New Deal Coalition Retained: A Sixth Party System Wikibox Timeline

[Sulemain]

I would like to point out how your criticism isn't really constructive when you talk shit about this TL behind Congressman's back.

I have, as have others, raised repeated criticism and enquiries in this thread itself.

 

[Exitstencil]

I would like to point out how your criticism isn't really constructive when you talk shit about this TL behind Congressman's back.

When did this happen?

 

[Indicus]

When did this happen?

Search "Queen Nixon" (with the quotation marks) in the Chat forum and you'll see how much people talked about this TL.

 

[Mustard]

Also, there was pressure within Britain, which you are neglecting. There were massive protests supported by British politicians, because quite frankly no one wanted to overthrow Egypt's government except for Eden and a few other Brits with their heads stuck in the past.

Both Gaitskell and Grimond, the Labour and Liberal leaders, supported the invasion when it was called, and indeed informed Eden as such, and only switches sides when they realised it would be politically expedient to do so. In addition to this, many historians have indicated that a silent majority of Britons were supportive of the war.

Combine that with the fact that the only reason Britain didn't just give up the Canal to its owners was because Eden was popping pills and convinced that nationalizing a company and reimbursing its shareholders made Nasser a fascist, and I don't really see how you could ever have Britain even think about overthrowing Egypt's government in the 70s, much less do it and find itself inevitably failing.

The justification for invading was less to do with Nasser being a fascist and more to do with the fact that Egypt's nationalisation of the Canal violated prior agreements between Britain and Egypt.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Next time on NDCR:

 

[Indicus]

Both Gaitskell and Grimond, the Labour and Liberal leaders, supported the invasion when it was called, and indeed informed Eden as such,

And then there are figures like Bevan, who walked with the protestors.

and only switches sides when they realised it would be politically expedient to do so.

No. They switched sides much like people like Robert Menzies because they found Eden to be totally and utterly wrong about what was going on.

The justification for invading was less to do with Nasser being a fascist and more to do with the fact that Egypt's nationalisation of the Canal violated prior agreements between Britain and Egypt.

No. We have records of Eden comparing Nasser to Mussolini, a quite ridiculous claim for obvious reasons, and then he went even further and wanted him killed.

 

[Knightmare]

So it's an update about the Supreme Court, huh?

Remember seeing this guy's picture before. Forgot his name.

That's why you search by image on Google. His name is Potter Stewart, SCOTUS Judge.

 

[Mustard]

No. We have records of Eden comparing Nasser to Mussolini, a quite ridiculous claim for obvious reasons, and then he went even further and wanted him killed.

I never said that Eden didn't claim Nasser was a fascist, and I am fully aware that he did make such a comparison - I just said that that wasn't the reason for why Britain intervened in 1956.

 

[Lost Freeway]

and the creator's writing reeks of Nazi apologism, Clean Wehrmacht theory, and Imperial Japanese apologism

I don't see it.

 

[Redcoat]

Just would like to get this across, there was a queen nixon, and I didn't remember that. Also, why is a Nixon on the throne? It makes total sense reading it, it's just weird.

 

[Halocon]

Just would like to get this across, there was a queen nixon, and I didn't remember that. Also, why is a Nixon on the throne? It makes total sense reading it, it's just weird.

I think Prince (now King) Charles married Tricky Dick's daughter; she isn't a queen regnant.

 

[President Eternal]

Just would like to get this across, there was a queen nixon, and I didn't remember that. Also, why is a Nixon on the throne? It makes total sense reading it, it's just weird.

She's more a Queen Consort, given Charles is on the throne.

 

[President Eternal]

Queen Consort Julie Nixon. Queen Elizabeth II died(I think?) and Charles took the throne in the 70s(?). He married Julie Nixon.

She didn't die, she abdicated after Prince Phillip was killed and she was crippled in an IRA attack.

 

[RousseauX]

@The Congressman

What were the voting margins in 1984 like amongst:

White college educated

White non-college educated

Men

Women

African Americans (as much GOP as Democratic otl?)

