• 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.
Character Name: Clint Westwood

Date of Birth: April 9 1870 (35 years of age)

Backround: Born in New England following the civil war, Clint applied in the US army in 1889 rising quickly through the ranks during the heavy fighting in the Spanish-Americain War where officers were killed in droves in certain land actions. Now a humble major, Clint has recieved permisson to conduct thurough studies looking at using aircraft in a military setting. While far from practicle now, who knows what the airplane holds for the future of warfare? Clint Westwood is eager to find out.

Ideology: Clint firmly believes in the ideas of the democratic party, however his real concern is the creation of a large scale air force and he is willing to put ideology aside when voting for the sake of his country.

((hope I did this right. also does the US army air corps exist yet? Also when was the spanish-americain war in this timeline))
 
Clint Westwood, interesting.
 
Character Name: George Atlee
Date of Birth: November 18nth, 1869 (35 years of age)
((Looks Like)):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orson_Welles_1937.jpg
Backround: Born to a poor Scottish immigrant family in New York, Welles ran away from home at 16 and became somewhat famous as a member of one of New York's many Libertarian clubs in the city. Managing to earn his living off of writing essays for the Libertarian/Socialist movement in New York. Eventually delivering speeches at political rallies and became known for his masterful oratory and wit. After the fall of the movement he joined with the Democratic party and decided to try and finally fight for his beliefs in congress by running for the House, managing to beat a popular federalist incumbent. Managing to befriend several other freshman congressman he has begun to accumulate some weight inside the senate.
Representative from The 11nth district of New York.
Ideaology: A classical socialist.
Ideology:
 
Last edited:
((I can't remember when the Spanish-American War was this time, but in this TL the US Army didn't do any fighting, it was all the Marine Expeditionary Force, and afaik there was very little in casualties aside from disease in the tropical Philippines. And honestly, the Army is the last place I could see the Socialists having some influence in.))
 
((I can't remember when the Spanish-American War was this time, but in this TL the US Army didn't do any fighting, it was all the Marine Expeditionary Force, and afaik there was very little in casualties aside from disease in the tropical Philippines. And honestly, the Army is the last place I could see the Socialists having some influence in.))

((You mean like our Secretary of War and former Marine General? *points at komisha* ))
 
A speech before the New York Statehouse
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a rebirth. The democratic party, the party of the worker, has struggled under leadership of our current leaders who have ran and failed time and time again. It's time for a new generation to lead the struggle for equality. which is why I am running for the democratic nomination for the Presidency
 
It's time to end the time of greedy capitalism. There are far, far too many rich people who, when they're asked about paying more taxes, say "but I do pay more! I pay to charities!". And what about the greedy rich, who don't donate? It is better to be greedy than generous, and that is what is wrong with America. You find a common man, a common worker, and he earns a tenth, maybe a hundredth of what his big bosses, the fat cats earn. Do the fat cats work ten times harder than a common man? Hell no!

If you elect me president I'll make the minimun wage higher, so the fat cats can't cheat you as much as they do now. I'll make pensions higher, so when your fathers and mothers grow old you won't have to pay for their foood, and so your children won't have to pay for you when you grow old. And finally I will make the doctors you go to free, and just as good as the ones the fat cats can afford to go to. Unlike what Floyd Weaver tells you, we don't have to burn down the system and buid a new one, we just need to change our system.

Everyone deserves the same start in life, no matter who their parents were. Joseph P. Jarvis shouldn't have special treatment because his grandad was filthy rich! He should have the same teaching, the same doctors, the same chances in life as all the rest of us!

There are lots of people who say I shouldn't run. I'm too old they say. I'm a failure they say. Well, I say this. I believe in a greater America. And my goal has always been to be elected to the White House and make the lives of every common man better. I won't fight another election if I lose this one. And then you can call me a failure, because the ideas, the beliefs I am fighting for, will lose with me. And that's why I'm gonna win.
 
Last edited:
I respect George Walsh but while his platform may be more compromised than mine, his rhetoric and manner of campaigning are more aggressive and can put people off who would otherwise vote for us. And I don't think our great party should be held hostage to one of its elders saying "elect me or my whole life will have been wasted and that will be on your conscience".
 
I respect George Walsh but while his platform may be more compromised than mine, his rhetoric and manner of campaigning are more aggressive and can put people off who would otherwise vote for us. And I don't think our great party should be held hostage to one of its elders saying "elect me or my whole life will have been wasted and that will be on your conscience".

((It wasn't meant like that. It was saying "I'm not a failure, if I lose this election I will be, but I'm not one yet." Basically a response to everyone talking about the old, failed leadership and such. I realise it's a bit vague, I've edited it slightly.))
 
