Any of you aware of the "third" third party candidate?

[Capitalist]

Voting third party this election doesn't necessarily mean voting for Gary Johnson. And it doesn't mean voting for Jill Stein either. There is another third party. The Constitution Party.

http://castle2016.com/platform/

Darrell Castle. Better than any of them.

Adherence to the Constitution.
Withdraw from the UN.
End the Fed.
Withdraw from Agenda 21.
Pro-Life.

Seriously. What's not to love? Nobody's perfect but Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson are intolerable. Darrell Castle is good enough to be president.

 

[georgephillip]

How's his health?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#2016_presidential_campaign

"2016 presidential campaign[edit]

"Main article: Darrell Castle presidential campaign, 2016"

"Castle was a candidate for the Constitution Party's 2016 presidential nomination, but withdrew his candidacy in January 2016 because of unspecified health concerns.[9] However, on the eve of the 2016 nominating convention, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reported that Castle had re-entered the nomination process.[10]

"On April 16, 2016, Castle secured the presidential nomination for the Constitution Party.[11] He has vowed, if elected, to get the United States out of the United Nations and NATO.[11] 'Our borders are worth defending. If we can secure the borders of Korea and Germany, then we can secure the borders of the United States,' said Castle.[12] He made no reference to previous health concerns.[12"

 

[EatTheRich]

Seriously. What's not to love?

Well, as you point out, he wants to ban abortion and deregulate the banks. If that's not bad enough, he also:

1. Claims that the U.S. is a Christian nation (although this directly contradicts his claim of "adherence to the Constitution") and that it should be ruled by Biblical law.
2. Wants to replace income taxes with revenue tariffs, which will mean skyrocketing food prices and higher overall taxes for all but the richest.
3. Wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
4. Wants to eliminate birthright citizenship ... again a direct violation of the Constitution.
5. Wants to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
6. Wants to ban same-sex marriage.
7. Wants to eliminate the Voting Rights Act which helps secure the right to vote for Blacks and other minorities, and supports voter ID.
8. Wants to make English the official language of the United States, eliminate the option to speak with a Spanish-speaker, Chinese-speaker, etc., in government offices, and (once again in violation of the Constitution) take away the citizenship of anyone who does not speak English, including those born in the United States.
9. Wants to repeal ALL environmental laws.
10. Wants to eliminate the popular election of Senators and go back to having Senators elected by state legislatures.
11. Has political ties to some of the most notorious members of the far right (Pat Buchanan, Jerome Corsi, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo,
12. Wants to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood (note that this is not funding for abortion, which Planned Parenthood already cannot receive, but for things like HIV and cancer screenings).

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[EatTheRich]

On the other hand, I urge you to consider voting for another choice: Alyson Kennedy of the Socialist Workers' Party. The highlights of her platform:

1. Support for the fight for a $15/hour minimum wage and union representation for all workers.
2. Opposition to the use of violence and heckling to break up political rallies. A willingness to join in the defense of the right to hold a rally for any cause, including to support a reactionary politician such as Donald Trump, without interference by thugs.
3. Solidarity with the working people of Syria. No more bombings, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all American forces, and mobilization of international working-class support to the fight for democracy, for peace, and for liberation of the oppressed Kurds through the crushing of ISIS and other reactionary Islamist forces and the overthrow of the brutal Assad dictatorship.
4. Unconditional defense of a woman's right to choose abortion.
5. Support for a massive public works program to create union jobs.
6. Support for free comprehensive medical care for all.
7. Opposition to deportations.
8. Opposition to scapegoating of and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Latinos, Blacks, and other targets of bigotry.
9. Support for Puerto Rican independence.
10. Solidarity with Cuba and its revolutionary leadership.
11. Freedom for all political prisoners, including Dwight and Steven Hammond, Oscar Lopez Rivera, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu-Jamal.
12. Support for the fight against police brutality and to prosecute killer cops.

 

[Capitalist]

How's his health?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#2016_presidential_campaign

"2016 presidential campaign[edit]

"Main article: Darrell Castle presidential campaign, 2016"

"Castle was a candidate for the Constitution Party's 2016 presidential nomination, but withdrew his candidacy in January 2016 because of unspecified health concerns.[9] However, on the eve of the 2016 nominating convention, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reported that Castle had re-entered the nomination process.[10]

"On April 16, 2016, Castle secured the presidential nomination for the Constitution Party.[11] He has vowed, if elected, to get the United States out of the United Nations and NATO.[11] 'Our borders are worth defending. If we can secure the borders of Korea and Germany, then we can secure the borders of the United States,' said Castle.[12] He made no reference to previous health concerns.[12"

Better than Clinton's.

