Darrell Castle Thread (Constitution Party Nominee)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Constitution Party is not a valid party in California, so I could not vote for Darrell Castle even if I wanted to. I think that Donald Trump would do a better job of saving America than Darrell Castle anyway.
 
anon67074017 said:
The Constitution Party is not a valid party in California, so I could not vote for Darrell Castle even if I wanted to. I think that Donald Trump would do a better job of saving America than Darrell Castle anyway.
Click to expand...
Just think of what Trump could do on day one of his administration.

Tell the Border Patrol to go back to work. [They are now in a “stand down” mode.]

Charter in a bunch of Airbus 380’s to shuttle illegal aliens who are already in custody … back to their legal countries.

Sign a law into effect, passed by Congress, reducing tax rates to the schedule he presented during his campaign.

Order the start of construction of the wall on the southern border, in accordance with legislation previously passed into law.

Inform employees of the Department of Education to report to Texas, where they would be working on a temporary assignment with the Border Patrol.

Order the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify ObamaCare where there is “To Be Determined” under the legislation as passed.

On Day 2, he could start moving proposed legislation to Congress to be debated and passed into law.
 
anon67074017 said:
The Constitution Party is not a valid party in California, so I could not vote for Darrell Castle even if I wanted to. I think that Donald Trump would do a better job of saving America than Darrell Castle anyway.
Click to expand...
If you’re in California, Illinois, or New York, know that the chances of Trump winning your electoral vote is not that much higher than that of a third party so you might be wise to just vote your conscience.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Just think of what Trump could do on day one of his administration.

Tell the Border Patrol to go back to work. [They are now in a “stand down” mode.]

Charter in a bunch of Airbus 380’s to shuttle illegal aliens who are already in custody … back to their legal countries.

Sign a law into effect, passed by Congress, reducing tax rates to the schedule he presented during his campaign.

Order the start of construction of the wall on the southern border, in accordance with legislation previously passed into law.

Inform employees of the Department of Education to report to Texas, where they would be working on a temporary assignment with the Border Patrol.

Order the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify ObamaCare where there is “To Be Determined” under the legislation as passed.

On Day 2, he could start moving proposed legislation to Congress to be debated and passed into law.
Click to expand...
Day 3, he files for bankruptcy, defaulting on interest payments on the U.S. debt. Good luck, China and Japan!

PS Wouldn’t we be better off abolishing HHS and Dept of Education altogether? But what do I know, I’m just another stupid immigrant.
 
ProVobis said:
Day 3, he files for bankruptcy, defaulting on interest payments on the U.S. debt. Good luck, China and Japan!

PS Wouldn’t we be better off abolishing HHS and Dept of Education altogether? But what do I know, I’m just another stupid immigrant.
Click to expand...
Abolishing HHS and the Dept of Education would require an Act of Congress. Those agencies were established by Congress.

[However, longer term, the President can COMBINE agencies. And then start reducing head count.]

BUT, on the other hand, since the Cabinet Secretaries of those departments report to the President, then until such time as Congress acts, then the President can appoint secretaries to his liking and then direct them in certain directions.

In addition, the President CAN balance the budget … by limiting spending. AND by exhorting the Congress to pass his tax percentage changes.

One of the proposed changes is a modest tax, 10% or 15%, on money that is held off-shore, … said to be $2 Trillion … and the tax revenues on that would help a lot.

AND, if that money is brought back to the USA, then it would be either reinvested here, creating new jobs, and / or paid to shareholders in dividends, which is taxed or both.

Both candidates have proposed infrastructure improvements.

However words to those effects were used in 2009 and we got NOTHING for 3/4 Trillion Dollars.

But there are other ways to improving infrastructure, without the Feds having to pick and choose, and go to Congress for debate and paying for it.

For example, you can encourage the establishment of independent airport authorities, seaport authorities, bridge authorities, highway authorities, water & waste authorities, that can issue tax exempt bonds. They have in the past moved 10 times faster than any of the government agencies at Federal or state levels.

