Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I agree with you on that point, Mr. Gafferty; we should first allow the market to recover before we make such a cut in the military. However, minor cuts now, combined with a more humble foreign policy would be all I'm asking for, at the moment.

Our intrusion in affairs that are, only on the most tenuous of bases, pertinent to us, have led to the over extension of our 'empire.' This policy, started under Jamous, and continued by every president, with the exception of Mandrake, we have seen our nation pushed further and further into the minutiae of European policies. Sooner or later, we will find ourselves in a great war with our 'commonwealth' allies, against their rivals, in a what would have been an exclusively European war; once this happens, we will be inextricably linked to Europe, and our government will be more 'pro-commonwealth' than pro-America. We have already seen a movement in that direction, with all this nonsensical talk about pro-French and anti-French, pro-German and anti-German allegiances; all this at the expense of the American people.

If we simply let it be, both in the market and in Europe, we will have a better America; if we return to a policy of laissez-faire, of free market liberalism, of non-interventionism, we will witness a return to prosperity.

((And its Jarvis, Caezaire :) ))
 
Riccardo93 said:
I agree with you on that point, Mr. Gafferty; we should first allow the market to recover before we make such a cut in the military. However, minor cuts now, combined with a more humble foreign policy would be all I'm asking for, at the moment.

Our intrusion in affairs that are, only on the most tenuous of bases, pertinent to us, have led to the over extension of our 'empire.' This policy, started under Jamous, and continued by every president, with the exception of Mandrake, we have seen our nation pushed further and further into the minutiae of European policies. Sooner or later, we will find ourselves in a great war with our 'commonwealth' allies, against their rivals, in a what would have been an exclusively European war; once this happens, we will be inextricably linked to Europe, and our government will be more 'pro-commonwealth' than pro-America. We have already seen a movement in that direction, with all this nonsensical talk about pro-French and anti-French, pro-German and anti-German allegiances; all this at the expense of the American people.

If we simply let it be, both in the market and in Europe, we will have a better America; if we return to a policy of laissez-faire, of free market liberalism, of non-interventionism, we will witness a return to prosperity.

((And its Jarvis, Caezaire :) ))
Click to expand...

((I have no idea what you are talking about))


I agree with you on the European fronts. We should not get involved too much in messy European struggles.
However, would you agree that if USCA are able to get Mexico into their corner, it would be in our best interests to change the situation before they get to the point of thinking they could defeat us?
 
((Hmmm, I could have sworn... it's almost as if you somehow... edited your post, fixing your mistake :eek:))

I would only if an attack seemed imminent; I would not support any preemptive attack, or a diplomatic isolation, as it were. I would prefer open conversation, negotiation with them. If all diplomatic channels fail, and they are directly harming us, I could be persuaded to agree to a war (not an invasion) of their nation, but only under those circumstances, which I doubt could be met, considering that nation is so much weaker than our own, both militarily and, for now, economically.
 
I, Joseph Walker will run for the Federal nomination

Since my days as Vice President in the Callahan Administration, I have not been involved much in politics. I have focused on my mining and publishing business headquartered in San Francisco. I feel that with the struggling economy, the nation needs an experienced pragmatic businessman to lead it. The ideologues of the ACP and the Democratic party fight over theories of government, I propose solutions to our nations problems.

The government should subsidize industries having trouble during this panic. This will stabilize the economy and allow us to reduce and eliminate the subsidies when the economy improves.

Our military must remain strong and we must exert our influence in South America. The UPCA must not be allowed to exert influence over Colombia. I will not cut the military.

Joseph Walker
 
((If the rich philanthropist movement is my fault, it was never my intention. I'll try to be a more appropriately fat cat capitalist should I go that route with a future character ;)))
 
I think the idea to cut the size of our military is excellent, but not right now. The men who are discharged would have a hard time to find jobs. When my New Economy is in full swing, and more jobs are created by the government, then the military should be cut. As a peaceful nation with no enemies we really don't need a huge military.

Jimmy Nightmore
 
I'm writing up the primary update right now. Glad to see the Federals filled all their candidate spots.

Gloa, are we going to get an update to the recap soon?
 
