With the way people are talking am I fool to think Cameron won because he was actually simply the best candidate?
Last edited:
-
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.
((I thought he won because there were more members of the Whig party than Democrats and SNP combined. I would have prefered to see anyone else in office))
Of course - every president is elected by pure merit until they are inaugurated, at which point they were solely elected due to political trends. When they leave office, then they were elected simply out of mistaken political trends. When another party takes office, they were elected because of an elaborate conspiracy, which almost brings it full circle back to merit again.
Cameron was an extremely successful politician - the national union was made to work and he is a symbol of that.
And yet, I do find the comment about reaching across the aisle for allies interesting, if it allows me to not bend to the Cameronite wing in my own party - or anticipates that I won't be able to.
Certainly, I thought Walsh did a pretty good job as president - the policies I ran on repealing came from before his administration; and there is certainly a wave in the Democrats that believes in federalism. Just as I am not a bomb throwing radical, there may be conservative elements who are not confederalists. I do not seek to wage war on the other party, after all.
If necessary, a future national union can be made to prevent the outbreak of civil war (or to react to it well), perhaps. There are many of us who support law and order as embodied in our institutions and national system, even if we disagree on what laws to support or oppose in the legislature. After all, Walsh and others like him have their own vision of America as a whole, rather than as different nations clustered together. We're not so different.
And yet, I do find the comment about reaching across the aisle for allies interesting, if it allows me to not bend to the Cameronite wing in my own party - or anticipates that I won't be able to.
Certainly, I thought Walsh did a pretty good job as president - the policies I ran on repealing came from before his administration; and there is certainly a wave in the Democrats that believes in federalism. Just as I am not a bomb throwing radical, there may be conservative elements who are not confederalists. I do not seek to wage war on the other party, after all.
If necessary, a future national union can be made to prevent the outbreak of civil war (or to react to it well), perhaps. There are many of us who support law and order as embodied in our institutions and national system, even if we disagree on what laws to support or oppose in the legislature. After all, Walsh and others like him have their own vision of America as a whole, rather than as different nations clustered together. We're not so different.
Ah yes, care to make a proper inaugural Mr. President, or shall I pick one of your previous speeches to see which is most fitting?
I've got one. Do I post it here or PM it to you (your messages are full, by the way).
((I was making a joke, you used an incredibly loaded term, I used an incredibly loaded term. Hopefully it helped you realize what an incredibly loaded term you were using.))
Innaugural Address
Gentlemen, I once said - years ago - that we stood on a precipice between two futures - one of them full of blood and pain. I no longer believe that to be the case. I see incidents like the publishing of Uncle Tom's Cabin as the natural tendencies of societies to confront themselves and to change gradually over time. It is up to us to simply maintain law and order without sacrificing our sacred freedoms. If we can balance these two principles, if we are able to maintain a truly Open Society, then change will come of its own accord in a way no more or less painful than necessary.
This is not the time to think of the world as divided into only allies and enemies, not the time to consider all philosophies either good or evil, not the time to believe that only one party or one course of action can save us. No system imposed rigidly on an unwilling society - no absolute good - can succeed in a free country like the United States. Each choice is a separate moment in time where we make the best decisions we can according to our best judgement at the time, based on the knowledge and circumstances we have at that time. Together these individual instances comprise the natural flow of the stream of time and social progress. We turn the page of history not in sweeping gestures but as a steady wind.
We are the wind, and our progress will sweep over this imperfect world, towards a distant and yet inevitable destiny.
This is not the time to think of the world as divided into only allies and enemies, not the time to consider all philosophies either good or evil, not the time to believe that only one party or one course of action can save us. No system imposed rigidly on an unwilling society - no absolute good - can succeed in a free country like the United States. Each choice is a separate moment in time where we make the best decisions we can according to our best judgement at the time, based on the knowledge and circumstances we have at that time. Together these individual instances comprise the natural flow of the stream of time and social progress. We turn the page of history not in sweeping gestures but as a steady wind.
