Who disagrees with Darrell Castle?

[Bryan]

I presume this is a joke give the image and all. Please let me know if not.

 

[euphemia]

I don't think Darrell Castle supports the entire platform because he is constitutionally consistent on his personal positions. I don't think he would want to ban medically-assisted fertility.

Some of the planks in the party platform date back to its founding. It originally sprang from conservative Christian roots. That doesn't mean they don't include unbelievers or that some of those planks would be dropped or modified with the influx of new members.

I don't think this particular branch of fertility discussion will ever become law. Where I come down on this is if a family has their own means to pay for fertility assistance, then go for it. But if you are a single woman on welfare with an outlier friend who talks you into IVF and you have eight babies, then no, I'm not in favor of that.

I'm so glad you all are at least giving Castle and the CP a look. Intellectual curiosity is something I admire. I think there is a lot of potential with the CP if enough people decide they want a party that is for constitutional liberty.

 

[69360]

No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

 

[younglibertarian]

Castle seems to be the best choice atm, Johnson just makes me cringe

 

[LibertyEagle]

No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

Uh huh, yes, but Johnson/Weld have sold out. They are pro-Trans Pacific Partnership and at least Weld, is anti-gun.

 

[69360]

Uh huh, yes, but Johnson/Weld have sold out. They are pro-Trans Pacific Partnership and at least Weld, is anti-gun.

For at least the 100th time. You don't care about Johnson's purity. You are for Trump. Why do you persist in this, by now everyone still here is on to you.

 

[jmdrake]

They take good policy positions, but they are an openly all-Christian party that:

Considering the fact that this country was founded on 100% secular principles, not biblical ones... I don't see how this party can be in agreement with the Constitution. And which 'biblical principles' are they wishing to restore? There are myriad wonderful stories and tales in the bible that can be drawn on for wisdom, but there are also myriad examples of genocide, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, that are not compatible with a secular government.

Our founders were wise to create a 'deist' document... crediting a 'creator' rather than 'our lord and savior Jesus Christ'.

Still, they are better than the two main options we have today.

You're hair splitting. Thomas Jefferson's "deist Bible" was simply a stripped down Christian Bible. So you're still left with a country founded on "Biblical principles". A country founded on "secular principles" would have no mention of a creator at all. Think Soviet Union for example. Or perhaps post revolution France.

 

[jmdrake]

For at least the 100th time. You don't care about Johnson's purity. You are for Trump. Why do you persist in this, by now everyone still here is on to you.

QFT. Trump is as anti-gun as Weld.

 

[jmdrake]

No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

At this point I'm voting Castle though I see the allure of voting Johnson. (Hoping to get 15% for better ballot access). Seriously it seems that all the Libertarian Party cares about these days is who can get the most name recognition. The Peterson guy was 100% better than Johnson on the actual issues. Bob Barr sucked too. This will be my third election voting Constitution Party in the general. I wouldn't have voted Virgil Goode last time if I had researched more and saw he was a warmonger. But Castle seems pretty good. Chuck Baldwin was freaking awesome! If I wanted to just vote pragmatically I could vote Trump or Clinton because they both suck just as bad.

 

[phill4paul]

Well get on with your bad self then. There is no civil answer I can give to such a position so I will just let your post speak for itself.

And it does. in volumes.

 

[phill4paul]

Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...inalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/

Yup. That one causes a bit of confusion and has with me. That is why I promote "de-regulation."

de·reg·u·late
dēˈreɡyo͝oˌlāt/
verb
remove regulations or restrictions from.