((
))((That may have somewhat been my fault... though it's good to see you're not biased...))
---
((Best Presidents - for the reasons given above basically, but just a different order
1. Cameron
2. Harrison
3. Williams
4. Ryan
5. Terrance))
-
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.
((
))((That may have somewhat been my fault... though it's good to see you're not biased...))
---
((Best Presidents - for the reasons given above basically, but just a different order
1. Cameron
2. Harrison
3. Williams
4. Ryan
5. Terrance))
The pressing issue on everyone's mind is the war - how to prosecute it, how to win it, how to end it. Questions of strategy and tactics are best left to the military - I am not a general, nor do I wish to micromanage and hamper the efforts of the good generals we have. However, I can say how I would end it.
We are looking for nothing more and nothing less than peace. We do not wish for revenge against our enemies, or unpayable debts - but neither are we looking for a quick substitute for actual peace. This is not a war of colonies or of lines on the map - this has become a war of ideas. On the one hand is the war and despotism of fascism. On the other are not perfect governments - but governments willing to deal peacefully with each other and to work out differences fairly. I cannot, even if our victory was complete tomorrow, go to Berlin and demand of them a perfect government - as was the folly of some the last time war threatened the world - but the alliance together can end the warmongering extremism in the governments of our enemies. Fascism and peace cannot coexist. We have seen this both abroad and at home through many atrocities. The war will end only when all the nations involve commit to working out their quarrels without the bitter pill of fascism.
I would not seek an easy way out of the war, but a peace based on the end of fascist aggression and expansion from our enemies - aggression against us and against others. I would seek a peace that was fair, but firm - a peace that does not burden the people of these nations, but which stops now and forever the aggression of those who began this war. I would meet with our allies now, before victory is at hand, to discuss the issues of peace and come up with a unified, fair, and effective plan for treaties. I would make sure the peace process was carried out as planned - without malice or injustice, and with support for free institutions to arise out of the ashes of fascism. In order to do this, I see a need for global discussion: the ability to form coalitions for peace efforts as well as war efforts, the ability to form unified positions with other major powers and involved nations in complicated issues, and the ability to resolve disputes through the input of otherwise uninvolved nations. Whether this is a League or a group of United Nations is not my concern - but a discussion of nations, not a world government or commonwealth, but a world diplomacy, is sorely needed.
Domestically speaking, we must avoid becoming our enemy. We are in a war and must act that way, but this is no excuse to panic and reach for unnecessary government powers. We are a nation that is at war, a nation with an army - we are not a nation of war, and we are not just our army. We must not embrace fascism or any extremism in our fight against extremism abroad. I will seek a unity government based on continuing the war efforts as smoothly as possible, allowing for debate while standing united against the threat of fascism abroad and at home. We must continue to support the strengths of America - ingenuity, education, fairness, and a resilient dynamic economy - while focusing this might against the enemy.
((The Best Worst Presidents: Half the fun of history are, well, the losers. The unpopular presidents, the ineffectual presidents, the presidents which bit off more than they could chew. Here's my biased picks for the presidents which made the most unpopular or counterproductive decisions in office (leaving out Andrew Jackson). These were some of my favorite presidencies, because peace, popularity, and prosperity gets boring sometimes (also, one of them was my character).
5. Daniel Vallejo
- Not really that bad... but a lackluster commodore-turned-president with no major achievements. Also lost ground diplomatically to the influence of the UPCA.
4. Jeremiah Brass
- Provoked tensions over the militias, culminating in armed rebellion.
But it wasn't all bad:
- Reduced the power and prestige of the southern militias.
- Avoided a full Civil War.
- Brought about governmental reforms (including the Department of Citizenship, the census, etc.)
3. Arthur King
- Provoked Bleeding Texas. The failure to radically abolish slavery only heated up the slavery debate (and brought about the beginning of the militia issues which would trouble later presidents up to the Civil War) and radicalized the South.
But it wasn't all bad:
- Had some successes toward abolition (especially in Maryland)
- Oversaw a successful economic policy.
