The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Mikeboy]

I have previously offered my support to Jonathan Nightmore, but I think all three are fine candidates, showing the ideological and personal greatness of the Libertarian Party. One hopes whoever wins this primary we can all stride forward together for the presidency.

 

[Spitfire5793]

Mr Beuke, you say you want Germany to form, you say you want Austria and Prussia to remain at peace. Already that plan is flawed. If you want prussia to form Germany they would need to take shliswig off the austrians. They have to go to war for Germany to form. You talk about supporting the austrians to free the balkins. Yet Austria it's self is ruling over 10 different peoples that don't want to be under her rule.

As for France and russia sweeping through and conquering middle Europe- That's rediculous. The French and russians won't conquer the Germanic nations. Not unless they want to go over the infamy limit. I imagine France is creating colonies around the world and Russia will be busy with the nations below it (khiva, Persia, the ottomans who you hate so much, ect)

Why should European affairs concern us anyway?

Thomas Howard
Senator of Massachusetts
Defender of Eqality and the freedom of choice

 

[hygge0302]

Jamous!

 

[yourworstnightm]

Mr. Beuke. You talk about Europe. Why should we care about Europe? Our interests is security in the Americas. If the Europeans want to conquer each other: let them.

 

[unmerged(252567)]

As I strongly put in my list of priorities, military expansion and diplomatic concerns are fourth and final. I think that instead of spending countless lives and dollars on no specific policy, we can put a much lower priority of spending and national sacrifice and get better results doing it if we have a specific plan for our future.

My plan for our future is keeping Russia and France from dividing up central and eastern Europe and to expand our trading interests across the world - which requires a strong fleet and good ports to support our trading vessels. I spoke of this in my expanded platform - my unprecedented vision of using our military and diplomatic developments as means towards peaceful trade, in the Pacific and elsewhere. We must become the premier exporter in the world in order to ensure everlasting prosperity to our citizens who work in the factories and on the farms.

 

[yourworstnightm]

As I strongly put in my list of priorities, military expansion and diplomatic concerns are fourth and final. I think that instead of spending countless lives and dollars on no specific policy, we can put a much lower priority of spending and national sacrifice and get better results doing it if we have a specific plan for our future.

My plan for our future is keeping Russia and France from dividing up central and eastern Europe and to expand our trading interests across the world - which requires a strong fleet and good ports to support our trading vessels. I spoke of this in my expanded platform - my unprecedented vision of using our military and diplomatic developments as means towards peaceful trade, in the Pacific and elsewhere. We must become the premier exporter in the world in order to ensure everlasting prosperity to our citizens who work in the factories and on the farms.

Do you think we get peace by messing around with Europe. You think we get security by cosing up to nations that are no threat to us because they have abysmal navies, and thus becoming enemies of France and Britain that do have navies, and potentially could hurt us we get sucked into the European conflicts. No we should befriend the great democracies in Europe: that's Britain and France, but not entangle ourselves in any European power games.

 

[Seek75]

We should be friends with all but allies towards none. The number one purpose of our government is protecting our freedom to trade as we see fit to whom we see fit. To that end, little other than a strong military/navy and good/indifferent relations to all but the most horrid of tyrannies is required.

Let the European powers destroy eachother. If they are not endangering American trade, then nothing else is needed.

 

[King50000]

Do you think we get peace by messing around with Europe. You think we get security by cosing up to nations that are no threat to us because they have abysmal navies, and thus becoming enemies of France and Britain that do have navies, and potentially could hurt us we get sucked into the European conflicts. No we should befriend the great democracies in Europe: that's Britain and France, but not entangle ourselves in any European power games.

But as you have said, Great Britain and France do pose a threat so us. They are much stronger than both Prussia and Austria combined. And just because the governments of France and Great Britian ar democratic, they still oppress thousands of people around the world. Prussia has no colonies and only seeks to unify the German people. Austria has no colonies (Iceland and Greenland do ot count as colonies I believe) and even though they rule over many nationals, they offer them more autonomy and religious freedom than the Sultan of the Ottomans would ever give them.