 

[Capitalist]

Well, as you point out, he wants to ban abortion and deregulate the banks. If that's not bad enough, he also:

1. Claims that the U.S. is a Christian nation (although this directly contradicts his claim of "adherence to the Constitution") and that it should be ruled by Biblical law.
2. Wants to replace income taxes with revenue tariffs, which will mean skyrocketing food prices and higher overall taxes for all but the richest.
3. Wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
4. Wants to eliminate birthright citizenship ... again a direct violation of the Constitution.
5. Wants to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
6. Wants to ban same-sex marriage.
7. Wants to eliminate the Voting Rights Act which helps secure the right to vote for Blacks and other minorities, and supports voter ID.
8. Wants to make English the official language of the United States, eliminate the option to speak with a Spanish-speaker, Chinese-speaker, etc., in government offices, and (once again in violation of the Constitution) take away the citizenship of anyone who does not speak English, including those born in the United States.
9. Wants to repeal ALL environmental laws.
10. Wants to eliminate the popular election of Senators and go back to having Senators elected by state legislatures.
11. Has political ties to some of the most notorious members of the far right (Pat Buchanan, Jerome Corsi, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo,
12. Wants to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood (note that this is not funding for abortion, which Planned Parenthood already cannot receive, but for things like HIV and cancer screenings).

Thanks but no thanks.

I'm sure he could be convinced towards a national sales tax and away from tariffs. But let it never be said that I demand perfection.

Aside from that he's pretty damn good.

 

[Spamature]

Third parties should not even be allowed into national elections until they have won at least an office at the state level. And they shouldn't be allowed in state level elections until they has won an office in a local election.

F*ck third parties until they can actually show the public will elect them. Otherwise they are nothing but election spoilers warping the intent of the majority.

Third Parties gave us the Iraq war.

 

[EatTheRich]

Third parties should not even be allowed into national elections until they have won at least an office at the state level. And they shouldn't be allowed in state level elections until they has won an office in a local election.

F*ck third parties until they can actually show the public will elect them. Otherwise they are nothing but election spoilers warping the intent of the majority.

Third Parties gave us the Iraq war.

No, the 2 major parties gave us the Iraq War. I don't think the government should be telling us who we can and can't vote for.

 

[Spamature]

No, the 2 major parties gave us the Iraq War. I don't think the government should be telling us who we can and can't vote for.

No a 3rd party gave us bush. Who decided on his own to invade Iraq. No 3rd party. No bush.

 

[EatTheRich]

No a 3rd party gave us bush. Who decided on his own to invade Iraq. No 3rd party. No bush.

1. Gore's inability to motivate people to vote for him instead of staying home or voting 3rd party ... and the systematic disfranchisement of Black voters ... gave us Bush.
2. Bush did not decide on his own to invade Iraq. He was prompted to by a bipartisan team including Democrat Paul Wolfowitz, and urged on by many Democrats in Congress including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The Iraq invasion was not a war of choice on the part of the ruling class ... it was a desperate effort to repair the damage they'd done to their world order with the prior war.

 

[Spamature]

1. Gore's inability to motivate people to vote for him instead of staying home or voting 3rd party ... and the systematic disfranchisement of Black voters ... gave us Bush.
2. Bush did not decide on his own to invade Iraq. He was prompted to by a bipartisan team including Democrat Paul Wolfowitz, and urged on by many Democrats in Congress including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The Iraq invasion was not a war of choice on the part of the ruling class ... it was a desperate effort to repair the damage they'd done to their world order with the prior war.

1) Or 3rd party candidates motivating people to throw their votes away on them, maybe ?

2) First of all Wolfie hadn't been a Dem for 20 yrs. That's like saying Democrat Ronald Reagan.

Unlike that list that is passed around if you look at what the people you name said at the time they did not support an invasion of Iraq. Iraq was a war of choice and that choice was made by one man. GWB. He could have waited for the inspections and a report that would have exonerated Iraq on the WMD accusation. But he did not what to have his game exposed so he "rushed to war".