2. Eldud Walsh
- Instituted unpopular economic policy (and the general failure of his attempts at State Capitalism due to public outcry or poor business)
- Attempted to ignore the slavery debate (which only made tensions worse, including violence in the streets, during his term)
But it wasn't all bad:
- Strengthened friendship with Britain (including mediating a peace between rebel forces and the government to avoid a British Civil War)
- Restored relations (and established rather good relations) with the Empire of Mexico, while supporting their move to constitutionalism
1. Calvin Carr
- Started the controversial Peruvian War, often denounced as "imperialistic" or "tyrannical".
- Alienated Great Britain, thwarting attempts to unite against the growing Tripartite Pact.
But it wasn't all bad:
- Oversaw a vibrant economy and cultural developments.
))
I, like General Jarvis, will wait until platforms are posted until I choose my preferred candidate.
((BBB, is there a time frame for this AAR?))
((BBB, is there a time frame for this AAR?))
I will abstain from voting for the time being.
An open letter from former Secretary of State Michael Sullivan:
While I had hoped to keep my distance from ongoing political affairs in my retirement, recent circumstances have forced my hand. I must oppose the President's initiative for a second League of Nations. It is not America's place to serve as the world's policeman, nor is it our responsibility to become involved in the internal and diplomatic affairs of other nations. While the destruction of international fascism is perhaps in our best interests, these are highly limited circumstances forcing us into an outward view and should under no circumstances become a permanent policy of the United States. I would remind President McCahill that this kind of interventionist policy is not suitable for the ostensible leader of the Progressive Party, which was formed in opposition to the decaying Federal Party and its failed interventionist policies under the basic principle that the United States must first focus its efforts on its own citizens before casting its gaze outward to the rest of the world.
Should President McCahill continue to support this quixotic and un-Progressive stance, I call upon the voters of the Progressive Party to boycott this election, including any proposed unity government that has him in any major role.
An open letter from former Secretary of State Michael Sullivan:
While I had hoped to keep my distance from ongoing political affairs in my retirement, recent circumstances have forced my hand. I must oppose the President's initiative for a second League of Nations. It is not America's place to serve as the world's policeman, nor is it our responsibility to become involved in the internal and diplomatic affairs of other nations. While the destruction of international fascism is perhaps in our best interests, these are highly limited circumstances forcing us into an outward view and should under no circumstances become a permanent policy of the United States. I would remind President McCahill that this kind of interventionist policy is not suitable for the ostensible leader of the Progressive Party, which was formed in opposition to the decaying Federal Party and its failed interventionist policies under the basic principle that the United States must first focus its efforts on its own citizens before casting its gaze outward to the rest of the world.
Should President McCahill continue to support this quixotic and un-Progressive stance, I call upon the voters of the Progressive Party to boycott this election, including any proposed unity government that has him in any major role.
May I remind you that the majority of Progressive voters and its elected politicans were previously Federals before the foundation of the Progressives; as such any notion of the Progressive party not being altered in its internal make-up by the fall of the Federals is ludicrous. Should the Progressive party not back me for the reason you have described, I will run under the nomination of the Federal Party. I will not, however, be changing my firmly held beliefs to suit a small minority of the party I lead.
((Welcome back))
I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks by Mr. Sullivan; we do not have the obligation, nor do we have the near limitless resources required for such an expansion of America's foreign policy. The President, who advocates social reform and, I would assume, the restoration of the welfare state, would find the American economy strapped for cash if he endeavours to fund both more social programmes and a more active military abroad. He would have no other course but to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor, and to levy even higher taxes on the wealthy; these actions would be hugely detrimental to our economic growth and solvency, and we cannot afford to expand the government in every direction.
Yes, the social reform I propose may cost money, but it will also increase the standard of living for all in America (not to mention that some policies, like means testing, will actually save money...)
