THIS was our guy. Trump was truly hilarious but Darrell Castle is the only logical follow up from Ron Paul

THIS was our guy. Trump was truly hilarious but Darrell Castle is the only logical follow up from Ron Paul.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/114337333/trump-here
m.youtube.com/watch?v=IbZsZF5Rxww
constitutionparty.com/principles/seven-principles/family/
constitutionparty.com/principles/twelve-key-issues/treaties-trade-deals/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=0X0LnJGZ354
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Castle had no chance. If he ran as a Republican, he might have had a chance. lets just hope that the Constitution party fills the hole that the Democratic party filled

Cool name

Darrell "King of the Castle" Castle

Other than being bigger Jesus freaks than Republicans the Constitution Party is pretty great but they have a long way to go to get stronger. They can't even beat out the Libertarians and Greens yet and Castle's only major endorsement to my memory was from whiny ass Glenn Beck.

Nice digits op.
Also:
Darrell "Joining a real political party is a hastle" Castle

The only thing I tend to disagree with when it comes to the Constitution Party is their slight over zealous about Christianity. Like it's a tiny bit uncomfortable, reminds me when I was at a Mormon party. Other then that PaleoConservatism is based as fuck.

Darrell "My wife wears nipple tassles" Castle

Darrell "Gas the libs in Seattle" Castle

Their religious views don't matter. They promote religious liberty like the libertarians promote pot, but neither of them would actually force it on you. it's just a different way of selling the same message - maximum liberty.

Darrell "No Sally or Timmy for men who like the jimmy" Castle

I'm curious as to why Ron Paul never ended up endorsing him. He endorsed the party back in '08 when Castle was the running m8.

I think he was a tad weaker than Trump on immigration, but certainly much harder on it than every other candidate. Shitty at speaking though if you ever watched anything he did.

I would have voted for him had I known the Constitution Party's platform before the election. I'm pretty much a single issue voter on the surveillance state, and Castle wanted to get rid of it. So did Gary Johnson, but he's fucking Gary Johnson and I'm a social conservative, unlike Libertarian degenerates.

Based Glen Beck endorsed this guy while all you Trumpfags shit all over him. Ironic since he was the most Ron Paul tier candidate this election. Just goes to show you guys are shallow trend fags and have no base of principle.

I think Ron's trying to be careful about what he does so he doesn't fuck over Rand's career.

I think his immigration plan would have been more effective than Trump's. Trump's was stronger but Darrell's was smarter, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I really try not to be cynical like that, but I worry that does get in the way of things. It's nice to know that it doesn't entirely get in the way, though, cause he'll still criticize Trump sometimes.

Hardly matters anyway. In an alternate universe where the Constitution party could win a presidential election, Castle would have had to become an absolute dictator to do anything.

Literally every position he and the Constitution Party take would be opposed by everyone in Congress and all of America's foreign allies and trading partners.

Trump was about the best thing a constitutionalist could hope for.

Did anyone archive the Trump chat from last night?

The Constitution Party needs to mostly focus on local and state level positions like the Libertarians right now while also trying to find their Nigel Farage type person who can make waves and generate interest.

What are you referring to? Was it a Sup Forums thread?
If so it would be on 4plebs.org

I literally didn't know this guy existed or was running for President until the day i voted for Trump.
These 3rd parties really need to do a better job of making people aware of their existence.

Well shit, can't argue with those trips.

Yes, it was supposedly Trump stopping by and we had a question and answer session last night. I didn't think to save it at my end thinking it would have bee archived.

Only third parties with enough support to generate any interest is the Libertarians and Greens unfortunately. If nothing else Castle was a far more professional candidate than Johnson or Stein and the Constitution Party definitely can't be any more dysfunctional than the Libertarians.

I don't think they can after the Trump takeover of the Republican party. Of course, that's not to say that the neocons have been ousted, but all the new paleocon enthusiasm has been directed not at the paleocon party, but the Republicans.