 

[Capitalist]

On the other hand, I urge you to consider voting for another choice: Alyson Kennedy of the Socialist Workers' Party. The highlights of her platform:

1. Support for the fight for a $15/hour minimum wage and union representation for all workers.
2. Opposition to the use of violence and heckling to break up political rallies. A willingness to join in the defense of the right to hold a rally for any cause, including to support a reactionary politician such as Donald Trump, without interference by thugs.
3. Solidarity with the working people of Syria. No more bombings, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all American forces, and mobilization of international working-class support to the fight for democracy, for peace, and for liberation of the oppressed Kurds through the crushing of ISIS and other reactionary Islamist forces and the overthrow of the brutal Assad dictatorship.
4. Unconditional defense of a woman's right to choose abortion.
5. Support for a massive public works program to create union jobs.
6. Support for free comprehensive medical care for all.
7. Opposition to deportations.
8. Opposition to scapegoating of and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Latinos, Blacks, and other targets of bigotry.
9. Support for Puerto Rican independence.
10. Solidarity with Cuba and its revolutionary leadership.
11. Freedom for all political prisoners, including Dwight and Steven Hammond, Oscar Lopez Rivera, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu-Jamal.
12. Support for the fight against police brutality and to prosecute killer cops.

That's all we need--another socialist in office.

'Cuz they've been doing so great so far.

 

[EatTheRich]

1) Or 3rd party candidates motivating people to throw their votes away on them, maybe ?

2) First of all Wolfie hadn't been a Dem for 20 yrs. That's like saying Democrat Ronald Reagan.

Unlike that list that is passed around if you look at what the people you name said at the time they did not support an invasion of Iraq. Iraq was a war of choice and that choice was made by one man. GWB. He could have waited for the inspections and a report that would have exonerated Iraq on the WMD accusation. But he did not what to have his game exposed so he "rushed to war".

1. By addressing issues that Gore refused to.
2. The Times reports that he remained a registered Democrat in 2007.
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020...tol/comment/leading_article/article430690.ece
3. What they did means more than what they said. It was obvious to anyone who's seen the same pageantry hundreds of times before that the Congressional authorization and inspections/sanctions regimes were intended to set the stage for war, that Bush intended to go to war, and that the bipartisan war chorus in Congress wanted to smooth the way for Bush while accepting as little responsibility for it as possible. If Democrats in Congress had wanted to, they could have filibustered funding requests for the war, but they did not. William Jefferson Clinton, of course, maintained sanctions on Iraq and bombed Iraq repeatedly, and the Democratic leadership made no effort to lift the sanctions or end the inspections, nor did they defend Iraq's right to choose which weapons it developed without foreign interference. Yet you still pretend that the war drive was not bipartisan.

 

[EatTheRich]

That's all we need--another socialist in office.

'Cuz they've been doing so great so far.

I assume you're blaming "socialism" for the failure of capitalist politicians like Obama?

 

[Spamature]

1. By addressing issues that Gore refused to.
2. The Times reports that he remained a registered Democrat in 2007.
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020...tol/comment/leading_article/article430690.ece
3. What they did means more than what they said. It was obvious to anyone who's seen the same pageantry hundreds of times before that the Congressional authorization and inspections/sanctions regimes were intended to set the stage for war, that Bush intended to go to war, and that the bipartisan war chorus in Congress wanted to smooth the way for Bush while accepting as little responsibility for it as possible. If Democrats in Congress had wanted to, they could have filibustered funding requests for the war, but they did not. William Jefferson Clinton, of course, maintained sanctions on Iraq and bombed Iraq repeatedly, and the Democratic leadership made no effort to lift the sanctions or end the inspections, nor did they defend Iraq's right to choose which weapons it developed without foreign interference. Yet you still pretend that the war drive was not bipartisan.

I believe they thought they could prevent a war. It was not up to the Dems whether sanctions would be lifted. They were sanctions under a UN resolution. It as up to the UN to remove sanctions. The Dems voted for support of the UN resolutions which left action up to the UNSC not bush. Bush violated the resolution and invaded on his own.

The republicans played them by forcing the Iraq war vote to take place 3 weeks before the 2002 midterm elections (the 1st national election since 9/11). Making sure all no votes could be used as a weapon proving Democrats were soft of terrorism and would not defend the nation after the worst attack in our history. You seem to be having tunnel vision and you're blocking out all the other stuff at play. You are telling the Republican story, not the story of what actually happened back then.