Primary of 1892​

Federal Party Candidate(s):

Andrew Gafferty (b. 1838), Brigadier General of the US Army ((Caezaire)). The US Army veteran supports interventionist economic policies and slight tariffs as a measure against the recession.

Joseph Walker (b. 1836), Mining Magnate ((atomicsoda)). As a representative of one of the economy’s driving forces, the entrepreneur, Walker is adamant that, under his guidance, the recession can be tamed with temporary subsidies to struggling industries.

James Karoli (b. 1855), Congressman for Washington ((hygge0302)). Karoli is the most protectionist of Federal candidates. He believes that by making “American jobs for American people”, the economy will return to growth.

American Conservative Party Candidate(s):

Samuel Lee Davis (b. 1850), Incumbent President of the Republic ((Projekt919)). Despite criticism leveled at laissez faire policies in the aftermath of Black October, Davis continues to advocate non-intervention. His solution is to increase unemployment subsidies as a way of taking a burden off industrial magnates.

David Hensdale (b. 1857), Mayor of Richmond ((Frymonmon)). Hensdale has had to handle the chaos spreading from Black October in his capacity as mayor. He is a firm believer in the capability of the market, and small government.

Andrew Garrett (b. 1840), Vice-President of the Republic ((Avindian)). The Vice-President believes in much the same policies as the president, but that he is better suited to implement them than Davis is.

Democratic Party Candidate(s):

Joe Hayden (b. 1837), Democratic Politician ((blindgoose)). Hayden came close to the presidency 4 years earlier on a platform warning of an impending bust. Now he believes that, with events having vindicated him, the Square Deal deserves the White House.

Jimmy Nightmore (b. 1840), Congressman for Ohio ((yourworstnightm)). The New Economy is based on “worker’s rights, moral values and a fair economy”.

George Walsh (b. 1836), Senator for Virginia ((welshdude)). Walsh, last election's VP candidate, advocates a "Fair Deal" policy of banning stock markets, limited state capitalism and progressive tax that places emphasis on the rich.

---------------------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

Vote.
 
Last edited:
((Two things. Rogov isn't running, Welshdude is, or at least that's what it looks like when I go through the thread. Did mikeboys character lose out on a primary spot because the incumbent is guaranteed a spot and two other had already declared?))

EDIT: Komisha, inbox, empty.
 
Blindgoose. Fixed. Gross incompetence on my part.

Mikeboy said:
((BBB I'm not on the ACP list?))
Click to expand...

Well, I already had two candidates and Davis by my count. The Rule of Three can't be broken, lest everyone in a part runs. Guaranteed spot for you in 1897 to make up for it.
 
Avindian said:
I humbly accept your apology, sir.

Will a crash of this magnitude happen again? Quite possibly. By the same token, the incredible growth that our country has experienced is also possible. Even under socialism, there will still be shocks to the economy.

How do I earn the money I get? Because I invest my money. If my company fails, I am at risk. The fine workers at my company can always find other jobs; in many cases, where layoffs have been unfortunately necessary, I have personally interceded with friends to try to find them other positions.

Am I physically building the ships that my company sells? No, of course not. There are far better people for that particular task. That doesn't mean I don't work. Negotiating new contracts, reviewing plans, meeting with local government leaders, etc. are all very much work.

Do my employees make lower salaries than I do? Of course they do. Again, it is my livelihood at risk if the company fails, not theirs.

If I might ask, Senator, what exactly is it that you do? Are you sweating to earn your keep, as the virtuous 90% does?
Click to expand...

I no longer sweat to earn my keep, as you put it, but I did. Need I remind you I put my life on the line - not as an officer, but as a common soldier - to keep this country whole?

Of course you do work, but can you really say it is anywhere near the amount your employees do? And how is your livelihood on the line? They can't always find a job, as the owner of Norfolk Shipping Company says. And even if they could, surely you could get a job as well if your company went bust?
 
Last edited:
BigBadBob said:
Blindgoose. Fixed. Gross incompetence on my part.
Click to expand...

You've also got Walsh and Nightmore's birthdates the wrong way round. Sorry.
 
My vote goes to Garrett. He is the only reasonable Conservative candidate, as the other two are either Lost Cause fanatics, advocates of the completely pointless regional departments, or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back