But I do not agree that being more active in the global community requires a massive increase in defence spending. The Navy and the Air Force cannot be increased drastically in a short space of time so peacetime governments have done little to reduce their size. America had a large peacetime military, so there is no need for an actual increase in the Army to enable the United States to stand behind a global body of cooperation and resolution. In fact, through concerted international diplomacy and cooperation, we can increase the global security and thus reduce the need for such a large force in the long run. If we are capable of working internationally, we can spread the commitments, so that America is less the 'Policeman of the world' and more the coordinator of an international coalition to achieve the same aims. Most of all, through a United Nations we can negate the possibility of another World War, which is surely in American interests, as well as the rest of the World's.
Michael Sullivan:
If the President truly holds no loyalty to the Progressive Party of which he claims to be the leader, and that no substantive policy differences exist between the Progressive Party and the now-extinct Federal Party, I humbly invite him to submit his resignation from the party and run under a third-party ticket. I would remind him that the Progressive Party's rise to national prominence was a direct result of the disaffection with the Federal Party's lack of driving ideals beyond upholding the status quo and furthermore state that non-intervention has always been a significant plank of this party's platform. The Progressive Party is not merely the next incarnation of the Federal Party but rather a unique, historically unprecedented institution with its own ideals and beliefs, including principally among them the belief that America is best served by focusing on its own citizens' well-being and eschewing entangling foreign alliances.
I am not the minority in this party, sir; I am its founder and chairman, and I was proud to see the majority of the country unite behind Patrick Ryan and his vision for America, a vision I shared. Conversely, however, I see now that your membership was not based on sharing our ideals or principles, but rather a cheap facade designed to promote your own personal ambitions. You denigrate his memory by attempting to cast the majority of your supporters as somehow less than yourself. I denounce you, sir, as a fraud and a false Progressive, and I again invite you to resign from this party before your lust for power stains its great legacy forever.
If the President truly holds no loyalty to the Progressive Party of which he claims to be the leader, and that no substantive policy differences exist between the Progressive Party and the now-extinct Federal Party, I humbly invite him to submit his resignation from the party and run under a third-party ticket. I would remind him that the Progressive Party's rise to national prominence was a direct result of the disaffection with the Federal Party's lack of driving ideals beyond upholding the status quo and furthermore state that non-intervention has always been a significant plank of this party's platform. The Progressive Party is not merely the next incarnation of the Federal Party but rather a unique, historically unprecedented institution with its own ideals and beliefs, including principally among them the belief that America is best served by focusing on its own citizens' well-being and eschewing entangling foreign alliances.
I am not the minority in this party, sir; I am its founder and chairman, and I was proud to see the majority of the country unite behind Patrick Ryan and his vision for America, a vision I shared. Conversely, however, I see now that your membership was not based on sharing our ideals or principles, but rather a cheap facade designed to promote your own personal ambitions. You denigrate his memory by attempting to cast the majority of your supporters as somehow less than yourself. I denounce you, sir, as a fraud and a false Progressive, and I again invite you to resign from this party before your lust for power stains its great legacy forever.
In light of the intransigence of the chairman of the Progressive party and the incompatibility of our views, I announce I shall be ending my campaign for the Progressive nomination and resigning from the party with immediate effect. I shall run for re-election under the nomination of the Federal Party of America.
((Well this is interesting... Kaiser, are you still running? If so, make your guy about ten years older, so he's eligible. And my more pertinent question is... who will run for the Progressives?))