It's time to end the time of greedy capitalism. There are far, far too many rich people who, when they're asked about paying more taxes, say "but I do pay more! I pay to charities!". And what about the greedy rich, who don't donate? It is better to be greedy than generous, and that is what is wrong with America. You find a common man, a common worker, and he earns a tenth, maybe a hundredth of what his big bosses, the fat cats earn. Do the fat cats work ten times harder than a common man? Hell no!

If you elect me president I'll make the minimun wage higher, so the fat cats can't cheat you as much as they do now. I'll make pensions higher, so when your fathers and mothers grow old you won't have to pay for their foood, and so your children won't have to pay for you when you grow old. And finally I will make the doctors you go to free, and just as good as the ones the fat cats can afford to go to. Unlike what Floyd Weaver tells you, we don't have to burn down the system and buid a new one, we just need to change our system.

Everyone deserves the same start in life, no matter who their parents were. Joseph P. Jarvis shouldn't have special treatment because his grandad was filthy rich! He should have the same teaching, the same doctors, the same chances in life as all the rest of us!

There are lots of people who say I shouldn't run. I'm too old they say. I'm a failure they say. Well, I say this. I believe in a greater America. And my goal has always been to be elected to the White House and make the lives of every common man better. I won't fight another election if I lose this one. And then you can call me a failure, because the ideas, the beliefs I am fighting for, will lose with me. And that's why I'm gonna win.
Comrade Walsh, I and an entire generation of democrats are thankful for all you have done for us, but I stand by my warier pompon that if we are to retake the white house need a new candidate one that the public hasn't seen being beaten time and time again. I don't mean any disrespect but maybe it's time you step aside.
 
Floyd Weaver is a man I respect for his unwavering principles, but his principles are fundamentally different to mine. Mr. Weaver believes in class warfare. I don't. I don't believe in class at all.

Make no mistake, I believe Floyd Weaver's America is greater than Jospeh P. Jarvis's America, greater than T. H. Terrance's America, and even greater than the America we live in today. But I will go to my grave believing it is not as great as my America. I imagine he will go to his grave believing the opposite. But the idea of a White House at war with part of America, whether it is rich America or poor America, fills me with deep unease. We have had one civil war already. I fought in it. I can tell you it was one too many.
 
Comrade Walsh, I and an entire generation of democrats are thankful for all you have done for us, but I stand by my warier pompon that if we are to retake the white house need a new candidate one that the public hasn't seen being beaten time and time again. I don't mean any disrespect but maybe it's time you step aside.

I have not 'been beaten time and time again'. I have served as vice president to America's greatest president so far, Joe Hayden. I know what victory tastes like. Yes, I lost four years ago. Tell me a Democrat who wouldn't have.
 
I have not 'been beaten time and time again'. I have served as vice president to America's greatest president so far, Joe Hayden. I know what victory tastes like. Yes, I lost four years ago. Tell me a Democrat who wouldn't have.
That's not my point, the public will associate your name with defeat, I respect you greatly sir but I ask you to step aside and allow the new democrats to bring our party back to greatness.
 
That's not my point, the public will associate your name with defeat, I respect you greatly sir but I ask you to step aside and allow the new democrats to bring our party back to greatness.

Except they really don't. The only association of my name with defeat is you and Mr. Weaver harping on about it.
 
To the honourable Mister Weaver,

I must say that I am most impressed with your stated manifesto. It is a peerless combination of economic sense, pragmatic policy and ideological loyalty. I had considered throwing my hat into the ring for the presidential race, but I am now more than willing to support your bid for the White House.

My only quibble is with your foreign policy. You call for estrangement with the United Kingdom. I do not believe that this is prudent, considering the current international climate. The following is an essay on why I believe it is essential for our security that Anglo-American cooperation is not only continued, but strengthened. If you agree to this plan, then I would gracefully ask if I could serve in your cabinet as Secretary of State and put it into practice.

Setting aside all issues of benefit, there is an immense symbolic value to the Liberal Alliance. The United Kingdom and the United States are the two powers of liberalism and democracy. Even the name of our alliance signifies its inherent decency: the Commonwealth, implying equality and parity. By contrast, the Triple Alliance is composed of the two most reactionary regimes in Europe and a militaristic monarchy that barely qualifies as a parliamentary democracy. Its official name – the League of the Three Emperors – betrays its autocratic roots; it exposes the alliance as a conspiracy between rulers, not a concordat between nations. It is based on self-interest, not idealism. It has no aspirations beyond preserving the power of its signatories, compared to the divine mandate imposed by the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Commonwealth is a powerful symbol of American uniqueness – a world order based on the principle of peace and liberty, not war and conquest.

