- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
so are these elections considered canon for future elections or do we reset each time? This impacts my vote. I feel like if we're carrying the canon forward I need Washington but if we aren't I got to go with Jay.
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 02:17
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2024 21:32
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
My background posts will treat each election independently. There would be no way for me to discuss the issues surrounding the election or to post the primers I have planned on various groups, individuals, and issues. It would also make later elections problematic.
If you, or anyone else, would like to consider these elections to be part of a single, cohesive timeline then go ahead. I would love to see someone try to form a narrative. I'm not going to force that on the thread, though.
In that case:
I fear we are going to gently caress up right at the beginning. If we don't elect Washington we will be making a huge mistake. So I am going to lay out a multi-faceted argument for why we need to vote Washington.
1.) Washington is a baller-rear end motherfucker: Who did we trust out armies to to defeat the British? George loving Washington. I know a lot of people will claim that generals don't necessarily make good presidents, but I think this general is special. He was relentless even in defeat. He was a successful organizer. At the end of the war he stood down like good Cincinnatus. My point is we can trust Washington to not make himself king. Can we trust a monarchist like John Adams to do the same?
2.) Washington knows his limitations: Washington is a smart dude, but Washington knows he has weaknesses; that is why he surrounds himself with people he can trust. I know Washington didn't invent the idea of a cabinet, but he did bring it to the U.S. And he did set the tone for how a President and his Cabinet operate.
3.) Washington on the army: Holy poo poo, we cannot survive as a nation based on regional militias. No one knows this better than Washington. No one will work as tirelessly to make sure our fledgling nation can defend itself against enemies domestic and foreign better than General Washington. While he did need the regional militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington's belief in professional soldiers and a standing army are essential to defending this project in democracy.
4.) Washington on economics: Modern views on national debt are probably shading our idea of Washington's attack on national debt. Washington is no Ramirez. Washington knows that for a nation in its infancy it is important to be healthy economically. We need to be able to effectively collect taxes. We need to be able to effectively settle our debts. We need to be able to raise and maintain enough funds to be able to solve problems as they arise. If we can't pay out debts right now there is no way this country will be able to get off the ground because we do not yet have the reputation to be able to take on debt successfully.
My argument is pretty much this: We are, as an voting body, looking too far into the future. We are trying to set up a Socialist States of America before we have even proven a nation can survive on its own on these shores. Before we can look forward, we need to cement our present. We need to elect someone who has learned the right lessons from the struggle so far. And that man is General Washington. No other leader can ensure the safety of this fledgling nation. A vote for Washington/Adams or a vote for Washington/Jay is a vote for a strong, united America: an America that can survive a couple of decades without having to write a new governing document. But a vote for Adams/Jay is a vote for the death of this young Republic.
Washington/Someone '89
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 02:39
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
I'd just like to say that this thread is a lot of fun so far, and I'm looking forward to learning more than I learned from my history classes.
E: Also, I look forward to hilarious posts explaining how the timeline "fixes" itself every time we alter history.
fade5 has issued a correction as of 03:53 on Nov 19, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 03:44
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
So how long until the election happens? The (white, male, landowning) people are eager to see who leads this new country.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 22:32
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
Not even Jackson’s marriage to Rachel Donelson has been safe from attack. When Rachel married Jackson, both believed that she had been properly divorced from her first husband. When it was revealed that the papers were improperly filled, Adams turned the matter into a political scandal. He has accused Rachel of being a bigamist, an adultereress, and a prostitute. He has accused Jackson as being insufficiently Christian to serve as President.
quote:
Platform: After the so-called “corrupt bargain” of 1824, Andrew Jackson finds himself at the head of a political revolution against entrenched elites. Having witnessed first-hand the willingness of party leaders to fulfill their interests above the interests of the nation at large, Jackson promises to abolish every political unjust restriction. He advocates universal suffrage for all white males and the removal of all tax or property requirements. He promises an end to the corrupt patronage system and promises to personally oversee reform efforts. He promises an end to the corrupt Bank of the United States, which enriches the wealthiest citizens at the expense of the most poor. He even promises to expand the country’s borders, which have been unjustly constrained by wealthy aristocrats who are afraid of free men. Jackson promises a return to constitutional law and will work tirelessly to ensure that government serves the common man. Jackson tepidly supports Clay’s proposed American System, which seeks to build a self-sufficient national economy, and is especially interested in using it to improve national transportation. He worries, however, about the program’s potential to be tyrannous and to disproportionately benefit the North. He supports mild tariffs as a way of supporting this system, despite its unpopularity in the South. Jackson is an avid proponent of slavery and national expansion. He views the native tribes as an active threat to American civilization that must be crushed.
I can definitely see how Andrew Jackson was so popular, even if he was a world-class rear end in a top hat. If it wasn't for the slavery and Native American stuff I'd almost be tempted to vote for him, he really is/was the first real populist.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
I think Lincoln might win this unanimously amongst those not making irony votes. We already have abolished slavery several times, let's do it for real now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 18:23
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2024 21:32
|
|
- fade5
- May 31, 2012
-
by exmarx
|
Presidential Nominee: Peter Cooper
Platform: Cooper has gained support as a reaction against the corrupt two-party system and their self-enriching monetary policies. Breaking from established economic thought, Cooper has called for the United States to move off the gold standard and debt-based bank currency system and instead embrace a credit-based, government-issued paper currency system. Cooper points to the success of the “Greenbacks” issued by the Treasury during the Civil War, as an example of a successful, mostly fiat money system. Cooper believes that once his non-gold-backed notes are issued, the expanded money supply will help restore the economy. Though Cooper considers himself an agrarian man and has avoided campaigning on any issue not related to the fiat money system, he is surprisingly popular with the urban poor, who believe that his monetary policy will raise their salaries and make debts easier to pay. Cooper is known to be sympathetic with the Native Americans and is responsible for the creation of the Board of Indian Commissioners. He is believed to be in favor of major reforms to current labor laws.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 17:22
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 02:17