((Thanks, Riccardo, if BBB wants i still run with the latest Horshnton. Platform))
I compeletely agree with Mr.Sullivan, our foreign policies do not need to have much of interests, but as you know some policies and social reform may cost a big sum of money, even if so it may give us more, allow me to explain, by losing money firstly in social reforms, may give us more money when we apply what we lost money for,and it also benefits the people, the Army is currently utterly useful, as every country in the world fears us, as Mr.McCahill said, being less of a International Police, and the money that we gained from cutting the army and in a smaller degree, the navy, we can spend it in commercial treaties and social policies, and many other things, but i completely deny any accord with the United Nations, it is at the current time, useless, expensive, and tension causing, anyway i announce my affiliation with the Republican Party
I compeletely agree with Mr.Sullivan, our foreign policies do not need to have much of interests, but as you know some policies and social reform may cost a big sum of money, even if so it may give us more, allow me to explain, by losing money firstly in social reforms, may give us more money when we apply what we lost money for,and it also benefits the people, the Army is currently utterly useful, as every country in the world fears us, as Mr.McCahill said, being less of a International Police, and the money that we gained from cutting the army and in a smaller degree, the navy, we can spend it in commercial treaties and social policies, and many other things, but i completely deny any accord with the United Nations, it is at the current time, useless, expensive, and tension causing, anyway i announce my affiliation with the Republican Party
Last edited:
Michael Sullivan:
In light of President McCahill's unfortunate resignation and somewhat bizarre desire to resurrect a previously dissolved party, I hereby announce my return to politics and my intention to seek the Progressive nomination for President of the United States.
While I believe strongly in the cause of extinguishing the flames of international fascism that have engulfed the world, and even in the unfortunate necessity of using our military to achieve such a necessary end, I do not accept the flawed premise that we must formally entrench ourselves in the affairs of other nations and continents to keep America safe and free. History has disproven the efficacy and viability of the first League of Nations and Phillip McCahill's desire to resurrect this failed idea is undeniably the wrong course for this country.
Despite my differences with President McCahill, I believe the notion of a war-time unity government will ensure that America works together to achieve victory in Europe and in Asia and I will uphold the Progressive Party's commitment to such a course.
In light of President McCahill's unfortunate resignation and somewhat bizarre desire to resurrect a previously dissolved party, I hereby announce my return to politics and my intention to seek the Progressive nomination for President of the United States.
While I believe strongly in the cause of extinguishing the flames of international fascism that have engulfed the world, and even in the unfortunate necessity of using our military to achieve such a necessary end, I do not accept the flawed premise that we must formally entrench ourselves in the affairs of other nations and continents to keep America safe and free. History has disproven the efficacy and viability of the first League of Nations and Phillip McCahill's desire to resurrect this failed idea is undeniably the wrong course for this country.
Despite my differences with President McCahill, I believe the notion of a war-time unity government will ensure that America works together to achieve victory in Europe and in Asia and I will uphold the Progressive Party's commitment to such a course.
Maybe I would believe Mr Sullivan's arguments against me if he were in touch with reality; sadly he is not - the Federal party has not been dissolved, the League of Nations was never created, the list goes on. The United Nations, I repeat, will prove to be a useful body to maintain international stability and allow for global cooperation; if anything, what the botched regional Leagues set up by Jarvis have proved is that partitioning the World in a globalised society does not work.
((And this change in party does make the whole issue of the VP more complicated; any ideas as to a resolution - we still all favour unity government, so announcing VPs would be a bit pointless...))
((And this change in party does make the whole issue of the VP more complicated; any ideas as to a resolution - we still all favour unity government, so announcing VPs would be a bit pointless...))
We are the strongest democracy on Earth. If we don't protect our allies after the war, some other non- democratic ideology might as well sweep in over Europe, and we'd find ourselves in yet another World War. If the countries of Europe know America protect their democracy, they would also feel much more secure, and perhaps destructive ideologies will lose traction.
I'm so glad that you all consulted me before doing this.
However, I'll allow it. The polls for the Republican Primary are still not over.
The VP question can be solved by a negotiation between the winning candidate and the two losers about appointments in the new government, and the VP spot will likely be based on who can offer the winner the best deal.
However, I'll allow it. The polls for the Republican Primary are still not over.
The VP question can be solved by a negotiation between the winning candidate and the two losers about appointments in the new government, and the VP spot will likely be based on who can offer the winner the best deal.
A temporary character, as Joe Harrison is currently preparing his Rangers for combat in Europe, and thus unavailable for politicking.
