The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Spitfire5793]

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

I won't have the funds you say? It is your party that wants to lower tariffs, lower taxes, increase the military's pay by 15% (which includes the navy), construct costly ships, employ more naval staff and fight non existent corruption. How will you pay for these new ships? And don't say you can pay for it with the "streamlining of the tax system" or the cut in bureaucracy. That simply won't save enough money.

The current size of our army is good. It is not to big and a burden on our nation. It is not to small and doesn't make us look weak. By cuting the size of our army we are more likely to be attacked. Our army also works as a deterant against other nations. And as Mr Routt says, our navy can only protect us so much. What if an enemy fleet slips past our defences and lands troops? What would we do?

 

[Revan529]

And we would still have an army, just a smaller, better trained army. What's your point? If we followed Mr. Howard's policy, our navy would be in little shape to fight off another nations, let alone police the waters, as he hopes.

And Senator Bachmann, the General has proven to be a stalwart Republican, supportive of the free market which makes our nation prosperous. Our platform has advocated liberal immigration policies (one of my original campaigning points), and has advocated lower taxes and tariffs, spurring economic growth. As Commander-in-Chief, he would be a superb leader, as he, and myself, have served in the military, which, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Howard hasn't.

Mr. Howard, we will pay for them through the increased revenues we would get. It's a rather long explanation: lower taxes will encourage growth, growth means more revenue, more revenue means more tax money and higher employment, higher employment means higher production, higher production means higher revenue... and it goes on and on and on. To say that corruption doesn't exist confounds me, sir! No wonder you support government regulation and a 'mixed economy,' if you believe that men will not lie, cheat and steal without the oversight competition provides. Plus, you seem to neglect the point that we are decreasing the size of our army.

You also seem quite keen on lowering taxes and tariffs, and add regulation, which would largely negate the benefits I mentioned earlier.

And saying we have no enemies won't protect us from a French armada, Senator.

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

 

[Spitfire5793]

And we would still have an army, just a smaller, better trained army. What's your point? If we followed Mr. Howard's policy, our navy would be in little shape to fight off another nations, let alone police the waters, as he hopes.

And Senator Bachmann, the General has proven to be a stalwart Republican, supportive of the free market which makes our nation prosperous. Our platform has advocated liberal immigration policies (one of my original campaigning points), and has advocated lower taxes and tariffs, spurring economic growth. As Commander-in-Chief, he would be a superb leader, as he, and myself, have served in the military, which, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Howard hasn't.

Yes sir, I have not served in the military. However this is politics, not a war zone. I have served the people of Massachusetts and I have served as vice president. Why did you specifically meantion me anyway? Is everyone at a disadvantage if they have not served in the military?

We also know that not all actions taken by the military have not been good ones.

 

[Revan529]

I am merely pointing out that you do not understand the military as intimately as the General and myself do. We also have witnessed firsthand the horrors of war, which your policies, even if you wish to deny, will bring us closer to war.

You also have not answered my question Senator:if you yourself believe we have no enemies, why do we need the U.S.M.E., or any army for that matter?

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

 

[Spitfire5793]

I am merely pointing out that you do not understand the military as intimately as the General and myself do. We also have witnessed firsthand the horrors of war, which your policies, even if you wish to deny, will bring us closer to war.

You also have not answered my question Senator:if you yourself believe we have no enemies, why do we need the U.S.M.E., or any army for that matter?

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

How will my policies bring us to war? Will sending money to the Germans bring us to war? Will maintaining the current level of the army bring us war? Of corse not. For such a military man, you don't seem to understand what causes war.

Although we have no current enemies, time changes things. We must be completely able to defend our land at any time. Who is to say the British army plotting against us now? And as for your question about keeping the expotionary force- Why not? It's still an army. It can still defend out shores. It's just as good as the regular army.