The practical effects of the Commonwealth are also bountiful. The British Empire spans a third of the globe. Their influence is felt everywhere from Paris to Peking. The Indian Army alone is half a million men strong. While it is true that the United States enjoys overall naval supremacy, British cooperation ensures that we also have regional naval supremacy: the Royal Navy is the dominant power in the Mediterranean, North and Baltic seas – areas that we must control in order to combat the Triple Alliance. Because of the Commonwealth, the Russian fleet at Sevastopol cannot cross through the straits. Because of the Commonwealth, the Austrian port of Rijeka lies within reach of British gunboats. Because of the Commonwealth, the German navy dares not depart from Wilhelmshaven. Because of the Commonwealth, every sea and ocean on God’s earth is patrolled and protected by the United States and the United Kingdom, whose collective naval might outnumbers the combined naval assets of every other power in the world.

It has been the policy of these United States to never act in Europe without a continental ally. If we spurn the United Kingdom, we are unlikely to find new friends. France will defer to the British line for her own security. Turkey is pliable but weak, incapable of acting against either Austria or Russia alone and certainly not both. That leaves only a clutch of second-rate powers which will drain America for their own interests without providing any clout to advance ours. We need a strong, reliable partner that shares our ideals and our interests. We shall not find a more qualified candidate than the United Kingdom.

More importantly, we will not find an ally more capable of resisting the Triple Alliance. What we face is a continental bloc, not a world alliance. Our enemies are united only by their common distrust, and nothing more. All three powers were enemies prior to this point. It was only a few years ago that Russian troops were invading Konigsberg; it was not much longer than that when Prussia and Austria were vying for influence in Central Europe. The United States need simply chip away at the Triple Alliance and it will disintegrate. Our priority, then, is to isolate Russia from Germany and thus restore their enmity. In order to succeed we must not challenge the Triple Alliance directly, but on its periphery.

If we wish to defeat the Triple Alliance, we must look not to Europe, but to Asia. In Europe, the League of the Three Emperors is strong. Germany is the most powerful country on the continent; Austria is too weak to resist her; Russia has temporarily abandoned her Balkan ambitions and is thus unwilling to oppose her. But if we look to Asia, the Triple Alliance vanishes. Germany and Austria have no interests in China. Russian foreign policy, however, is dictated by her desire to expand into Manchuria and Mongolia and carve up the Qing Empire. Here she is isolated, for Germany and Austria have no means of aiding Russia in China and little want to do so. The United Kingdom has no wish to see the fate of Turkey befall China and so will combat Russian advances without hesitation.

Conversely, it is in Asia where the Liberal Alliance is strongest. British India is a regional powerhouse, spreading her wings from Persia to China. The Philippines provide a base from where the United States can exert its influence – and more critically, its military might. A war in Asia would see Russia standing alone against Great Britain and America. No sooner would war have erupted then the Indian Army would be pouring into Persia and Afghanistan, while American troops were deployed in an amphibious operation against the Russian Far East. Russia’s naval assets in Asia would be swiftly despatched; the Baltic and Black Sea flotillas would be trapped in their docks by British mastery of the seas. With reinforcements thousands of miles away in Europe, the United States could occupy the East at its leisure while the British beared the brunt of the fighting in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

My intentions are thus In order to uphold the Empire of Liberty we must reduce the Pacific Ocean to an American Mare Nostrum, encircled by American allies and protected by the United States Navy. To achieve this, we must bring China into our circle of friendship and so safeguard her from foreign influence. By doing so, not only will we advance the cause of the Chinese reformists but we will also thwart Russia’s designs on Northern China and so quash Russian ambitions in the East. Defeated, outnumbered and surrounded, Russia shall have no choice but to turn her gaze back to the Balkans. By defeating Russia in the East, we will set her on a collision course with her allies in the West. We will subvert the Triple Alliance without sacrificing a single American marine for the privilege.

- Anton Maxim
 
((This is ridicolous. Was one of the votes of the Pre-election Commitee (in which I was ignored for all but the opening message BTW, despite me forwarding said message to two other members) to browbeat me out of the race? I'm staying in regardless, but this is getting a smoke-filled room kind of feel to it.))
 
(( Actually only Nightmore responded to the pre-election committee I tried to organize, and his intention of running on the same platform basically is what motivated me to just keep quiet and then do what I did in the primaries by seizing a slot and using it as a bargaining chip.

There is no conspiracy against Walsh, just Leeroy Jenkins character insisting he's over the hill. I've refrained from doing so, beyond my rejection of the old Walsh and Nightmore platforms; I've not called you over the hill I've merely defended my platform. My criticisms of Walsh's speech had nothing to do with his age or experience, just with the aggressive manner he presents a moderate platformn; which seems to defeat the purpose.

So I hope that clears things up and prevents interparty turmoil. ]

"Maxim, you have convinced me that if I wish to protect democracy in Asia I will need British influence as a regional ally, and thus to not break the Commonwealth with Britain. However, I have no intention of ever joining in a continental war against the Triple Alliance. Ever.

If not breaking ties with Great Britain are enough for you, I would appreciate your support. If you insist on the idea of the U.S. fighting a war against the Triple Alliance, then we must part ways and I'm sorry to hear it."