, yet it is exactly the problem we could face in the years to come. How do we stop there being a bearer of absolute power in our society? It has happened before; in 1695, a small Massachusetts town gave absolute power to a group of young girls the power to condemn others to death. Salem is now famous for the injustices of its witch-trials (the fact that "God wills it", to quote General Mandrake, makes this analogy rather apt!) ((for those interested in further reading, I heartily recommend Arthur Miller's The Crucible, which looks at the witch-trials through the lens of McCarthy era America - but that hasn't happened yet...)) It continues to happen today, though at present we can be thankful it is restricted to the wealthy's grip over the lives of the poor, not a crazed murdering spree; yet it is foreseeable, that as America faces more serious threats abroad in the future, the government could seek to castigate a group of society seen to be un-American, and persecute them purely for their beliefs. We must act now to protect our citizens from persecution by misguided individuals onto whom immense power is bestowed.

((Both the Federals and the Republicans you propose seem pretty hard-line; what about those of us that fall in between the two parties? I support the interventionist strict fiscal policy and a league of nations, but don't want the peace to come at the cost of future stability, and I believe many of my fellow Federalists share this viewpoint. Will there only be an aggressive party, a laid back party and a pacifist party? I would prefer an aggressive one, a moderate one and a pacifist one, but that is purely to fit my views and I don't know if that would work...

Secondly, what/who is TTL? I was going to draw up a LoN charter following on from the War Aims Act, which seemed to get bypassed at the last round of votes (not that I noticed at the time!), but if that is already being done by someone else, that is fine!))

((Fascist is a possibility, though it would probably take away from the hawks in the Federals... something that I would hate. A moderate party would be an option, though it would probably be weighted towards the Federals, just as the Federals were weighted towards the Democrats (more generally on Fiscal issues than military, since they were, at one point, moderates).

And TTL means True To Life))

This great and bloody war seems to be near its end; good! Now America can do some good and draw a fair treaty for all sides, and get back to what really matters; limiting the size of government!