 

[yourworstnightm]

But as you have said, Great Britain and France do pose a threat so us. They are much stronger than both Prussia and Austria combined. And just because the governments of France and Great Britian ar democratic, they still oppress thousands of people around the world. Prussia has no colonies and only seeks to unify the German people. Austria has no colonies (Iceland and Greenland do ot count as colonies I believe) and even though they rule over many nationals, they offer them more autonomy and religious freedom than the Sultan of the Ottomans would ever give them.

My point is: why ally with nations that are far away in Europe and can't hurt us. I am proposing befriending Britain and France, not allying with them. Being their friend means our back is safe, and no European power can threaten us. But we should not ally with them for the same reason we should not ally Prussia and Austria: we neither need nor want to become entangled in the European game.

 

[zagoroth]

VOTE BACHMANN​

Vote for expansion of standing military for preparation of exerting influence across our hemisphere

Vote for laissez fair/ interventionist economics to allow our nation to soar ahead in industry

Vote for radical reconstruction of the South to continue to make our country freer

Vote for a free market and minor subsidies to allow for easy access to natural resources

Vote Bachmann because we have free cake, and my fellow Republican candidate apparently does not have cake.

Vote Bachmann, you will get cake!

The Spanish Question:
Our country is still not quite ready for war, so I will not go out of my way to provoke Spain. Should it seem necessary, than it is a possibility.

Industry and Labor:
Labor has rights to unionize to get what they want on a private scale. Industry has rights to protect its interests as well. Government has the right to intervene should important commodities suffer from lack of negotiations.

Most importantly, though

Vote for Cake​

 

[Spitfire5793]

Vote for Cake​

((Who needs cake? We have cookies!))


Europes problems are not Americas problems. Europe can take care of its self. Our current isolistic views have served us well so far. Why change?

Thomas Howard
Senator of Massachusetts
Defender of Eqality and the freedom of choice

 

[Seek75]

Vote for Cake​

((The cake is a lie.))

 

[King50000]

Europes problems are not Americas problems. Europe can take care of its self. Our current isolistic views have served us well so far. Why change?

Thomas Howard
Senator of Massachusetts
Defender of Eqality and the freedom of choice

As the world changes, so too must our view on the world. We cannot expand into the Pacific and not expect to go to war with other nations for the lands we inhabit. And I for one think that as long as there is a single European colony in the America's, we will never be able to achieve full isolationism, so why even try?

 

[yourworstnightm]

As the world changes, so too must our view on the world. We cannot expand into the Pacific and not expect to go to war with other nations for the lands we inhabit. And I for one think that as long as there is a single European colony in the America's, we will never be able to achieve full isolationism, so why even try?

I am not speaking of full isolationism. We should have foreign relations. But we should not get ourselves entangled in the European power game. Let the Europeans fight over Europe.

 

[Spitfire5793]

As the world changes, so too must our view on the world. We cannot expand into the Pacific and not expect to go to war with other nations for the lands we inhabit. And I for one think that as long as there is a single European colony in the America's, we will never be able to achieve full isolationism, so why even try?

Who are we going to fight for control over the pacific islands? The Dutch? The Portugese? Hardly much of a threight. And if you want to declare war on Britain, France, Holland, Denmark and Spain, just to liberate a few small islands, go ahead. But I dont think it would end well for us.

We are achieving isolationism now and we can easily continue this.

Thomas Howard
Senator of Massachusetts
Defender of Equality and the freedom of choice

 

[King50000]

And what happens when Europe is completely dominated by a single power? They would have the power neccessary to conquer the entire world, we cannot allow such a power to exist. That is why we must stay friendly with Great Britian, while also creating closer ties to strengthen Prussia and Austria. Four powerful nations, untrustworthy of each other, sounds alot better than one super-powerful nation that hates us. You say you want us to stay out of foreing alliances and stay out of Europe, but what if France goes on another conquer spree, this time landing on England first, and succeeds? Would it not be in our best interests to help the British defend their land and prevent another French Empire?

 

[Seek75]

And what happens when Europe is completely dominated by a single power? They would have the power neccessary to conquer the entire world, we cannot allow such a power to exist. That is why we must stay friendly with Great Britian, while also creating closer ties to strengthen Prussia and Austria. Four powerful nations, untrustworthy of each other, sounds alot better than one super-powerful nation that hates us. You say you want us to stay out of foreing alliances and stay out of Europe, but what if France goes on another conquer spree, this time landing on England first, and succeeds? Would it not be in our best interests to help the British defend their land and prevent another French Empire?