Senator (P-MA) Calvin Emerson (b. 1901)
The son of a Boston factory worker, Calvin Emerson was elected to the Senate in 1936 with a degree in Economics and six years’ experience in teaching it. Elected as a Progressive, Emerson has supported all of President McCahill’s legislation, with the notable exception of the NIA, which he voted nay against on the justification that, while the legislation may have been useful, he found it somewhat draconian and deemed it likely to be declared unconstitutional even if it did pass. In his four years, he has been an outspoken advocate of revising FBA35 to include a separation of investment and commercial banking.
Speech held at the Progressive National Convention, December 3rd 1940, after McCahill’s resignation and Sullivan’s placing himself up for nomination
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the Progressive Party,
What we have today witnessed is one of the lowest moments in the history of the Progressive Party, if not the lowest of its entire existence. What we have seen today is a party, one which the very name of implies change, stand up and say that it will not accept a change. That it will not accept that we live in a world that has changed since the party’s founding nearly two decades ago. Since that founding, we have seen the economy come crashing down. We have seen fascism, and the oppression and misery it brings, take hold over civilized nations by coercion and force. We have seen it attempt to do this on our own soil. We have seen it turn Washington D.C. to ruins. We have seen Pearl Harbor burnt by it.
And yet, Mr. Sullivan strides in here, saying that to change our view on the place of this country in an increasingly global world is neither necessary nor right. That in this party, this “Progressive” Party, ideology takes precedent over reason and reality. That in this party his word, that of the “party leader”, is God, as it is in the very same fascist parties that we are currently engaged in a great and terrible war against. And I for one will not stand for it.
So I urge you, join me in walking out of this sham of a convention. Join me in supporting the truly Progressive candidate, President McCahill. Not only because he understands that we can no longer ignore the world and pretend that we have not made it what it is today. Not only because he has led us gallantly through the four most testing years in our nation’s history since the Civil War. But because he is the true Progressive candidate; a man committed to progress, to accepting reality instead of clinging to ideology, to steering us as a nation carefully through the storm, not breaking the ship by steering against the wind and waves of progress.”
Emerson then walked off stage and out of the Convention. He was followed by delegations from MA, NY, PA, CA and numerous other states.
Senator (P-MA) Calvin Emerson (b. 1901)
The son of a Boston factory worker, Calvin Emerson was elected to the Senate in 1936 with a degree in Economics and six years’ experience in teaching it. Elected as a Progressive, Emerson has supported all of President McCahill’s legislation, with the notable exception of the NIA, which he voted nay against on the justification that, while the legislation may have been useful, he found it somewhat draconian and deemed it likely to be declared unconstitutional even if it did pass. In his four years, he has been an outspoken advocate of revising FBA35 to include a separation of investment and commercial banking.
Speech held at the Progressive National Convention, December 3rd 1940, after McCahill’s resignation and Sullivan’s placing himself up for nomination
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the Progressive Party,
What we have today witnessed is one of the lowest moments in the history of the Progressive Party, if not the lowest of its entire existence. What we have seen today is a party, one which the very name of implies change, stand up and say that it will not accept a change. That it will not accept that we live in a world that has changed since the party’s founding nearly two decades ago. Since that founding, we have seen the economy come crashing down. We have seen fascism, and the oppression and misery it brings, take hold over civilized nations by coercion and force. We have seen it attempt to do this on our own soil. We have seen it turn Washington D.C. to ruins. We have seen Pearl Harbor burnt by it.
And yet, Mr. Sullivan strides in here, saying that to change our view on the place of this country in an increasingly global world is neither necessary nor right. That in this party, this “Progressive” Party, ideology takes precedent over reason and reality. That in this party his word, that of the “party leader”, is God, as it is in the very same fascist parties that we are currently engaged in a great and terrible war against. And I for one will not stand for it.
So I urge you, join me in walking out of this sham of a convention. Join me in supporting the truly Progressive candidate, President McCahill. Not only because he understands that we can no longer ignore the world and pretend that we have not made it what it is today. Not only because he has led us gallantly through the four most testing years in our nation’s history since the Civil War. But because he is the true Progressive candidate; a man committed to progress, to accepting reality instead of clinging to ideology, to steering us as a nation carefully through the storm, not breaking the ship by steering against the wind and waves of progress.”