Those independent authorities typically report to their own boards of directors, but the minutes by which projects are approved must be signed by the governor of the state or both governors where two states are involved. And they move very fast.

The president can also stop hiring new people at the Federal level. As people retire, the budget requirements drop fast. A LOT of people retire each year.
 
ProVobis said:
Day 3, he files for bankruptcy, defaulting on interest payments on the U.S. debt. Good luck, China and Japan!

PS Wouldn’t we be better off abolishing HHS and Dept of Education altogether? But what do I know, I’m just another stupid immigrant.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure defaulting on bond payments to other countries would have a longer term positive effect and may well crash the world economy.

I think the Fed is hesitating to raise interest rates on US Bonds due to the negative effect it would have on this administration. My guess is, if Mr. Trump is elected we will see 1 or even 2 rate hikes quickly. If Mrs. Clinton is elected we will continue with the low rates for a period longer.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Abolishing HHS and the Dept of Education would require an Act of Congress. Those agencies were established by Congress.

[However, longer term, the President can COMBINE agencies. And then start reducing head count.]

BUT, on the other hand, since the Cabinet Secretaries of those departments report to the President, then until such time as Congress acts, then the President can appoint secretaries to his liking and then direct them in certain directions.

In addition, the President CAN balance the budget … by limiting spending. AND by exhorting the Congress to pass his tax percentage changes.

One of the proposed changes is a modest tax, 10% or 15%, on money that is held off-shore, … said to be $2 Trillion … and the tax revenues on that would help a lot.

AND, if that money is brought back to the USA, then it would be either reinvested here, creating new jobs, and / or paid to shareholders in dividends, which is taxed or both.

Both candidates have proposed infrastructure improvements.

However words to those effects were used in 2009 and we got NOTHING for 3/4 Trillion Dollars.

But there are other ways to improving infrastructure, without the Feds having to pick and choose, and go to Congress for debate and paying for it.

For example, you can encourage the establishment of independent airport authorities, seaport authorities, bridge authorities, highway authorities, water & waste authorities, that can issue tax exempt bonds. They have in the past moved 10 times faster than any of the government agencies at Federal or state levels.

Those independent authorities typically report to their own boards of directors, but the minutes by which projects are approved must be signed by the governor of the state or both governors where two states are involved. And they move very fast.

The president can also stop hiring new people at the Federal level. As people retire, the budget requirements drop fast. A LOT of people retire each year.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. One way we see that Republicans aren’t serious about reducing any government is that they don’t even allow attrition to benefit the deficit.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Both candidates have proposed infrastructure improvements.

However words to those effects were used in 2009 and we got NOTHING for 3/4 Trillion Dollars.
Click to expand...
It failed because it did not increase the velocity of money, which is needed for long-term growth. A simple one-time construction project does not do this, though after the banking collapse of 2007-8, Congress and the President felt they needed to do something, ANYTHING. Bush and Obama both.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I’m not sure defaulting on bond payments to other countries would have a longer term positive effect and may well crash the world economy.

I think the Fed is hesitating to raise interest rates on US Bonds due to the negative effect it would have on this administration. My guess is, if Mr. Trump is elected we will see 1 or even 2 rate hikes quickly. If Mrs. Clinton is elected we will continue with the low rates for a period longer.
Click to expand...
Trump SAID verbally and in writing that USA tax rates are the highest in the world and he would reduce them to be competitive.

Clinton SAID she would increase tax rates.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Trump SAID verbally and in writing that USA tax rates are the highest in the world and he would reduce them to be competitive.

Clinton SAID she would increase tax rates.
Click to expand...
I was talking bond rates.

I think a Clinton presidency would be the veritable last straw, financially speaking. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road. Once they need to refinance the 20 trillion in bond’s at a higher rate, the house of cards starts to come down.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I was talking bond rates.

I think a Clinton presidency would be the veritable last straw, financially speaking. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road. Once they need to refinance the 20 trillion in bond’s at a higher rate, the house of cards starts to come down.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul says the Fed can easily cancel $4 Trillion of that debt, as it really isn’t being used for any spending. (These bond purchases were part of the QE programs put out by Bernanke.) Yet the taxpayer is still on the hook for interest payments.

The Fed has effectively lost its control to raise interest rates. If Yellen decides to sell off bonds, foreigners will purchase them happily for the better returns than they would get had they purchased their own government debt, thus reducing interest rates again. And this would not help savers, pensioners, and companies and other entities required to hold cash.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Trump SAID verbally and in writing that USA tax rates are the highest in the world and he would reduce them to be competitive.
Click to expand...
Until the foreigners reciprocate by reducing their rates.

I wouldn’t be surprised if negative interest rates, which is really another socialistic play, start spreading further. How else do you collect revenues?

Lots of moving pieces to this new globalism.
 
ProVobis said:
Ron Paul says the Fed can easily cancel $4 Trillion of that debt, as it really isn’t being used for any spending. (These bond purchases were part of the QE programs put out by Bernanke.) Yet the taxpayer is still on the hook for interest payments.

The Fed has effectively lost its control to raise interest rates. If Yellen decides to sell off bonds, foreigners will purchase them happily for the better returns than they would get had they purchased their own government debt, thus reducing interest rates again. And this would not help savers, pensioners, and companies and other entities required to hold cash.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I didn’t know that.

Even 16 trillion is $51,000 per resident (not taxpayer), refinancing that at 3% adds $1500 more per person, per year. Probably $4000 per tax payer per year. It just seems out of control with little fiscal soundness on the horizon.

Back to the original post, I think Darryl Catle would be most beneficial of the candidates.
 
Castle failed to obtain ballot access in Virginia, Tennessee, and Ohio:

amthirdpartyreport.com/tag/darrell-castle/

To me, this is telling for a number of reasons: (1) Other 3rd party candidates (other than Johnson & Stein) appear to have enough valid signatures in Virginia - since 1997 Virginia has not had any 3rd party candidates on the ballot, (2) Ohio had a non-Johnson 3rd party candidate accepted to the ballot, and (3) Castle failed to gain access in his home state of Tennessee where five 3rd party candidates were able to.

The Tennessee miss is the biggest part of the story IMO.
 
ProVobis said:
Until the foreigners reciprocate by reducing their rates.

I wouldn’t be surprised if negative interest rates, which is really another socialistic play, start spreading further. How else do you collect revenues?

Lots of moving pieces to this new globalism.
Click to expand...
Even pro-free-market countries need to collect tax revenues. So there is a reluctance to reduce tax rates too much.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Even pro-free-market countries need to collect tax revenues. So there is a reluctance to reduce tax rates too much.
Click to expand...
It’s usually of political benefit to run a campaign on reduction of taxes, no doubt. But you’re right, people have accepted that taxes be collected, as long as they don’t have to pay them. 🙂
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
I am not under the illusion that any 3rd party candidate can win this November. There is a 99.999999999% probability that the next President will be Trump or Clinton. In my opinion, the only reason to vote 3rd party is if the two majors are equally bad. Clinton is a criminal (can’t think of a softer term to describe her) which automatically eliminates her because I believe she likely can be blackmailed. Trump does not seem competent and is impulsive and it is obvious to me that he will not embrace conservative values once in office. I’m trying to decide if that is equally bad as Clinton. I’m not sure - thus I’m on the fence as to whether to vote for a principled candidate (I pretty much agree with the Constitution Party platform) or the least damaging candidate (which at this point I’m unsure who would be least damaging).

I’d be curious where you got your information regarding fundraising information. I don’t think it’s against forum rules.
Click to expand...
If Clinton is a criminal, then why hasn’t she been prosecuted and sent to prison? Perhaps it’s a vast Left-Wing conspiracy.
 
Little_Sheep said:
If Clinton is a criminal, then why hasn’t she been prosecuted and sent to prison? Perhaps it’s a vast Left-Wing conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Lack of conviction due to criminality doesn’t mean one is not a criminal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top