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

@The Congressman

What were the voting margins in 1984 like amongst:

White college educated

White non-college educated

Men

Women

African Americans (as much GOP as Democratic otl?)

White College educated: 45% GOP, 30% D, 25% Prog

White Non-college educated: 50% D, 35% GOP, 15% Prog

Men: 43% D, 36% R, 12% Prog

Women: 44% R, 33% D, 20% Prog

Black: 87% R, 7% Prog, 6% D

All are general estimates that prove the rule

 

[Bookmark1995]

White College educated: 45% GOP, 30% D, 25% Prog

White Non-college educated: 50% D, 35% GOP, 15% Prog

Men: 43% D, 36% R, 12% Prog

Women: 44% R, 33% D, 20% Prog

Black: 87% R, 7% Prog, 6% D

All are general estimates that prove the rule

I assume there would be more poor black Americans who would vote Progressive.

 

[Free_Soil_Andrew]

The Progressives seem to put more emphasis on Social Progressivism and less on Social Democracy than OTL Democrats.

 

[CalBear]

Play the ball folks.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

The Progressives seem to put more emphasis on Social Progressivism and less on Social Democracy than OTL Democrats.

I assume there would be more poor black Americans who would vote Progressive.

Progressives OTL have a bad view of really big government since they associate it with the surveillance state that cracked down on the radicals during the Wilson and Wallace administrations - being very big on civil liberties. They favor small government security wise, and thusly are very mixed economically

 

[Indicus]

I just did that, and wow... How nasty and immature.

I really did not want to share it, but I do feel that Congressman has to know.

I agree, of course, that they're being rude, even if they're not personally attacking Congressman, and this is kilometres ahead of my first TL, which I'm still ashamed of. Here's my first TL, fresh for you to laugh at.

But this is where I disagree.

We are all guilty of inserting, sometimes, our own biases into stories. There's nothing wrong with that, and anybody who lords it over someone else as a negative thing, is simply too blind to realize their guilt in it as well.

And keep in mind, above all the disgust and hatred thrown towards this timeline:

Man in the High Castle, arguably the most successful Alternate History series in the history of it's genre, which now has it's own critically acclaimed television series, is entirely ASB in it's construct, and the creator's writing reeks of Nazi apologism, Clean Wehrmacht theory, and Imperial Japanese apologism... and yet it's still critically acclaimed and loved.

We all have our biases and beliefs, and to be impartial is not a human trait. It is why being a King or Queen is one of the most difficult jobs ever. It is not human nature to be nonpartisan. It is in fact, the opposite. Human nature is partisan. Us vs. Them-- Right vs. Left, Blue vs. Red; Black v. White. We cannot refute this in our writings as artists. We will show our biases there.

Hakkou ichiu demonstrates my sympathetic nature for Germany in the Weimar system, and my only moderate distaste for the Modern Russian State through my wanking of Weimar Germany as a stable democracy, and my screwing of Russia out of half of her territory in a war against a democratic Japanese client state.

We show our biases, and that's okay.

No, it's not okay to include biases as part of a TL. In fact, one of the reasons we hold discussions on a TL is precisely because we want to limit our biases. When users share views on a TL, and are stating where the author needs to make corrections and where their biases may have played a role in events, it is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing and it's why there are so many long and excellent TLs across the forum. If instead we all ignored criticism, we would all have shitty TLs, about as bad as the AH Wikia. And, in fact, that is one of the things that makes that discussion so bad, that they did not share their criticism with the author until much later.

But then, when they did share that criticism in a constructive manner, they were shrugged off because of "butterflies", or for "carping" on the author. And that refusal to listen to this criticism is what has led to so many implausible events such as Queen Nixon, a multi-racial Zimbabwe still calling itself Rhodesia, and any number of other things. But while the author should have then researched more plausible events to take their place or even make new threads asking for how some event could have happened or the result of an event (as some notable users have done), instead they just ignored the criticism and trotted along. And that is not what should happen.

So, I simply ask Congressman to research the TL's events more thoroughly, and when information on those events cannot be found, to make threads to ask for members' input. Because ultimately, those author biases need to be limited, and discussion is the best way to do it.