The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

((Considering you moved to support a radical progressive... it's a distinct possibility...))

Thank you for your support, Mr. Karoli; though that you do so because my opponent is a woman is not the best reason ((don't change though, there might be an open cabinet position! ))

Riccardo93 said:

((Considering you moved to support a radical progressive... it's a distinct possibility...))

Thank you for your support, Mr. Karoli; though that you do so because my opponent is a woman is not the best reason ((don't change though, there might be an open cabinet position! ))

Click to expand...

Does that mean.... :O
Im fu****, pardon the word, it has been a great experience being Secretary of State of the Republican P though

I vote for the candidate of the working man Michael Sullivan

((Kaiser gets his wish! Also, Ricc, that may be the nicest thing you've ever said about my character. I'm so touched!))

It is my pleasure to announce Secretary Maurice Horshington as the Progressive candidate for Vice-President. With your support, Mr. Horshington and I will usher in a new era of progressive policies, domestic prosperity, and fairness and equality for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or social class.

Regarding equality of opportunity, an issue President Jarvis has previously mentioned, I feel that a few crucial details have been omitted. President Jarvis' working philosophy is that, by removing barriers and leveling the playing field, equal opportunity will exist for every American, giving them the ability to reach their full potential. What he does not mention is that, without governmental assistance, the playing field will instead resemble the Rocky Mountains, with the elite occupying the highest peaks and the working man forced down into the lowest valleys. The elite and their children benefit from the best private education, the best doctors, connections to others of privilege, and an unassailable safety net to fall back on in the event of personal failure. Without our much-decried "welfare state", the working man has nothing even remotely resembling this kind of advantage. The fairness Mr. Jarvis claims to uphold is nothing more than a thinly-veiled defense of privilege and wealth's ability to oppress those born less fortunate.

My parents were reasonably well-off, reasonably prosperous... average Americans, in short. I did not grow up as the scion of a political dynasty like Mrs. Vallejo or Mr. Jarvis. I benefited from what modest assistance my parents could provide, my own talents, and I still would have fallen short of achieving high state office were it not for the "massive government bureaucracy" providing me frivolous benefits like tuition assistance and student loans. We all benefit from government; we drive on the roads it builds, we drink the water it pumps, and we work in the factories and offices in which it provides safe, stable working conditions. My friends, we are the government! And with your help, we can have a President that rejects foreign wars and mindless tax cuts, who wants to strengthen the United States and keep it safe and free! Vote Progressive, and I promise you, this will happen!

Have I opposed a safety net? I support unemployment benefits, limited pensions, and strong safety standards; what I don't support, is government practically dictating work policies for companies which are, generally speaking, running just fine on their own. Furthermore, your welfare does not guarantee equality, nor does it provide security; it stresses the idea that the poor cannot, at all, provide for themselves, and that they must be dependent on the government. My ideas are not perfect, I grant you that, but I am a true lover of liberty, and would not want any man to rely solely on the government, and the forced charity of his fellows, to maintain his existence (which may or may not be providing anything useful for the rest of society).

On your other point, do I oppose government infrastructure; of course not! I would rather have more privatised roads, and state run infrastructure systems, but the federal government should assist states in ensuring that roads, railways, and others are maintained and improved whenever and wherever possible. Those great benefits, that all Americans have access too, would not even exist yet, were it not for entrepreneurs and industrialists, whom you seem to despise, sir.

Furthermore, I oppose war; I have opposed war since you were an infant, and have maintained that position, even when members of my own party, and yours, were crying out for it. Remember, you were silent during the great war, whilst I was the most vocal critic of it. I ask you this, would you isolate us from the rest of the world, hiding our heads in the sand? I have always opposed that notion, instead favouring diplomacy, which some seem to feel is inadequate...

As well, would you rather the people not have access or control of their own money, since the government can use it so much better than they, I assume? Are they not capable of improving their communities, aiding their neighbours, investing in businesses, both large and small, or a thousand other things you think only the government can provide? Why not let the people have control of their money, Mr. Sullivan? Are they too stupid to know what to do with it? If that's the case, how high would taxes be under a Sullivan administration?

Sir, I want a completely free market, and I would love to see the government reduced in size far more drastically than I am proposing; but my ideas are moderate, and far more acceptable to your radical agenda! My ideas of less government, individual responsibility, with only the slightest bit of government interference, are the very founding ideas of this nation!