 

[zagoroth]

Mr. Rout, I was not criticizing new Democrats. If you were to look at my track record, you would see that I have always commented on the excellent tastes of your party! I do not doubt Mr. Mandrake's patriotism to our cause, I only feel that he may be first to war first before being first in peace, second. Mr. Jarvis, I doubt neither your patriotism or your Republican values. I only am dubious of you and your president to be's constant referencing to your military training. I remember a certain Mr. Davis (?) who was an excellent general, perhaps he would have been a great president for our union.

 

[unmerged(341273)]

Bryan

 

[Revan529]

Mr. Bachmann, I am only using our service as in the context that we know how horrible war is, and how it is our sincere desire to not be the instigator. I have consistently stated my opposition to being the aggressor in war, and the General has shown he is of similar opinion.

As for you, Mr. Howard, by interfering in European Wars, we gain enemies, as I have stated innumerable times before, and our imperialism will lead to war; no imperial state has ever existed in a state of perpetual peace (not even the Pax Romana). The point of my criticism is the reason for the U.S.M.E.s existence: to intervene in the affairs of another nation, which we have no right to do. How do the policies we propose bring us closer to war? Being friendly? Minding our own business?

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

 

[komisha]

Senator Jarvis, I would like to point out that the Republicans have long held Hawaii and Alaska for granted, and if you don't wish to see that dominance come to an end I would think long and hard about why we do need a Marine Expeditionary Force.

((On to election coverage, after a cursory glance I have the tally at:
R-Mandrake....8
ND-Howard.....3
L-Bryan.........2))

I see that it comes time to throw in my 2 cents. Mandrake. But not for the reasons most would suspect.

 

[Spitfire5793]

Mr. Bachmann, I am only using our service as in the context that we know how horrible war is, and how it is our sincere desire to not be the instigator. I have consistently stated my opposition to being the aggressor in war, and the General has shown he is of similar opinion.

As for you, Mr. Howard, by interfering in European Wars, we gain enemies, as I have stated innumerable times before, and our imperialism will lead to war; no imperial state has ever existed in a state of perpetual peace (not even the Pax Romana). The point of my criticism is the reason for the U.S.M.E.s existence: to intervene in the affairs of another nation, which we have no right to do. How do the policies we propose bring us closer to war? Being friendly? Minding our own business?

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

So a nation will declare war on us because we give money to the Germans? Is that what you are saying? And you are right no imperial power has ever been impartial. However we are not an imperial power. How is giving money to the Germans going to lead to war? How does that make us imperialistic?

 

[Spitfire5793]

Senator Jarvis, I would like to point out that the Republicans have long held Hawaii and Alaska for granted, and if you don't wish to see that dominance come to an end I would think long and hard about why we do need a Marine Expeditionary Force.

((On to election coverage, after a cursory glance I have the tally at:
R-Mandrake....8
ND-Howard.....3
L-Bryan.........2))

I see that it comes time to throw in my 2 cents. Mandrake. But not for the reasons most would suspect.

It seems the once proud libertarian has abandoned his party. But yes you are correct about Hawaii and Alaska.

 

[Seek75]

((Well...so much for the socialist/left-leaning majority.))

 

[Revan529]

I don't see why we can't just have some of our active duty troops stationed there (of course only a few, no need for the vast majority be stationed on a small archipelago or a frozen wilderness).

Aggressive polices lead to imperialism, Mr. Howard. Have you seen a peaceful imperial state? Does an interventionalist, nation-building force, policing the world sound like an empire? It does to me.

It seems the American people have spoken, a two to one ration for the Republicans! A resounding victory, should this keep up!

And to more fully explain why Mr. Howard's policies will lead to war:

One: If we send military supplies to a country, we anger that nations rivals.
Two: If we create a continental power in Europe, all the major powers will views us negatively
Three: If a European War breaks out, do we leave our ally alone in the wind? We can't simply send it supplies: troops are needed.
Four: If we support interventionism, it will inevitably lead to conflict.

If you wish me to go more in depth, I'm yours to command!

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

 

[Spitfire5793]

I don't see why we can't just have some of our active duty troops stationed there (of course only a few, no need for the vast majority be stationed on a small archipelago or a frozen wilderness).