Europe has never been completely dominated by a single power, never will be, and even if it were to, such an empire would likely dissolve under intense rebellion from the different peoples of Europe. Even in the days of the Roman Empire, its position as hegemon and center of the then-civilized world was tenuous at best.

France could also never invade Britain without successfully annihilating the Royal Navy beforehand, a feat which is nigh impossible.

 

[King50000]

Europe has never been completely dominated by a single power, never will be, and even if it were to, such an empire would likely dissolve under intense rebellion from the different peoples of Europe. Even in the days of the Roman Empire, its position as hegemon and center of the then-civilized world was tenuous at best.

France could also never invade Britain without successfully annihilating the Royal Navy beforehand, a feat which is nigh impossible.

Ideas can inspire, as we have seen with the war we have just ended, and the sudden rise of Socialist thoughts in our Political atmosphere. So who can say that another Rome couldnt rise, and this time prevent a rebellion from taking it down? For we must remember, the reason Rome couldnt defeat its rebels, was due to the amount of time it took to put them down. With the iron horse, armies can quickly put down any revolt, and keep order in the areas that need them. All it takes is one charasmatic leader, and one common belief.
Nothing is impossible, everyone said that the destruction of the Spanish Armada was impossible, but the English did it. So maybe in future years, with the rush of expansion in both land and naval warfare, we may see a new power dominating the seas of the world.

 

[Seek75]

Ideas can inspire, as we have seen with the war we have just ended, and the sudden rise of Socialist thoughts in our Political atmosphere. So who can say that another Rome couldnt rise, and this time prevent a rebellion from taking it down? For we must remember, the reason Rome couldnt defeat its rebels, was due to the amount of time it took to put them down. With the iron horse, armies can quickly put down any revolt, and keep order in the areas that need them. All it takes is one charasmatic leader, and one common belief.
Nothing is impossible, everyone said that the destruction of the Spanish Armada was impossible, but the English did it. So maybe in future years, with the rush of expansion in both land and naval warfare, we may see a new power dominating the seas of the world.

And when has one charismatic leader and one common belief ever completely united people so utterly different to the point that you suggest? Socialism is rising in popularity, yes, but I do not believe it will ever be strong enough to allow one nation to over-take the rest, just as no ideology will ever allow any one nation or person complete and unquestionable hegemony over the world. Humans are inherently flawed, and therefore any ideology created by us, whether it be Vinogradist Socialism or Burkean Conservatism, will also be inherently flawed.

May I remind you that Roman technology was far superior to that of the barbaric peoples that they conquered, and yet Rome eventually succumbed to those barbarians, all the same?

 

[King50000]

And when has one charismatic leader and one common belief ever completely united people so utterly different to the point that you suggest? Socialism is rising in popularity, yes, but I do not believe it will ever be strong enough to allow one nation to over-take the rest, just as no ideology will ever allow any one nation or person complete and unquestionable hegemony over the world. Humans are inherently flawed, and therefore any ideology created by us, whether it be Vinogradist Socialism or Burkean Conservatism, will also be inherently flawed.

May I remind you that Roman technology was far superior to that of the barbaric peoples that they conquered, and yet Rome succumbed to those barbarians, all the same?

I do believe that Alexander the Great held the love and loyalty of all the peoples living under his rule. If he had had a legal and royal heir, his empire would never had broken apart. And were not the free nations of Europe able to put aside their differences to fight off Napoleans armies under the leadership of Great Britain? That seems like a powerful and common belief.

And yes, Rome did sccumb to the Barbarians, after their technology became equal to and obsolete compared to what the "Barbarians" were using. I do believe the Romans only lost battles when they were surrounded and outnumbered, or when they were ambushed in the deap forests of Germania. The Empire fell from the sacking of poorly defended cities, such was the case with Rome (city) and the Vis-Goths. ((Im pretty sure my ancient history is correct, though I havnt had to discuss and debate this stuff in a long time))