I would like to respectfully remind President Jarvis that we were both vocal critics during the Great War; it was during that time that my opposition to the Federal Party and its hawkish elements grew to its current height. I opposed our involvement in the war at its inception as well as each further investment of American soldiers during the course of the conflict. My criticism of "foreign wars" was directed at the Federal Party and its candidate, not at you, and I of course apologize if I was unclear in that regard.

On the domestic front, our differences are much clearer. Private roads? You would sell the most fundamental aspect of our national infrastructure to private interests, so that they could mismanage them freely and charge whatever they liked in usage fees? Perhaps you would prefer a two-tiered infrastructure, in which the poor walk along stamped-down dirt trails and the rich coast above them on their private expressways.

I do not deny that the American worker can make good use of his money, but what the average citizen cannot do as well as the government is pool funds from millions of sources to create programs and infrastructure for the common benefit. That is the purpose of government, to bring people together as one nation and not let our country develop into an anarcho-capitalist nightmare.

I do not despise the capitalist and the industrialist, but I believe that power corrupts and that no man should hold absolute power over another simply due to an accident of birth or an accumulation of wealth. Government is the natural check on the tyranny of the few, the mechanism by which the powerful are forced to respect the majority view and prevented from wielding their influence as a weapon against the working man. That ideal, that fundamental freedom from tyranny, is the true founding ideal of this nation.

My tax policy will be determined by the needs of the nation and its people, not by a simplistic rallying cry of "lower taxes". They are the price we pay for a civilized society, after all.

I will abstain from this election. I am really mad at the fact that every candidate is a progressive yankee unwilling to represent the will of the southern states, confirming my previous statement that the south is treated like subjects under the union instead of equal members in a federation.

No harm taken, sir; it seems I also confused you with our other opponent, Ms. Vallejo.

You misunderstand the entirety of my plan; state roads and private roads can coexist; typically, and what I would hope, would be that certain lanes of major roadways would become privatised. From that, not only would we have to pay less to maintain major roads, we give people the choice; do you want to ride a 'free' road (since they still pay for it, but I'll discuss that later), or do you want to pay a small fee for a less crowded, and , more than likely, better maintained road? But the real issue is; they already pay for the roads; I pay for roads in New York, even though I don't live there, and have no real interest in the maintenance of their infrastructure. Conversely, you must pay to maintain roads in California. What I propose would lessen the burden on all people, by making the roads a more local issue. A similar situation would be the railways; the government owns very few lines (and under my administration, will only own those vital to move federal resources from one coast to the other), but the costs are incredibly low. So having a competitive system would drive down prices for roadways, giving people better infrastructure for a lower price (and they won't have to maintain roads they will never use, outside of their state, at least).

I also question your belief that the government is a natural check on corruption; indeed, I believe it is a prime for for corruption. We have seen case after case after case where government officials take bribes, or are otherwise corrupt and harmful to the nation. Having a smaller government, that does not manage almost every aspect of industry (and ensuring that those corrupt captains of industry have any incentive to bribe government officials) will keep the government more honest, and when it does act, it will have both the resources and the capable leadership to properly create and maintain those new institutions or programmes. You also forget that we broke from tyranny of the government, which was unfairly taxing us.

On tax policy, my position is not a foolish rallying cry of cut taxes; rather, it is based that people will be more productive, will invest, will invent, and will be freer when they have more money in their pockets. By raising taxes on the upper and middle classes, you hurt business growth (which, unless you create massive government programmes (and therefore need to tax more) will harm the poor). Raising taxes on the poor, which I doubt you would do, would leave them less stable (again, for you, requiring more government programmes, and justifying higher taxes). Under my system, the government is limited, so the need to tax is low; what taxes there are, will go to ensure that the government is well run, the armies are maintained, and that the security programmes we have in place are well maintained.

It is my honour, Mr.Sullivan to serve America under the Progressive Party,may our country prosper under your rule and your party, I also announce my retreat from my position as Secretary of State under the Republican Party of Mr. Jarvis,i am assured that Mr. Karoli will do better then me, this is my end as a Republican voter.
((My wishes are true, finally!!!))
-Maurice Horshington

I must say I am disappointed by the platforms put forth by all parties in this election. I saw nothing that reached out and grabbed me as an individual voter. And sadly, I see effort on all sides to work towards "peaceful" solutions to world affairs that get us nowhere. Months and years wasted while unfortunate people die in war-torn nations across Europe with no end in sight. We are the champion of freedom and prosperity. Let's act more like it. I am abstaining from the voting until the platforms develop some.

