The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Mikeboy]

Mandrake

I am still loyal to my party, but ultimately I think casting a candidate that has already failed in an election to be unwise, in addition my greatest priority is keeping Mr Howard out of the White House, I believe Mandrake is the most likely candidate to do so.

 

[Devotist]

((Have we all formed our own core of obstructionists?))

 

[Projekt 919]

((WHere did all the Libretarians go? Im so lonely.......))

 

[Devotist]

((It's ok, that means no one will oppose you in the Libertarian primary!))

 

[Marshall Daub]

Mandrake. ((have we had a general ever take office before?))


Not the best, but these will work (I had to guess on just about everybody's picture - we'll say maybe that these were fliers reproduced in Oregon, so the printers hadn't seen the candidates or good photographs of them): Libertarian, New Democratic, and Republican

Those are great, Mr. Gallatin! I like how you captured my good side. And thank you sir, for your vote, and everyone else who has voted so far.

 

[Oscar Brink]

((Sorry for being late Projekt))

Bryan/Edmonds

 

[Revan529]

The New Democrats would have us believe that American boys won't be sent overseas. However, if that were the case, then why does the United States Marine Expeditionary Force exist? President Jamous formed it for the specific purpose to go overseas to quell,as they say, 'violent revolutions.' That they have consistently overlooked this gross example of American interventionism and imperialism is a testament to their desire to only 'win the election,' not to 'lead our Union.'

Mr. Howard, since you have stated that no American troops will be deployed overseas, will you promise to disband this force, going against your pledge to maintain the present size of the Army, and rebuke President Jamous, or will you retain this organization, and renege on your pledge that no American soldier will be sent overseas?

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate

 

[friget234]

The distinguished ambasador votes for Mandrake due to his economic policy, ((and that fact that the distinguised ambassador was givin a hefty bribe by the French of all people to convince his gouvernment to stay out of foreign affairs

 

[Seek75]

((The French know that they can't handle us ))

 

[Spitfire5793]

The New Democrats would have us believe that American boys won't be sent overseas. However, if that were the case, then why does the United States Marine Expeditionary Force exist? President Jamous formed it for the specific purpose to go overseas to quell,as they say, 'violent revolutions.' That they have consistently overlooked this gross example of American interventionism and imperialism is a testament to their desire to only 'win the election,' not to 'lead our Union.'

Mr. Howard, since you have stated that no American troops will be deployed overseas, will you promise to disband this force, going against your pledge to maintain the present size of the Army, and rebuke President Jamous, or will you retain this organization, and renege on your pledge that no American soldier will be sent overseas?

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate

No, I will not disband the expeditionary force. Why would I? Just because we have an expeditionary force does not mean we will send our troops abroad. We must be prepared for all eventualities. If we are attacked we must be able to strike back. Wars are as much about offense as they are about defense.

Your party wishes to increase the size of the military. Will your party disband the expeditionary force? Will your party stop us from being able to strike another nation, either in a defensive or offensive move?

 

[DisgruntledLemming]

Mister Jarvis, what if a power such as France were to attack us, and they took a colonial possession of ours, then when the tidings looked bad, they retreated back to Paris? Would you then decide to wait patiently as the French armies recuperate and prepare to strike again, or would you send a counterattack force to enforce a white peace between our enemies and us?

 

[Devotist]

Mr. Howard, you forget yourself. Mr. Jarvis and General Mandrake desire to decrease the size of the army by 15,000 while expanding the navy to ensure protection from foreign invasion. Now, your party encourages no such contraction, only a half-hearted naval buildup. What need have we to strike at enemies, if they cannot strike at us? What need have we to be the provoker, not the provoked? Unless you desire to show yourself to be an incendiary expansionist, a warmonger after what we have just experienced, why do we need it?

 

[Revan529]

Thank you for your support, sir, and yes Mr. Howard, the Republican Platform states plainly our goal of decreasing the size of the army, and improving the navy; have you even read our platform? The U.S.M.E. was formed for the specific purpose of intervening in international affairs. If our nation were to be attacked, which as your platform says would be unlikely, as "we have no enemies," we have no need for this army, or for the maintenance of the army (that is a drastic reduction would be in place). Your policy is contradictory; maintain the current level of troops despite the current peace we have with other states.