And this is good for the purposes of elections. We need a unified right wing. It's very bad, however, when you start to realize that there are some near irreconcilable ideological differences between Reaganite neocons and your Trump/Buchanan paleocon crowd. If the Democrats split or die, which is looking increasingly likely given the divisions being brought to bear after the DNC chair election, we may see the two party system change once again with a Republican split, because the neocon establishment won't die until they literally physically die, and while there's a lot of new energy in the paleocon direction, a lot of people will grow up to be Reaganites as well, particularly if the left has to vote for the new theoretical neocon party in order to oppose the paleocon party.

Or, this may just go tits up and we'll see the Libertarians coming to power as well with the majority of this country growing sick of everyone. Have no idea how this will all play out.

Thanks user. archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/114337333/trump-here

I don't think Trump quite checks enough of the boxes to be a paleoconservative, even if the paleocons want him to be one so bad. I think he's mainly a civic nationalist.

He's shown more traits of one than any president since probably Eisenhower and helps push the Overton window back in that direction, which is something paleocons need. We're at a point where it's so bad that even the gay-enabling 420 blaze it Libertarians are more constitutionalist than the mainstream Republican right. Obviously, Trump's not all the way there, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and social conservatism, and we all knew that. But he's a huge step in the right direction and a rejection of the neocons that have run the party into total irrelevance for so long.

The true test will be the midterms. I hope with all my heart that most of the incumbents will lose their seats to Republicans that are actual constitutional conservatives instead of the dipshits we have in Congress now.

I voted for him faggot. I actually couldn't vote for him in North Carolina so I voted swapped with an uncle from Cali who wNted to make sure trump won this state because he thought it would be close but Hillary was gonna destroy in California so he didn't mind giving it up.

Or maybe it's because we're not all libertardians?

Constitution Party aren't Libertarians because they are protectionist and heavily social conservative.

Rand and Gary were probably more Ron Paul-tier, I don't know what that dumb user was going on about.

>implying the libertarians haven't always been more constitutionalist than Republican Party since their start in the early 70s.

Don't let Johnson and the liberaltarian redditors soil it for you. Watch Jeff Deist's Mises speech from last year and you'll get the real idea. It can actually be very compatible with the constitution party.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=IbZsZF5Rxww

Fuck the cuckstitution. All it does is act as handicap on our side when we have power

Republicans haven't been constitutionalist since the Roosevelt presidency. The fact that Coolidge did not immediately attempt to repeal the Federal Reserve Act is mind-boggling and set a precedent for every Republican president to come. Literally every time some libshit administration did something stupid, the next Republicans would just let it pass or in the cases of Nixon and Reagan, actively make it even worse.

The Libertarians being anti-Fed alone makes them more Constitutionalist than Republicans, and paleocons only really differ from them on trade and unimportant social issues.

>libertarians are socially liberal
They are not. That meme needs to die. Libertarians are about taking the government out of our lives as much as possible. Liberals are about using the government to force their progressive agenda on the people. Any time a so-called young newfag libertarian thinks the cause is about getting gay couples the same government benefits for their lifestyle as a straight couple, I know they don't get it at all and probably are liberal at heart. There's no consensus on Immigration in libertarianism, at least before the recent wave of cancer.

Darrell Castle is about enforcing the constitution. He isn't opposed to immigration entirely, he just wants to know who is coming in and then "we can let in as many people as we want". He's also not against free trade, but he just thinks that our free trade agreements aren't really true free trade agreements. He's against tpp and garbage like that because that's not actually free trade and sacrifices our sovereignty. He's actually not even for the government getting involved in gay marriage, he wants the government removed from marriage entirely, even though he doesn't see two men as a real marriage.
He is pro life, but libertarians like Austin Petersen are too.

>He isn't opposed to immigration entirely, he just wants to know who is coming in and then "we can let in as many people as we want".
true but his basic vetting procedures would weed out the criminals.
his cutting of welfare would prevent many from coming and cause many to self-deport. he's also against the war on drugs and is for decriminalization which would also stop as many from coming in as well.

Obviously, when we speak of libertarians, they are more socially liberal in the sense of classical liberalism as opposed to the modern progressivism of the Democrat party. Either way, the point is that both are permissive.

