Dan Phillips: If It’s Really About Conservative Purity Then Endorse Darrell Castle or Shut Up

darrellcastle (1)

Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate

Dan Phillips, also known as Red Phillips, is an IPR contributor. He originally published the following article at EconomicPopulist.org on August 15th, 2016:

Anti-Trump “conservatives” act as if they are the only group of people who have ever faced having a nominee of their party that they don’t like and don’t believe represents their party well, but I’ve got news for them. They aren’t. A lot of conservatives weren’t satisfied with Romney, McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, etc. Guess what, Bernie supporters aren’t happy with Hillary and many leftists before weren’t happy with Kerry, etc. either, but the level of vitriol and the pathological inability to let it go and move on among the NeverTrumpers is unprecedented. (I’ll only use the quotes around conservative once for the sake of ease and appearance, but I do not concede that every group calling itself conservative actually is when that term is properly understood and applied.)

I find a few things about the anti-Trump hysteria among some conservative regulars very revealing. First, how many of these conservatives also refused in the name of conservative purity to back the squishy moderates Romney and McCain after they won the Republican nomination? Very few I suspect. Props to those who did. Heck, many NeverTrumpers laughably view Romney as the potential savior of conservatism and the Republican Party. I could stop this essay at that little factoid and would have sufficiently demonstrated the intellectual unseriousness of NeverTrump, but I’ll proceed anyway. Skewering NeverTrump is too much fun. The opposition to Trump among NeverTrumpers is not motivated by degree, so to speak, of conservatism, but by kind of conservatism. Trump represents another possible manifestation of the conservative impulse, and that is why they fear him.

Also, how many of these oh so pure conservatives, especially the ones who call themselves constitutional conservatives, supported a genuine constitutionalist, Ron Paul, in 2008 and 2012? Ron Paul is philosophically a libertarian which is potentially problematic from an authentic conservative standpoint, but the political manifestation of his libertarianism was strict constitutionalism which is entirely conservative in effect, and Paul had long been a product of the American right-wing scene. But many of the same people who are hysterical about Trump because he breaks the movement conservative mold, were equally hysterical about Ron Paul for the same reason, although Paul broke the mold in a different way.

But the most telling indication of the real nature of NeverTrump in my opinion, is its steadfast refusal to do the most logical and sensible thing if it really believes that the problem with Trump is that he is not conservative enough, endorse the nominee of the most prominent “more” conservative party with a national presence, the Constitution Party (CP). This is what people who are unwilling to accept the nominee of their chosen party do when they feel their nominee is not pure enough, they vote for the candidate of the ideological third party that is closest to them or an independent if available. So if a Bernie supporter can’t support Hillary because he doesn’t think she is liberal enough, he might vote for the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, because the Green Party is the most prominent national “more” liberal by degree party. In past elections he might have voted for Ralph Nader, for example.

Likewise, if you are a conservative truly interested in the purity of conservatism, and you believe that Trump falls short of your threshold for what you can support, then why not do the logical thing and support the Constitution Party nominee, Darrell Castle? But shockingly few NeverTrumpers have seen fit to do so. Why?

One reason is the snob factor. Some anti-Trumpism is motivated by what I have called sophistication signaling. Trump can be bombastic and crass at times and is supported by a lot of people that the sophisticated set thinks are yokels, so their anti-Trumpism is in part a way to signal that they are oh so serious and would never sully their hands by supporting an uncouth “demagogue” like Trump, although I suspect that separating themselves from all his yahoo supporters, rather than Trump’s demeanor, is really what motivates them.

Likewise, I suspect that snobbery is one thing that keeps certain NeverTrumpers from considering the CP nominee. Darrell Castle is a lawyer and a long time CP activist, and by all accounts a decent fellow, but he is not a “serious” candidate and his party is still pretty obscure and “fringy,” and I say this as someone who is sympathetic to the CP, despite clearly being the most prominent “more” conservative party at the national level. This is likely why some NeverTrumpers are considering the Libertarian Party (LP) ticket of Johnson and Weld, even though neither of those men come anywhere close to passing a conservative purity test. But both are former governors and serious and respectable and not fringy and thus won’t taint the sophistication credentials of NeverTrumpers who endorse them.

But more than sophistication signaling, what motivates NeverTrumpers refusal to endorse Castle is the issues differences they have with the CP. The CP is an unambiguously constitutionalist party and, broadly speaking, a “more” conservative by degree party, but it is also a paleoconservative party, meaning it is restrictionist on immigration, opposed to globalist trade deals and non-interventionist on foreign policy.