If we were attacked, as I wrote before, and I am certain the General would wholly endorse, we would increase recruitment and protect the coasts with our increasingly advanced and prepared navy, which would stagnate under your administration. Since the General and I have no desire for war or intervention, we do not need this force, and would most likely be the first unit disbanded.

Furthermore, if we stay out of European affairs, as my Party advocates, and yours opposes, Senators Howard and Routt, why would France, or any nation, want to attack a friendly nation that supports trade and peaceful relations with all nations, like Switzerland?

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate

 

[Spitfire5793]

Mr. Howard, you forget yourself. Mr. Jarvis and General Mandrake desire to decrease the size of the army by 15,000 while expanding the navy to ensure protection from foreign invasion. Now, your party encourages no such contraction, only a half-hearted naval buildup. What need have we to strike at enemies, if they cannot strike at us? What need have we to be the provoked, not the provoked? Unless you desire to show yourself to be an incendiary expansionist, a warmonger after what we have just experienced, why do we need it?

Forgive me, I misread the generals platform. But the argument is the same.

We must be prepared for all eventualities. We do not know what the future holds and it is better to be safe than sorry, in my eyes.

And how would the navy stagnate under my administration?

Why don't you just disband the entire army? Let's just have a navy. We are friendly with everyone. We have no enemies and nobody will attack us. So disband the entire army, just to save a cent or two. If your theory is correct why don't you do the above?

 

[Revan529]

Well, sir, on a comparative level, the navy seems to be a low level priority. Since you plan on lowering taxes, maintaining the current army, support an interventionist foreign policy, and increase regulation and 'reform,' you will likely have neither the support, or the funds, to increase the navy. On a practical level, you would only slightly expand the navy, and have not pledged to make these new vessels first-rate, top-of-the-line ironclads like our platform has specifically stated.

Our platform, however, is one that lowers taxes, cuts tariffs, reduce the bureaucracy, reduce the size of the military, focus on internal affairs, fight corruption, support education, and create a strong navy to protect us from European imperialism. We would cut spending and ensure the protection of the people on two fronts; by expanding the navy, and not involving ourselves in affairs that are none of our concern.

Mr. Howard, you have not fully explained yourself: if you yourself believe that we have no enemies, why do we need these troops?

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate

 

[DisgruntledLemming]

Mr. Jarvis, a wise man once said that when a man seemed at his safest, he was most vulnerable.

If we do not have any immediate enemies, should we just then expose ourselves and quite possibly compromise our nations' security?

And increasing the navy, I believe will not necessarily ensure our nation's safety completely. Say, that our enemies manage to acquire access through Mexico, or through the far north of Canada, those areas our outside of our jurisdiction, and we cannot afford to patrol every stretch of land from the tip of North America to Panama.

 

[Revan529]

Mr. Routt, I am not trying to weaken our nation, the Republican Party supports a strong, advanced navy, peace with all nations, and non-interventionism. What makes us weaker?

Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate

 

[DisgruntledLemming]

The fact that if a nation were to sneak behind our blockade, or acquire access through our north or south, we can still very well be invaded. You act as though we were an island, with only the sea to our North and South, but no, we have a potentially vengeful Mexico to the South and the mightiest Power in the world to our north. Why would we weaken our military? In my mind, we should only reduce the military when it is burdening other areas, whether it's finances, or people are actively resisting it. However, as far as my knowledge goes, it is not.

You say you are not trying to weaken our nation, but why would you cut down the military then?

 

[zagoroth]

Mr. Mandrake, your mailbox is quite full. I suggest a de-mailing immediately, get to it soldier!

(Not related to this at all):

I suggest we consider the implications of having such a gung-ho army general as our president. Let us imagine our first president, first in peace and first in war. Let us remember him that picked up the sword when he needed to, but took up the hoe when his days of service ended (or thrust a hoe at a slave, but thats nitpicking). Generals are there to advise in war, not to lead our country through war or peace. I only hope Mr. Mandrake is faithful to the Republican values which keep our country strong, our industry thriving, our ports filling with the hopes of ex-patriots, and fight against the radicals.

 

[DisgruntledLemming]

Gung-ho general? What exactly? I am confused Mr Bachmann, no one, at least as far as I know, is advocating jingoistic principles. Instead, I am arguing on the behalf of maintaining, if not expanding, the current military, for both defense and the possibility of a counter-strike against our foes if need be. But I, nor is any other Democrat as far as I am concerned, is advocating marching into our neighbors' lands for the sake of having the land.