>he wants the government removed from marriage entirely
>The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage.

constitutionparty.com/principles/seven-principles/family/

>He's also not against free trade
>We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO)

constitutionparty.com/principles/twelve-key-issues/treaties-trade-deals/

Though granted on the latter, the party is only against it on account of these treaties delegitimizing the authority granted by the US Constitution for America to set its own trade policy, making its own interests necessarily subordinate to foreign bodies. The Constitution party is neither for or against free trade.

there are those who seek to pervert libertarianism because they are shills or are trying to gain access to money (Johnson, weld). Some do it as a tactic to try to recruit younger liberal people, though I'd say this isn't a good idea because if someone joins the libertarian party for shallow superficial wishy washy shit like that than they're not going to be particularly solid and loyal.
And then there are those who want to brand libertarianism with this nonsense, this 'gays and weed!!!!' shit not for monetary or strategical reasons but for ego. They still long for the approval of the leftist cultural overlords.
This last type pisses me off the most because at least the first two reasons make sense to do, and the second reason is theoretically even 'for a good reason'.
But ego seeking, image fagging, buzzfeed libertarians piss me off so fucking much and unfortunately they seem to make an enormous chunk of the libertarian base in the last decade.

How do you know your uncle followed through?
Progressives are not permissive. They have their own boogeyman they want to use government force to infringe on the rights of.
Darrell Castle has gone on the record as saying, though he doesn't personally approve of it and wouldn't think of it as a a legitimate marriage (and I would agree) he would still not block it because the government shouldn't be involved at all. Even that statement from the party doesn't contradict this, really. They just don't want the government redefining or authorizing anything like that, or incentivizing non traditional lifestyles. But that doesn't mean they'd block it either.
Darrell Castle has said on the record he is fine with legitimate free trade though.

The Constitution Party isn't too bad but I feel like their platform is too complicated for the type of people they would draw. (like people would be supporting their positions for the wrong reasons). I think they would get crushed like a dixie cup at the slightest amount of media coverage.

Your constitution isn't gonna save the white race, cuckservstives.

The lack of media coverage is only doing them favors. Darrell would have gotten destroyed. Not because he's not smart enough to come up with logical arguments to what the media would do to spin and twist his words, but because he doesn't seem like the type to do what's actually needed to be able to fight the spin (logic isn't even always important in such a fight).
Some still refer to the party as a theocracy. They think promoting religious liberty somehow makes it a theocracy. These are the same types who support bake the cake Johnson. They don't get it at all. They're the ones who are violating the NAP. I voted libertarian last election but switched over to based Darrell because he was the only true freedom candidate.

>They have their own boogeyman they want to use government force to infringe on the rights of.
Of course, the hardworking, successful capitalist. It's the same way that a Libertarian would necessarily "infringe" on a communist by not allowing him the right to state authority that he needs to function.

>Even that statement from the party doesn't contradict this
It does if you interpret it to mean that they are opposed to legislation or rulings that re-define marriage away from its original definition (handed down from God). Though of course that isn't to say that there aren't people in the party that take a softer position. I myself take a moderate position on the abortion issue.

The Constitution Party comes off as a theocracy because they talk even more evangelical like than the Republicans. Even if it isn't true their own wording isn't helping them.

Back to TRS!

Progressives infringe on a lot more than that.
Through the use of securing their own large commune and a series of private contracts, a certain number of communists could have their own little communist system within a libertarian nation. As long as people enter it consensually and sign the contracts, no ones rights would be infringed upon. The reverse is not true for capitalists in a communist society.
That means Government just can't redefine what marriage is because God defined it but that doesn't mean the government would necessarily get involved at all. In any case, Castle himself is moderate on it, as you said.
You're moderate on abortion???

Id changed but these are both me

Yeah, I agree that they should be more careful in this increasingly sensitive climate, but believing that our rights come from the creator and that Christianity is true doesn't at all imply that you would force those religious beliefs through government force onto a population. Just like an atheist libertarian who believes we all have certain natural rights wouldn't use the government to force a theist to think those rights don't come from the Creator. Obviously private beliefs can influence your outlook on life and what you do but that doesn't mean they'll influence you to force them on others.

Okay Andrew Anglin

He really is boring as hell OP:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=0X0LnJGZ354
Rand seems to be on good terms with Trump right now. Hopefully he can influence Trump more to libertarian ideals and policy.
>Gary
>Ron Paul-tier
M8

>relevant OC