NeverTrump may pretend their resistance is about conservative purity, but what it is really about is keeping conservatism as ideological cover for globalism – relatively open borders, free trade and foreign policy interventionism. Anyone familiar with this dynamic and the nature of the CP understood why the NeverTrumpers weren’t rushing to do the easy and sensible thing and endorse Darrell Castle, but some have done us the favor of making it clear. A good little globalist can’t tolerate any of that “retrograde mercantilism” or “foreign policy isolationism” no matter how solid the party or the candidate might be on such trivial matters as the Second Amendment and saving babies. So instead we get punchline but globalism safe candidates like David French and Evan McMullinwho have to start from scratch, rather than NeverTrump being smart and utilizing the existing infrastructure, such as it is, of an already established national conservative party.

It says all you need to know about NeverTrump that so many who are supposedly standing up for the integrity of true conservatism are willing to consider LP nominee Gary Johnson who is pro-choice and whose immigration policies would turn the country permanently Blue faster than it is already on track to, or globalism safe independent no-hopers like French and McMullin rather than the undeniably more conservative Darrell Castle. If you are a NeverTrumper and you’re not supporting Darrell Castle, please spare me your lectures on conservative purity. Your alleged conservatism is nothing more than an ideological apologia for the status quo globalism that just so happens to enrich the donor class fat cats who fund your movement and the Republican Party but leaves the Middle Americans who actually vote for Republicans cycle after cycle in the lurch. The globalist forces that you are giving ideological cover to are responsible for the decline of the country you are supposed to be trying to conserve. You know, that country Trump wants to Make Great Again. So if you are a NeverTrumper and say you are concerned about conservative purity, either endorse Darrell Castle or shut the hell up. Failure to endorse Castle will make the real nature of your continual petulant whining about Trump crystal clear.

This article was also published at Intellectual Conservative.

41 thoughts on “Dan Phillips: If It’s Really About Conservative Purity Then Endorse Darrell Castle or Shut Up

  1. Ren

    THANK YOU!! I’m not alone! I see it to!! I am supporting Darrell Castle and you’re assessment of the #NeverTrump is 100% SPOT ON. Just over the last 24 hours I’ve felt the need to call #NeverTrump out and require they stop with who they aren’t voting for and start declaring who they are voting for.

  2. Tony From Long Island

    If “conservatism” means using the bible as the basis of policy . . . then I guess Castle is for you. Isn’t that sorta the same as the dreaded “sharia law” panic?

  3. From Der Sidelines

    Theocracy is not conservative because it is not limited government. It is in fact big goverment and just as theocratic as the statist left, with the only difference being their deity is Jehovah coupled to the state instead of Gaia coupled to the state.

  4. Just Some Random Guy

    From what I can tell, while the Constitution Party in general is rather theocratic, Darrell Castle himself leans less so in that direction. Again, I could be incorrect about all this, but he (personally) doesn’t seem particularly more theocratic than Ted Cruz was, and Ted Cruz was basically Never Trump’s darling until he dropped out.

  5. Cody Quirk

    Nvg, that is because Darrell Castle isn’t stupid enough to take the Riley Hood approach; even though they share the same ideology.

  6. Deran

    Aren’t the Never Trump Republicans, like McCullin and Kristol what might be termed “neconservatives” – imperialist, interventionists? As compared to the anti-interventionist/isolationist “paleoconservatives”? These two tendencies on the US Right, remind me democratic socialists and Leninist socialists – these are both tendencies in the US Left, but they are not compatible, as in forming a unied front/coalition. I see the McCullin/Castle campaigns similarly dis-similar?

    I think the anti-Trump neoconservatives have totally failed. I think if Trump’s campaign weren’t collapsing the Never Trump movement would have a lot more steam.

  7. RedPhillips

    I have generally used the term movement conservative in this context as opposed to neoconservative because it has less baggage and is perhaps broader. It avoids having the conversation descend into a debate about the meaning of neoconservative. I’ll use neoconservative in cases where it is unambiguously appropriate and helps me crystallize my argument.

  8. RedPhillips

    As for conservatism and Christianity, contra From Der Sidelines, conservatism is not an ideological commitment to “limited” government per se. It is a desire to conserve as the word implies. Hence, in America conservatives support limited government because they support the original American vision of government which is limited, especially compared to what we actually have today. But, if in the past America was more overtly Christian (in a particularistic rather than a theocratic sense), as it undeniably was, then a full orbed conservative is going to resist the transformation of his society into one that is either ambivalent toward or hostile to this particularistic distinction.

