The power to declare war rests with Congress, not with the states. Stop trying to create pathetic exuces to scare the people into siding with you. The people are too smart for you.
-
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.
Hopefully Congress will see that war is wholly unnecessary and vote down any war proposal; my supporters in both houses are certain to oppose it.
You accuse us of attacks, but now what do you do? You called us wild and dangerous men, but you are the one saying the states should not be able to decide what happens in this nation!
You forget the states send their representatives to Congress. The states may not formally declare war by themselves, but it is our desire to conduct a war as a country that allows you hawks to continue on your path.
Why do we continue to allow Mr. Khur to speak? Clearly he cannot catch his tongue, clearly he thinks his opponents are dangerous fear-mongers. Ironic considering the excuses that have been invented to invade Cuba.
You forget the states send their representatives to Congress. The states may not formally declare war by themselves, but it is our desire to conduct a war as a country that allows you hawks to continue on your path.
Why do we continue to allow Mr. Khur to speak? Clearly he cannot catch his tongue, clearly he thinks his opponents are dangerous fear-mongers. Ironic considering the excuses that have been invented to invade Cuba.
Need I remind you, Mr Jarvis, that the Federalist-Democrat coalition controls both seats of Congress as well? And Mr Brockman, I have the right to speak my mind. I did not ached you of attacks, so kindly stop putting words into mouth. The Federalists entire platform is for more State's Rights, I would suggest you remember that. And there have been no excuses created to go to war against Spain. At least not from the State Department, as you should well know by now that I am against war with Spain.
But as you yourself prove, Mr. Khur, not all Democrats and Federalists are pro-war. I wonder why the Federalists backed a socialist, a unionist, a Libertarian, rather than the limited government candidate? I am aware of the hawk-dove debate, but you backed Callahan despite being a pacifist... and our economic policies are dramatically different, his supporting increased federal power and intrusion, contrary to states' rights, whilst mine places almost all regulatory powers in the states.
I chose to support Mr Callahan because his policies were the most realistic and best suited for the nation, plus his stance on reopening relations with GB and the NGF won me over. Not once did I see you say you wanted less government, and how could you possibly hope to win the support of your own party, when Mandrake continued large Government.
Mr. Jarvis has been advocating a lack of intervention from government and both personal and market freedom of action for a while.
Why do you support the President having the dominant influence over foreign policy if you are so against war and in favor of states' rights? We must also not forget the frequent cries of the war hawks, claiming we must crush the Confederates, that we must invade Spain because they have not explicitly condemned and tried to destroy the Confederates. This ideological bickering that we should act as the world's guardsman and extend freedom to Cuba, are those not attempting to justify war? Your party is in favor of war, but you say Mr. Callahan's policies are most realistic and best suited for this nation?
The Republican Party never wanted to alienate Britain and the North German Federation. "Reopening" relations implied we had closed off diplomacy with them at one point.
Why do you support the President having the dominant influence over foreign policy if you are so against war and in favor of states' rights? We must also not forget the frequent cries of the war hawks, claiming we must crush the Confederates, that we must invade Spain because they have not explicitly condemned and tried to destroy the Confederates. This ideological bickering that we should act as the world's guardsman and extend freedom to Cuba, are those not attempting to justify war? Your party is in favor of war, but you say Mr. Callahan's policies are most realistic and best suited for this nation?
The Republican Party never wanted to alienate Britain and the North German Federation. "Reopening" relations implied we had closed off diplomacy with them at one point.
I called for less government spending, lower taxes, and the ilk; what did you think I meant by that? I also argued for a more constitutional government ((I'm using it again!)), by that I mean, a peaceful, state oriented system, rather than the interventionist, statist system backed by Callahan. Actually Mandrake did reduce spending (slightly, at least, I think); however, I wasn't chief executive, so I did not have much power in that area (basically, I advised and cautioned, but accepted my position). I suppose I should have more explicitly stated I wanted less government; I thought my policies made it self-evident!
As well, I was not opposed to warm relations with Germany and Britain; I merely opposed entangling alliances, especially with imperialist powers. I would never support a cooling of foreign relations, since it would prove to be injurious to us. I supported trade with all nations, and peaceful relations with them.
As well, I was not opposed to warm relations with Germany and Britain; I merely opposed entangling alliances, especially with imperialist powers. I would never support a cooling of foreign relations, since it would prove to be injurious to us. I supported trade with all nations, and peaceful relations with them.
When's congress going to take this vote? Better be soon least we wish them Spanish to catch on.