Aggressive polices lead to imperialism, Mr. Howard. Have you seen a peaceful imperial state?

It seems the American people have spoken, a two to one ration for the Republicans! A resounding victory, should this keep up!

And to fully explain why Mr. Howards policies will lead to war:

One: If we send military supplies to a country, we anger that nations rivals.
Two: If we create a continental power in Europe, all the major powers will views us negatively
Three: If a European War breaks out, do we leave our ally alone in the wind? We can't simply send it supplies: troops are needed.
Four: If we support interventionism, it will inevitably lead to conflict.

If you wish me to go more in depth, I'm yours to command!

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

Yeah the problem is you said about an allience. We never said we were going to ally with anybody. It also relys on a lot of "ifs". Your theory is flawed.

I also wouldn't get too cocky. We have a plan that may or may not work.

 

[Ric O'Shea]

Howard

 

[Revan529]

If we don't ally with them, what is the point in interfering anyway? There is no benefit, we gain no ally, and they become dependent on us.

In the case of Prussia, they used us for their own gain, and now have no need for an alliance with a gullible, wannabe-imperialist power.

And then, if we don't ally with them, we still do not lose that nations rivals, because we supplied their enemy!

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

 

[Marshall Daub]

Senator Bachmann,

I have been at war for over 30 years of my life. From the day I joined the United States Army as a private, fought in the Mexican War, and then served as a General during the Civil War, I have seen war and destruction. There are two things that kept me in the Army as long as I was - commitment to my country and commitment to my soldiers and comrades - some of the finest men I have ever known. Will I lead us into another war? Not willingly. But, if war comes to our doorstep, you can count on it that I will be in ready to fight. But no sir, I do not want war. I have seen enough fighting for two lifetimes. To quote Pindar, "War is sweet to those who have never experienced it." Those of us who have long for peace and are still haunted to this day by the things we saw.

I am of the opinion that a strong military helps prevent war. I have spent the last 10 years ensuring our troops were trained and equipped to the highest standards for this very purpose. I will continue to do so if I am elected President. We will maintain a strong navy that is able to counter threats from across the waves. I will prohibit alliances that could bring on an unnecessary war, while at the same time working to improve relations with key partners and potential foes around the world. Diplomacy, Senator, not conflict, will be the mantra of my administration. Creation, not destruction, will be our watchword.

((Also, my mailbox is free now. Apologies))

In Service and Respect,
General Maximilian Mandrake

 

[Spitfire5793]

If we don't ally with them, what is the point in interfering anyway? There is no benefit, we gain no ally, and they become dependent on us.

In the case of Prussia, they used us for their own gain, and now have no need for an alliance with a gullible, wannabe-imperialist power.

And then, if we don't ally with them, we still do not lose that nations rivals, because we supplied their enemy!

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

How would Prussia ever become dependent on us? By helping them we can increase trade, gain more contracts as well as fostering closer relations. And before you say "Germany's enemies will hate us", we can give them support in private. The world doesn't have to know.

Thank you everyone that has voted ND so far. Keep voting ND and we might pull something spectacular off.

 

[Revan529]

Well, Senator, they do now! You play both sides! That is Machiavellian, counter-productive, and an entirely foolish policy! My case on dependency lies wholly on the economic level of the state.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States, the New Democratic Party has admitted that, whilst aiding Prussia with military supplies, it also supplied Austria and her allies with goods! Can we trust an administration that will do this? No! Can we trust in the words of an administration that says one thing and does something different? No!

Ladies and Gentlemen, this revelation, straight from the mouth of its candidate:

And before you say "Germany's enemies will hate us", we can give them support in private. The world doesn't have to know.

Do you want him to be your President?

MANDRAKE/JARVIS 1872

 

[Seek75]

Mr. Jarvis, I hold no particular love for Mr. Howard, but I do believe he was referring to Prussia when he said "we can give them support in private."