    For a conservative (in the theological sense) Christian, to what degree the Bible, which they believe to be the Word of God, should serve as the basis of law is a theological question first and a sociopolitical question second, or at least it should be, just as what is a sin is a theological/Biblical question first, not first an issue of what modern society has to say about it.

  9. langa

    …Darrell Castle isn’t stupid enough to take the Riley Hood approach; even though they share the same ideology.

    This theory, which Quirk repeats ad nauseam, reminds me of the theory, which Rand Paul supporters repeated ad nauseam, that Rand was every bit as libertarian as his father, but was just trying to trick mainstream Republicans into voting for him, and then, once elected, he would “come out of the closet” and show his true libertarian colors. Of course, there is absolutely zero evidence to support either theory.

  10. Tony From Long Island

    The constitution was created because prior to it, government was TOO limited. The purposely vague words used in places in the constitution do not imply a limited government to me. It allows government to do what it needs to do to “protect the general welfare” of the people. Many people may disagree just what should be done to accomplish that, but the constitution, in and of itself, does not imply an incredibly limited government.

    The second paragraph (if you can call one sentence a paragraph) of Mr. Phillips’s post is a frustrating run-on sentence. It could use a bit of editing.

  11. Tony From Long Island

    The Constitution was created because what it was replacing was TOO limited. The purposely vague words used in the Constitution do not, in and of, themselves, imply a limited government. The purpose of it was to “promote the general welfare” of the citizens. There can be many disagreements as to what means should be taken to reach that goal, but saying that the Constitution is inherently a limited government document is false, especially since all of the “big government” programs in use today have been deemed Constitutional when challenged.

    As for the second paragraph (if you can call one sentence a paragraph), in Mr. Phillips’s post, it is an incomprehensible run-on sentence. Whether or not the founders were Christians has nothing to do with whether public policy should be influenced even slightly by religion.

  12. RedPhillips

    The Constitution severely limits the role of the Fed Gov if you subscribed to the idea of enumerated powers, which I do. This does seem to be the clearly stated intent of the majority of the Framers, but it fairly quickly broke down. The problem with the Constitution is not the intent, but that it is not self-enforcing. The fact that big government programs are today deemed constitutional is because they are not evaluated from an originalist perspective. Just because the courts rule something to be constitutional doesn’t mean it is by the standard of original intent. That said, this does illustrate a problem with the document, and I am firmly in the camp that believes we should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

  13. RedPhillips

    As for the Christian and law issue, if you needed clarification you could have just asked. There was no need to take a shot at me.

    “Whether or not the founders were Christians has nothing to do with whether public policy should be influenced even slightly by religion.”

    Well, if one is a conservative, someone who seeks to conserve something, then the nature of the Republic at its origins is, in fact, relevant since conservatives by definition resist change (or seek restoration). It would be hard to be a conservative Englishman but hostile to the Church of England, for example. I guess you could be a Catholic Englishman and want to see a Catholic monarch restored, but I think you get my point.

  14. Tony From Long Island

    You are correct that my shot was unnecessary. My apologies.

    Don’t you see that people who resist change lose every time? Change is a natural social occurrence

    Furthermore, conservatives over-hype the religiosity of the founders. Very few wore it on their sleeve. Church attendance was a social norm then, which it isn’t now (thankfully in my opinion). To speak against religion was political suicide. Jefferson caught a lot of flak for not being religious ENOUGH.

    Whatever religious influence there was in the founding documents was because of social norms at the time, not because they felt government should be influenced by religion. “In god we trust” was not originally on our money. It was added later by misguided legislators. The words “under god” were not in the original pledge of allegiance. It was added to combat the “godless” communists. Religion has no place in government.

  15. langa

    This may be a first, as I agree with Tony. The Constitution doesn’t limit government, which is (one reason) why I don’t have much use for the Constitution. See here: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf

    Or, for an entire book on the subject, see Sheldon Richman: https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Counter-Revolution-Constitution-Sheldon-Richman/dp/0692687912/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1463586491&ref_=tmm_pap_swatch_0&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=thomacom-20&linkId=5660c1041b11ec6c4e714ceebd95d0aa

  16. langa

    I should note that I also agree with Red, in that I wish we had stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

  17. Luchorpan

    Tony,

    Castle is religious, but he’s not seeking to make the US into a theocracy as is said here. Castle is just an example of a true Christian, as distinguished from a “cultural Christian” who lacks faith. He would be bound, limited by the Constitution as would any candidate.