Walter Mandrake
Secretary for War

I am leaving the US, but I won't stop fighting for our glory. I will seek out the wars in the world and raise the American flag and fight as all Americans should fight. We are slipping into a state of Serfdom. We're embracing feminine values and bowing to the power of nations weaker than us. If we continue this way our nation will perish.

Some of the finest policies ever put in a manifesto, so I vote for Alicia Vallejo.

((I find it interesting the Republican and Progressive Parties have practically the same approach to foreign policy; we oppose involving ourselves in Europe, and support some form of League of American States))

Riccardo93 said:

((I find it interesting the Republican and Progressive Parties have practically the same approach to foreign policy; we oppose involving ourselves in Europe, and support some form of League of American States))

Click to expand...

((At the end we are just the same but there are some differences,of course, also im sorry for "betraying" you.))

((It's fine, mate! The chance to become Vice President is something hard to pass up))

Riccardo93 said:

((It's fine, mate! The chance to become Vice President is something hard to pass up))

Click to expand...

(( My mum always said i will be something important *cries* oh mummy why have you left me! lol, well wish you luck Mr. Jarvis))

((Extracts from Terrance's memoirs, entitled Shoulder to Shoulder, released in the 1920's.))

" I think we were the closest knit administration our country has ever seen, and I hope the closest we ever will see if those are the circumstances which breed such cooperation. Of course the bulk of my early reforms were educational and managed by Kevin McCahill. I had created the National Work Board, which would prove indispensible during the war, as would its President; John Sharp. Écossais too served his country well, always contributing to government. Alicia was given expanded duties as head of the FEB and a good friend, with much essential experience in politics. And I could not have asked, in war or peace, for a better Treasurer than Fitz."

"There were some disagreements between me and Fitz, my primary fear was that his Federal Reserve Act would cause a capital flight, and we'd be left in a state of financial ruin similar to Austria. He had disagreements with the creation of a Federal housing scheme, which was established in the Transition to Peace Act as the Federal Housing Commission. We spent many long nights debating issues like these among others, such as the Passport Act. On the greatest two contentions, which I just mentioned, I proposed a simple agreement; that he drop his opposition to the FHC, and I drop my insistence on a gold-exportation ban."

"I think the single greatest mistake I made during the war was ordering the attack on Vladivostok. I was reluctant to support the idea from the start, even moreso in private than in public. Ultimately though I allowed myself to be convinced by the voices in my cabinet to back the plan, hoping it would cut off Russia's access to the Pacific. It was of course a failure, a failure that saw the loss of many lives, and one I feel I wouldn't have been able to recover from had the Rebound Summer not occurred when it did. Of course note should be given here, to our ambassador to Japan and his staff, without whom the situation would have been much bloodier."

"I admit I never fulfilled every manifesto commitment, the Great War made that impossible, but the Transition to Peace Act did bring many of them into statute, as the Federal Education Act preceding the war. I felt that because so many had endured such hardships in the war it would be a most heinous crime for me not to do so. Seeking to eliminate poverty, homelessness, poor education, sickness. That was the repayment of the United States to those millions, and I hope, their children and grandchildren."

"Some of the legislation passed during the war was controversial I know, but I maintain with the utmost conviction that I did what had to be done, just as I had in having the US join the war."

"I think I lost the [Primary] race for a simple enough reason. Though there are others including my arrogance and assumption that victory was inevitable, and that my opposing candidate was greatly able. I was tired...in securing a victory for the country I personally had been defeated and had almost all of my energy drained out of me. One's sure one holds a record for the most aged in four years. I didn't have the ability to take up another campaign in the state the Great War had left me in, and the Federal Party recognised as much.

However I did not expect the party's defeat come the Presidential election, Throughout the war I was dismissive of Jarvis as but the head of a vocal minority, and thought his lassiez faire attitudes were considered outdated by the American people. Soon however he would be announced the victor, that came as a great shock."

"I think a problem that has been growing within our system for a while now is that successive governments seem intent mostly on directly and explicitly reversing the actions of its predecessor. Democracy cannot work that way."

"The Great War was awful, that much is indisputable, it left a world behind that was still not entirely at peace, it left millions dead, and millions more injured or traumatised. But when one considers the alternative...I must insist, that it is never vilified."

((Doesn't Sullivan only have 1 vote seeing as Kaiser became his VP candidate?))