Emerson then walked off stage and out of the Convention. He was followed by delegations from MA, NY, PA, CA and numerous other states.
Well, this is certainly an interesting turn of events; I wonder what affect this will have on the general election...
Concerning my own party, I thank Congressman Gallatin for answering my question; I will not, yet, cast my vote, until I have heard from Mr. Carlsson. However, if he has failed to address the question soon, I may be forced to vote without full knowledge.
Concerning my own party, I thank Congressman Gallatin for answering my question; I will not, yet, cast my vote, until I have heard from Mr. Carlsson. However, if he has failed to address the question soon, I may be forced to vote without full knowledge.
News article from the The Times-Picayune, December 10th, 1940
Today one of our own was rewarded for her bravery during a American camp two days ago. Christina Blancharde daughter of former Vice-President Constant Blancharde was awarded with the Bronze Star for "heroic or meritorious achievement or service".
It was reported that during the night Ms. Blancharde heard murmurs of an "exotic and vile language" being spoken. She quickly alerted the camp. During the night the Japanese raided the camp but due to Ms. Blancharde's bravery only four Americans were killed, probably far less than who could have been. It is also reported that around twelve Japanese soldiers were killed. This caused them to retreat back into the rain forest were they came. The entire army and nursing corps were praised for their bravery and tenacity, but Ms. Blancharde was rewarded with the honorary Bronze Star, being the first nurse to be rewarded with a medal since the Great War.
Due to Christina Blancharde's absence from politics due to the war, I will also be creating my new character.
Today one of our own was rewarded for her bravery during a American camp two days ago. Christina Blancharde daughter of former Vice-President Constant Blancharde was awarded with the Bronze Star for "heroic or meritorious achievement or service".
It was reported that during the night Ms. Blancharde heard murmurs of an "exotic and vile language" being spoken. She quickly alerted the camp. During the night the Japanese raided the camp but due to Ms. Blancharde's bravery only four Americans were killed, probably far less than who could have been. It is also reported that around twelve Japanese soldiers were killed. This caused them to retreat back into the rain forest were they came. The entire army and nursing corps were praised for their bravery and tenacity, but Ms. Blancharde was rewarded with the honorary Bronze Star, being the first nurse to be rewarded with a medal since the Great War.
Due to Christina Blancharde's absence from politics due to the war, I will also be creating my new character.
Charles C. Sutherland, Senator (ME- R)
Birth: January 30th, 1889
Age: 51
Son of Scottish immigrants, Charles C. Sutherland was not always interested in politics. he always wanted to be a farmer and raise sheep like his grandfather. But, as he grew older the dream started fading away. After his father died, Charles was left with the family farm. He soon hated working on the farm so he left his brother the farm and at the age of 28 he moved to Brunswick, Maine and with the money he inherited from his father paid for him to go to Bowdoin College. He studied politics, and graduated in 1921. He was elected into the Maine House of Representatives and again in 1925. In 1929, he ran for Governor of Maine which he won and again in 1933. Then in 1937, he was urged by family and friends to run as a Senator and was elected.
Political beliefs: Continuation of war till all fascist nations fall, free market, support for farmers and soldiers families.
Age: 51
Son of Scottish immigrants, Charles C. Sutherland was not always interested in politics. he always wanted to be a farmer and raise sheep like his grandfather. But, as he grew older the dream started fading away. After his father died, Charles was left with the family farm. He soon hated working on the farm so he left his brother the farm and at the age of 28 he moved to Brunswick, Maine and with the money he inherited from his father paid for him to go to Bowdoin College. He studied politics, and graduated in 1921. He was elected into the Maine House of Representatives and again in 1925. In 1929, he ran for Governor of Maine which he won and again in 1933. Then in 1937, he was urged by family and friends to run as a Senator and was elected.
Political beliefs: Continuation of war till all fascist nations fall, free market, support for farmers and soldiers families.