    When people complain Castle would be a “theocrat”, I think what they mean is he would be pro-life and in favour of traditional marriage. Castle would simply return to the US to positions it held in the previous century. In truth, he would not give us a Christian version of Sharia, so this is all rather melodramatic.

    Under Sharia, a gay man might be put to death. Castle wishes for no such discrimination.

    All change isn’t necessarily “good”. GK Chesterton quote: “My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”

    Religion, tradition, and sources of authority (like the Constitution) provide values where we otherwise have moral relativity. We’ve seen Christian civilisation end cannibalism and slavery throughout the world, though of course it supported slavery for a time. Christianity furthermore gave us limited, as opposed to total, war. Total war means “anything goes”; we saw terrible attacks on civilians, terrible WMD, during the Civil War, WWI, WWII.

    You’re welcome to offer up examples where a religion has led to suffering, but we also have plenty of suffering under secular ideologies, which seem to fill the void of religion. Communism is the easiest example: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the list is quite lengthy. We also have the bloody French Revolution, which attempted to worship Reason.

  18. Cody Quirk

    “Of course, there is absolutely zero evidence to support either theory.”

    Darrell Castle sure doesn’t raise a single objection or have problems with theocratic zealots like Riley Hood promoting his candidacy in their vile manner, nor does he object to or publically disagree with his party’s platform; in fact he, among other CP delegates, voted to approve it at their last national convention in Salt Lake City -therefore my point about his approach holds a good amount of water.

    Langa’s laughable comparison to Rand Paul, which attempts to make an apple sound like it’s an orange -only shows the vain desperation in trying to prop up a candidate that would turn America into the next Salem Colony -as actually more libertarian in Gary Johnson!

    I bet if langa was a member of one of the mainstream, moderate German parties back in the early 1930’s and despised the candidate of such a particular party -langa would then be trying to prop up Adolph Hitler as the more moderate and better democratic alternative to such a candidate.

  19. Cody Quirk

    “When people complain Castle would be a “theocrat”, I think what they mean is he would be pro-life and in favour of traditional marriage. Castle would simply return to the US to positions it held in the previous century. In truth, he would not give us a Christian version of Sharia, so this is all rather melodramatic.
    Under Sharia, a gay man might be put to death. Castle wishes for no such discrimination.”

    Nope.

    People like Riley Hood, Michael Peroutka, and other Christian Reconstructionists (theocrats) will be riding the coattails of a Darrell Castle presidency and once in a influencial position under Castle -they would quickly push the envelope and go well beyond simply doing away with same-sex marriage or all abortion laws; expect to see the whole CP platform and more forced upon the general public.

    These people will limit government ONLY for those Americans that share their religious & political views. Yet those of the LGBT lifestyle will have their rights taken away, and while maybe not as extreme as under Sharia law; alternative lifestyles will still get recriminalized, along with the SCOTUS decision of Lawrence v. Texas thrown out -so expect certain sex acts between even heterosexual partners to get recriminalized as well.

    Porn especially will be criminalized and outlawed, along with certain forms of ‘un-Christian’ behavior; after all, the most partisan CP’ers certainly want to see people adhere to “good moral character”, and will make sure that such desires will involve the government enforcing it.

    A Castle presidency would certainly lead America into an authoritarian state -only it would do so from the opposite extreme.

  20. langa

    When people complain Castle would be a “theocrat”, I think what they mean is he would be pro-life and in favour of traditional marriage.

    It’s not even that. It’s just sour grapes from people like Quirk, who have some ax to grind with the CP, and go around spewing venom in the direction of anyone or anything CP-related. Quite pathetic, really.

  21. langa

    Darrell Castle sure doesn’t raise a single objection or have problems with theocratic zealots like Riley Hood promoting his candidacy in their vile manner…

    Why would he waste time talking about the fringe members of his party? Does Hillary spend her time talking about the endorsement she got from the Communist Party?

  22. langa

    …nor does he object to or publically disagree with his party’s platform…

    That’s because he agreed to represent the party, and that’s what he’s doing, unlike Johnson, who agreed to represent the LP, but then takes every possible opportunity to publicly proclaim his disagreements with our platform. In short, Castle, a man of integrity, keeps his word, while Johnson, a pure opportunist, does not.