On another issue, I declare my sympathies towards the idea of an independent New England.
On another issue, I declare my sympathies towards the idea of an independent New England.
((I do believe, Mr. Callahan, that some of your supporters may be a liability...))
I'm not even going to discuss the lunacy of a free New England; we fought a Civil War to preserve the Union, and I quite certain no-one will back breaking up this nation. As well, the Spanish probably are aware of this administrations' plans, possibly because someone keeps espousing hawkish drivel! Again, why should we go to war with Spain, if we are not under threat of imminent attack?
((I am an Independant. My vote goes to him this election but I have no affiliation with his party.))
I'm not saying the people of New England should fight a war for Independance. However if over 50% of the New England population votes yes to Independance, then we should become independent. The citizens of this nation have a right to choose their future.
Not once? Mr. Khur, our entire platform was based on less government. Are you deaf?
Mr. Howard seems to like referring to Republicans as being blind. Perhaps the New Democrats and Federalists are deaf then, because obviously they haven't heard anything other than their own bloated egos if they have not heard us call for less government.
Mr. Howard seems to like referring to Republicans as being blind. Perhaps the New Democrats and Federalists are deaf then, because obviously they haven't heard anything other than their own bloated egos if they have not heard us call for less government.
Yes my father did call the Republicans blind.
But we are advocating freeing the people of Cuba from the Spanish. If texans, New Englanders, Californians or any state votes in majority for Independance then we should grant it.
It is hard to hear the policies of a party when its members continue their long practice of slinging mud at their opposition.
We should respect the will of every citizen. We are a democracy and should respect whatever the people vote for.
The south did not let every citizen (including slaves) vote on the issue of Independance so I cannot comment on that.
So we should tear asunder this glorious Union in the name of Cuban liberty? We should dissolve this great Republic, so that we can better support freedom? That is twisted, fallacious, and utterly insane! States should not break away; we have already shown what happens when they do... if this is the movement the hawks are endorsing, I feel their support will be shortlived!
I did not sling mud; I criticized on the basis of my views, as did the majority of my opponents (I cite neanderthals as evidence). If I did speak harshly, I apologize, but that doesn't change the fact; I have consistently opposed intrusive, oversized government, corrupt bureaucracy, blatant imperialist militarism, and all forms of totalitarian, statist government.
I did not sling mud; I criticized on the basis of my views, as did the majority of my opponents (I cite neanderthals as evidence). If I did speak harshly, I apologize, but that doesn't change the fact; I have consistently opposed intrusive, oversized government, corrupt bureaucracy, blatant imperialist militarism, and all forms of totalitarian, statist government.
We must remind you that Mr Howard is a independent, his views are not the views of the Federalists nor the Democrats, and he was the one who named neanderthals.
((Considering Eamon has pent over half his life as a resident of New England, I doubt they would secede while one of their own was President))
How does Ambassador to the UK or NGF suit you?
My administration's policy is about meshing of personalities. I appointed Khur to the Secretary of State position because as a dove, he would exhaust all options before war. But it is not the domain of the Secretary of State to dictate military policy. We can prepare the big stick while Khur speaks softly...
Maybe then this time they'll listen to our request.
To reiterate, I did not put Khur as the head of the War or Navy Departments, I put him in charge of the State department. This is not a conflict of interest. He wants peaceful negotiation, and I will allow it. But he will also be seeking to isolate Spain from France, which is to our advantage should war become necessary.
The point is that a unity ticket isn't the creation of a single party. But unity tickets usually have their own drawbacks, like large concessions in policy.
Which is exactly the point I'm making. If there hadn't been any unity tickets that election, it would have been strictly along party lines, making it rather dull and predictable.
How does Ambassador to the UK or NGF suit you?
My administration's policy is about meshing of personalities. I appointed Khur to the Secretary of State position because as a dove, he would exhaust all options before war. But it is not the domain of the Secretary of State to dictate military policy. We can prepare the big stick while Khur speaks softly...
Maybe then this time they'll listen to our request.
To reiterate, I did not put Khur as the head of the War or Navy Departments, I put him in charge of the State department. This is not a conflict of interest. He wants peaceful negotiation, and I will allow it. But he will also be seeking to isolate Spain from France, which is to our advantage should war become necessary.
No, we should listen and abide by the will of the people.
Don't get me wrong, I think the union is great. However if the people want Independance, that's what they should be granted. I have sympathies for New England Independance, but that doesn't mean I'm against the Union.
The ideal situation would be New England gaining more autonomy but remaining in the union.