 

[Capitalist]

I assume you're blaming "socialism" for the failure of capitalist politicians like Obama?

No. I'm blaming socialism for the failure of socialist politicians like Obama.

 

[EatTheRich]

I believe they thought they could prevent a war.

I knew they weren't going to prevent a war by authorizing one, and I'm not "in the loop" the way they are. Are you saying they were just dumber than a box of rocks?

It was not up to the Dems whether sanctions would be lifted. They were sanctions under a UN resolution. It as up to the UN to remove sanctions. The Dems voted for support of the UN resolutions which left action up to the UNSC not bush. Bush violated the resolution and invaded on his own.

Lol. The UN was in appeasement mode ... it wanted sanctions because the U.S. wanted sanctions. Congress, including a majority of Democrats, specifically gave Bush authorization to bypass the UN, and voted down amendments that would've required the U.S. to subordinate its efforts to those of the Security Council.

The republicans played them by forcing the Iraq war vote to take place 3 weeks before the 2002 midterm elections (the 1st national election since 9/11). Making sure all no votes could be used as a weapon proving Democrats were soft of terrorism and would not defend the nation after the worst attack in our history. You seem to be having tunnel vision and you're blocking out all the other stuff at play. You are telling the Republican story, not the story of what actually happened back then.

Your argument seems to be that the Republicans forced the Democrats to join their war drive because it was the only way they could secure re-election. A broader perspective would suggest that, yes, Republicans adroitly maneuvered the Democrats into an uncomfortable political situation, but those Democrats then chose to put their political careers above human rights and stability in the Middle East.

 

[EatTheRich]

No. I'm blaming socialism for the failure of socialist politicians like Obama.

Obama is very much on the side of Wall Street against working people. Socialism is a movement of the working people against Wall Street and all other exploiters. There is nothing "socialist" about Obama in the sense in which Alyson Kennedy is a socialist. You need to take responsibility for the leaders your own system puts up.

 

[Spamature]

I knew they weren't going to prevent a war by authorizing one, and I'm not "in the loop" the way they are. Are you saying they were just dumber than a box of rocks?

You forget previous to this resolution the bush admin's position was they did not need anyone's approval to launch an attack on Iraq. This resolution was a comprise that put the UN into "the loop".

Lol. The UN was in appeasement mode ... it wanted sanctions because the U.S. wanted sanctions. Congress, including a majority of Democrats, specifically gave Bush authorization to bypass the UN, and voted down amendments that would've required the U.S. to subordinate its efforts to those of the Security Council.

No they did not authorize a bypass of the UN. Re read that resolution. Bush violated both the congressional and the UN resolution in spirit and in fact and went to war without the UN. He knew the UN was not going to authorize an attack and could clear Iraq if he had waited. So he decided not wait.

Your argument seems to be that the Republicans forced the Democrats to join their war drive because it was the only way they could secure re-election. A broader perspective would suggest that, yes, Republicans adroitly maneuvered the Democrats into an uncomfortable political situation, but those Democrats then chose to put their political careers above human rights and stability in the Middle East.

The Republicans had the House. Only 8 GOP house members voted against the war. It was pretty much a done deal without the Dem going into militant lock step mode. All they needed in the senate was 3 votes which pretty much made that a done deal as well. Beside it is not impossible to think that they believed bush about the imminent threat posed by Iraq. Also they would have had to predict that bush would screw it up like he did if it did come to an invasion.

Look at the breakdown on how the voting when by party.

The Dems were the only one opposing it even with the price of their political offices hanging in the balance. They lost. But they would have almost certainly lost anyway. It is so unfair for you to blame a Republican backed war on the Democrats. In fact the one Republican who voted against it in the senate was Lincoln Chaffee who ran as a Democrat in the 2016 primary.

 

[EatTheRich]

You forget previous to this resolution the bush admin's position was they did not need anyone's approval to launch an attack on Iraq. This resolution was a comprise that put the UN into "the loop".

Thus giving the Bush administration the political cover it needed to launch the war ... which was the clear intent of the resolution as it was being passed.

No they did not authorize a bypass of the UN. Re read that resolution.

"Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

In other words, it authorizes the president to usurp the Security Council's prerogative to determine how to enforce its own resolutions, while also allowing the U.S. to unilaterally assert its own "national security" interests regardless of the UN.

It is so unfair for you to blame a Republican backed war on the Democrats.

I have made it clear several times that I blame the bipartisan war party.