  23. langa

    I bet if langa was a member of one of the mainstream, moderate German parties back in the early 1930’s and despised the candidate of such a particular party -langa would then be trying to prop up Adolph Hitler as the more moderate and better democratic alternative to such a candidate.

    This is a perfect example of the vendetta I mentioned earlier. Quirk’s desperate hatred for the CP has gotten so bad that he actually compares supporting Castle to supporting Hitler. As I said, quite pathetic.

  24. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Cody Quirk

    People like Riley Hood, Michael Peroutka, and other Christian Reconstructionists (theocrats) will be riding the coattails of a Darrell Castle presidency and once in a influencial position under Castle -they would quickly push the envelope and go well beyond simply doing away with same-sex marriage or all abortion laws; expect to see the whole CP platform and more forced upon the general public.

    Please tell us how a Darrell Castle presidency would be able to accomplish such things as “doing away with same-sex marriage or all abortion laws” considering Roe v. Wade and Oberfell v. Hodges.

  25. Luchorpan

    Cody Quirk,

    Excess can be found in multiple directions. I like aspects of some of the “left wing” candidates here, but I also know they tend to want laws against “hate speech”, which can never be properly defined. So, a law limiting speech can potentially be a law against political opponents and against thoughtcrimes.

    We know the CP not only tends to return power to the states, but it also fears the Patriot Act, wishes to restore the Fourth Amendment.

    Were sodomy banned in some states again, how would it even be enforced? Was it ever enforced? Were marriage defined again as between a man and woman, how would it even be significant?

    You’ll readily agree that “gay rights” has at times gone too far. We’ve seen young children receive hormone treatment, because they believe themselves to have been born into the wrong gender. Yet, children are too young to rightly choose hormone treatment. Later, when it’s too late, these same children might change their minds.

    The ideal is to find a balance and to be aware of all potential excesses, not only excess in the Christian Right. We have a real problem with our democracy when more “neutral” candidates are supported for their lack of content, or because they’ve never publicly stood for anything unpopular.

    In the US, we’re developing a sort of oligarchy. Populists, most third party advocates, agree on a wide variety of issues. But we can never unite because of race, religion, other perceived identity differences. Americans need to be more open-minded.

    Personally, I do not believe Castle wishes for the theocracy you fear. I believe him to be a more freedom-oriented candidate. I believe you are in the wrong to fear his potential excesses.

  26. Tony From Long Island

    Luchorpan ” . . . . . Under Sharia, a gay man might be put to death. Castle wishes for no such discrimination. . . . .”

    Yeah, traditional Christian beliefs (i.e. Biblical) have no such ridiculous deaths in their background . . .

  27. Luchorpan

    Tony,

    no where in the world today do Christians put gays to death, for the crime of being gay. We have never seen such in the US, and we’ve never seen anyone under the CP support such either.

    This isn’t Saudi Arabia, and the difference is substantial.

    We have real issues in the US, actual problems to focus on.

    TPP, TTIP, & TISA
    The Patriot Act / NSA
    Neverending foreign conflicts
    Generally belligerent and wasteful foreign policy

    These are major issues that most everyone at this website agrees on. We are divided and conquered. Even Hillary pretends to be Christian. I dunno why you’d fear Castle and not her.

    The US is diverse. We all need to accept candidates who are not exactly like us, otherwise the oligarchs win. If a Christian is the best candidate for president in a given year, you ought to consider voting for him.

  28. RedPhillips

    “People like Riley Hood, Michael Peroutka, and other Christian Reconstructionists (theocrats) will be riding the coattails of a Darrell Castle presidency and once in a influential position under Castle -they would quickly push the envelope…”

    Cody, this is just silly. There isn’t going to be a Castle presidency because he’s not going to win, so there is no need to worry about that. Voting third party is not about actually electing someone. It’s about sending a message with your vote.

  29. Cody Quirk

    “This is a perfect example of the vendetta I mentioned earlier. Quirk’s desperate hatred for the CP has gotten so bad that he actually compares supporting Castle to supporting Hitler. As I said, quite pathetic.”

    I’m a ex-CP’er, I’ve spent time with these people, I know how they think, and while not all of them are bad- plenty of those that are on the Executive Committee of their national party and/or serve as state officers in many of the eastern state affiliates are as extreme as Peroutka, Hood, and even Don Grundmann -except that they know how to keep their mouths shut and take a subtle approach about it, and yet their true natures are guaranteed to come out once they achieve enough power to get away with it.