We are the wind, and our progress will sweep over this imperfect world, towards a distant and yet inevitable destiny.
Last edited:
((Of course I did. I know it was loaded but it is what I grew up calling it))
((I think we're all incredibly loaded. Now let's get back to caning eachother IC rather than OOC.))
((You do have a choice to stop using a term that quite a few people find offensive.))
((And he chose not to stop. Besides, who really cares? I say toe-mato, you say tomato. You say Slaveholder's Treason, he says Southern War of Independence, I say lots of people shooting at eachother for what in retrospect were a lot of dumb things. Now, may we carry on? Or is what we're going to call a war going to be that terrifically important that we have to debate more about that than the war itself?))
((Considering it was a war fought by the south for independence I hardly see why Southern War of Independence isn't a valid name. And I'm biased against the Confederates. But as Seek said let's move on.))
((Im sure there are people who find "The American Revolution" to be offensive and would much prefer it to be called the "Act of Colonial Treason", what is offensive to some is just the way things are to others. You cant find offensive over what someone has grown up knowing it as))
Please, stop arguing over the name of the Civil War.
You may refer to it as what you will, but should these names become weapons for insulting others, I will impose a strict "Civil War"-only rule.
You may refer to it as what you will, but should these names become weapons for insulting others, I will impose a strict "Civil War"-only rule.
((Really? Really? Any name can be justified via 'I was raised that way'?))
I propose a Gold and Silver Act and a very small Freedom Bill of 1854.
Gold and Silver Act
Article 1. The Department of the Interior will assess the metal producing regions of the western territories - particularly those where gold and silver are found, but also those where copper, iron, or other such minerals may be mined. An organized review of current mining rights by individuals and corporations in the area will be undertaken, and proof of claims will be distributed to those with valid mining rights for certain areas of land. The Department shall also issue claims for federally owned or unclaimed land.
Article 2. Individuals or corporations who are found to be mining in areas without a proof of their claim shall be fined.
Article 3. Persons who willfully damage the property of others in their mining processes may have their proof of claim revoked and may be compelled to compensate for damages done. Mining processes on federal lands will be regulated for damage to the soil and basic safety for hired laborers.
Article 4. Individuals or corporations which own persons in servitude may purchase mining claims for the release of the persons in servitude, based on market prices. Any released slave shall be free in perpetuity. Freed slaves will be provided the same options as in the Freedom Bill.
Freedom Bill of 1854
Article 1. The Freedom Bill of 1845 will be continued, save that the responsibilities there delegated to the Department of the South will be taken by the Department of Citizenship.
((we haven't had much legislation for awhile, so I thought to add these in - also, the second bill is important if Brass wishes to remove the department but keep the old Freedom Bill))
Gold and Silver Act
Article 1. The Department of the Interior will assess the metal producing regions of the western territories - particularly those where gold and silver are found, but also those where copper, iron, or other such minerals may be mined. An organized review of current mining rights by individuals and corporations in the area will be undertaken, and proof of claims will be distributed to those with valid mining rights for certain areas of land. The Department shall also issue claims for federally owned or unclaimed land.
Article 2. Individuals or corporations who are found to be mining in areas without a proof of their claim shall be fined.
Article 3. Persons who willfully damage the property of others in their mining processes may have their proof of claim revoked and may be compelled to compensate for damages done. Mining processes on federal lands will be regulated for damage to the soil and basic safety for hired laborers.
Article 4. Individuals or corporations which own persons in servitude may purchase mining claims for the release of the persons in servitude, based on market prices. Any released slave shall be free in perpetuity. Freed slaves will be provided the same options as in the Freedom Bill.
Freedom Bill of 1854
Article 1. The Freedom Bill of 1845 will be continued, save that the responsibilities there delegated to the Department of the South will be taken by the Department of Citizenship.
((we haven't had much legislation for awhile, so I thought to add these in - also, the second bill is important if Brass wishes to remove the department but keep the old Freedom Bill))
May I ask what effects the Gold & Silver Bill may have upon the Indian community?