    Langa, you are either a plant in the LP, or a spineless sell-out; what is truly pathetic is your eagerness to throw the LP and libertarianism under the bus for authoritarianism- especially the kind that wraps itself in an American flag, carries a cross, and wears the actual U.S. Constitution on it’s sleeve.

  30. Cody Quirk

    “Why would he waste time talking about the fringe members of his party? Does Hillary spend her time talking about the endorsement she got from the Communist Party?”

    Of course, for someone that wants to dress up his views and his party, his ignoring it is the best route for him to go if he doesn’t want to draw any attention to it at all. BTW, last I checked, the communist party is still a separate entity while Riley Hood and the county committee that he is the chair of is still a official part of the Constitution Party.

  31. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . Even Hillary pretends to be Christian. I dunno why you’d fear Castle and not her. . . . ”

    Pretends? So you know what her religion really is? How would you be so presumptuous? She has stated her beliefs dozens of times over the years, but unlike conservatives, doesn’t wear it on her sleeve and try to convert everyone or base her policy (what she thinks would be best for EVERYONE) based on her personal religious beliefs. I could care less what her religion is. I would have more trust in an atheist to make sound decisions because they wouldn’t have to weigh what some ancient book and myths tell her what she should do.

    Wait . . . what would Zeus do? Silly, right?

    ” . . . . . If a Christian is the best candidate for president in a given year, you ought to consider voting for him. . . . ”

    The religion is irrelevant. It’s how that religion compromises sound decisions that matters to me.

  32. Cody Quirk

    “That’s because he agreed to represent the party, and that’s what he’s doing,”

    Yet did he not cast a vote in favor of the CP’s national platform and even helped add the current minor edits to it at the SLC convention? As he links parts of the platform on his campaign webpage and has NEVER raised any objections to it, it is obvious that he supports and is in agreement with the platform, therefore disqualifying him as a “libertarian” candidate… Unless you are also counting Donald Trump as a ‘libertarian” candidate too?

    The fact that Castle tries to avoid talking about the controversial aspects of his party’s platform, along with denouncing racism while yet accepting & featuring the endorsement of a radio show host with white supremacist and anti-semitic ties (Sam Bushman) only shows that he has no integrity. Which further shows your support of him is politically simpleton.

  33. Cody Quirk

    “Cody, this is just silly. There isn’t going to be a Castle presidency because he’s not going to win, so there is no need to worry about that.”

    I can agree with you on his chances of winning the white house, however I am speaking hypothetically of an unlikely ‘what-if’ scenario if he did win-.

    “Voting third party is not about actually electing someone. It’s about sending a message with your vote.”

    And hopefully this message will stop the major party candidates from winning an electoral majority this November.

  34. langa

    Langa, you are either a plant in the LP, or a spineless sell-out; what is truly pathetic is your eagerness to throw the LP and libertarianism under the bus for authoritarianism- especially the kind that wraps itself in an American flag, carries a cross, and wears the actual U.S. Constitution on it’s sleeve.

    I could continue to reply to your bizarre claims, but what’s the point? Explaining libertarianism to you is like trying to explain the rules of grammar to a person that doesn’t even speak the language in question.

  35. Cody Quirk

    “Explaining libertarianism to you is like trying to explain the rules of grammar to a person that doesn’t even speak the language in question.”

    Langa, you are NO libertarian, period.

    You are like a hippopotamus trying to blend in as a flamingo and bleat at other flamingos that their feathers are the wrong shade of pink and need to support a hippopotamus for the election of King of the Flamingos -because that hippo is wearing the “right” shade of pink; unlike the more viable candidate- which is an actual flamingo.

    Darrell is a Paleoconservative with Christian Reconstructionist leanings and NOT a Libertarian, nor even (l)ibertarian enough to best Gary Johnson, especially since he is in agreement with, and SUPPORTS that joke that is the CP platform, for one.

    BTW, Darrell will officially not be on the ballot in Montana and Alabama- the deadlines just passed.

  36. langa

    Langa, you are NO libertarian, period.

    You wouldn’t know a libertarian from a librarian.

    Even someone like RC (his “words have no meanings” gibberish notwithstanding) clearly understands what libertarianism is about, even though he pretends not to. You, on the other hand, are completely clueless.

  37. Cody Quirk

    You obviously don’t know a libertarian from an authoritarian, and eagerly mix the two; hence your delusional, and clueless support of such.

    You minus well support Evan McMullin -whom, like Castle, has the same exact chance of getting 270 electoral votes, or a mere electoral vote, as the other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *