PDA

View Full Version : Darrell Castle, Says Heís More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson




Suzanimal
07-02-2016, 02:40 PM
He's definitely more libertarian than Johnson.



Darrell Castle, Says Heís More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

...

With the nomination of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, many Libertarians, myself included, are feeling disenfranchised. What is your pitch to those voters? Why should libertarians support you?

Libertarians should support me because I am more Libertarian than the two candidates of that Party. They are both CFR members, both open borders and both pro abortion. I am the opposite on those issues while holding Libertarian like views on many other issues.

Iíve heard you say that youíre in favor of a ďsecure border.Ē What exactly would your immigration policy entail? Is it the same or similar to Donald Trumpís and what is the constitutional basis for your policy?

I believe that securing the border, i.e. protecting it so that no one enters without consent and halting immigration completely until that is accomplished is one of the most important issues America faces. The halt to immigration would last until we could be sure who is coming in and with what intent.

Do you see yourself taking an interventionist approach or non-interventionist approach to foreign policy? How would a Castle administration handle our foreign conflicts?

I am a non-interventionist, mind your own business candidate. I would only involve us in foreign conflicts if the United States was directly threatened and in danger.

Whatís your view of the drug war? And what would be your approach to drugs, as President, from a constitutional standing?

I view the drug war as a total failure and would stop it immediately. The United States certainly has a right to determine what crosses its borders but in general drug policy should be on the state level. I personally favor decriminalization of drugs.

This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

No I really donít. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.

If you are elected president and could only accomplish 3 things, what would they be?

Secure the borders/Control immigration.

Withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, TPP, Nafta, Cafta, Gatt, WTO, etc.

End the Federal Reserve and return monetary policy to Congress where the Constitution places it.

Rapid Fire:

Who would you nominate for the supreme court?

Herb Titus. Heís a Harvard lawyer and Constitutional lawyer and an old friend.

How many states do you plan on having ballot access in?

I plan on 42 and we are working hard on it.

In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin and yourself when you were the VP candidate for The Constitution Party. Are you seeking Dr. Paulís endorsement now?

Yes I am seeking Dr. Paulís endorsement and would be honored by it.

And finally, is taxation theft?

Yes, especially when we are directly taxed by the federal government

http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/interview-with-darrell-castle-constitution-candidate/

Anti Federalist
07-02-2016, 02:50 PM
Yes, he is.

euphemia
07-02-2016, 03:15 PM
It's true. He absolutely is. He is the most principled candidate in the race.

Adding: Castle is the benchmark for libertarians. He is very consistent in his application of Constitutional principle.

afwjam
07-02-2016, 03:53 PM
Love me some castle

ChaosControl
07-02-2016, 06:43 PM
I dont agree fully with him on immigration but I do agree he is the best candidate and closest to my views.

euphemia
07-02-2016, 08:45 PM
Ballot access will be a problem in many states. Check the web site and help him in your state.

69360
07-02-2016, 08:47 PM
I'm sure he is a good guy, but he is going nowhere. Johnson/Weld poll double digits and are making progress for the LP towards being an actual viable 3rd party. I doubt the CP gets a fraction of a percent.

William Tell
07-02-2016, 09:05 PM
Darrell is 100% correct.

euphemia
07-02-2016, 09:08 PM
Johnson/Weld poll double digits and are making progress for the LP towards being an actual viable 3rd party.

Except they are nothing like actual libertarians.

qh4dotcom
07-02-2016, 09:21 PM
He's NOT the most libertarian...he's for government-controlled borders and all the grave violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle of enforcing government-controlled borders

Open borders is the only possible libertarian position on immigration

http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

euphemia
07-02-2016, 09:52 PM
We don't all agree about whether the Constitution calls for open borders.

Explain to me how Gary Johnson is a libertarian. He is for all kinds of government because he has no principles. He's trying to be the new media darling, even though he loves government as much as Clinton and Trump do. That's why the media like him.

Ronin Truth
07-03-2016, 07:06 AM
Darrell is 100% correct.

Quick take a photo, I've never seen one of those.

cajuncocoa
07-03-2016, 07:22 AM
The definition of "libertarian" is fluid. It doesn't mean anything anymore.

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 07:26 AM
The definition of "libertarian" is fluid. It doesn't mean anything anymore.

True and that's a problem.

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 07:33 AM
He's NOT the most libertarian...he's for government-controlled borders and all the grave violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle of enforcing government-controlled borders

Open borders is the only possible libertarian position on immigration

http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/
That's false. download this or google "John Hospers argument against open borders"
https://mises.org/library/libertarian-argument-against-opening-borders-0

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 07:38 AM
The definition of "libertarian" is fluid. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
Not after the libertarian party. Now it means social liberal fiscal coservative.

To be libertarian will always be minarchist or anarchist only, IMO.

There is a constitutional difference. Don't get me wrong I like the constitution and wish we abode by it but libertarians are typically more extreme than constitutionalists (not the Gary Johnson libertarian, but a real one)

constitutionalist - states rights
hardcore libertarian - states don't have rights, people do

Here's a good copy pasta

"Many of Ron Paul's supporters are constitutional conservatives but would be offended to be called libertarians. Constitutional conservatives believe that the Federal Government possesses only the small number of powers delegated to it in the constitution, and that all other governmental powers are invested in the state governments. So, constitutional conservatives are very libertarian at the federal level. However, many of the constitutional conservatives believe that the states have almost unlimited power to enact whatever laws they would like. You will often hear constitutional conservatives say that the state governments were intended to be 50 laboratories in which public policy experiments may be tried. Thus, I think most constitutional conservatives would say that the people of a particular state may choose to have any type of government they want: minarchist, totalitarian, theocracy or whatever they want. The idea being that people can then move to whichever state matches their ideal government best.A libertarian is someone who believes that the government has a few specific tasks to perform (deontological libertarians and consequentialist libertarians will have some disagreements about exactly what those tasks are), and that it should not be engaged in any activities outside those tasks. A libertarian would agree that the best form of state government is one limited to the small set of specific tasks that government needs to perform.
Therefore, I would say that whether one is a libertarian and whether one is a constitutional conservative are completely independent questions. It is possible to be both a libertarian and a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be very strictly limited to the constitution, and who thinks that the best form of state government is also libertarian, but who thinks that each state should get to decide for itself what sort of government it should have. It is possible to be a libertarian but not a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be strictly limited, but also that all the state governments should be strictly limited as well (in other words, states do not get to decide for themselves how libertarian they want to be). It is possible to be a constitutional conservative but not a libertarian: this would be somebody who is libertarian at a federal level, but thinks that each state should decide what form of government it would like to have and who does not think that the best form of state government is libertarian (e.g., they might want a pure democracy or a theocracy at a state level). And then, of course, it is possible to be neither a libertarian nor a constitutional conservative which is the majority of the population.
The majority of the non-college student Ron Paul supporters here in Iowa are of the constitutional conservative but not libertarian variety. The people at the top of his campaign here would absolutely love to institute a theocracy at the state level if they got the chance, but they are true-blue libertarians at a federal level. It makes for a very, very uneasy alliance.
tl;dr Constitutional conservatives are libertarian at a federal level but are for states deciding on their own form of government. Libertarians want government strictly limited at both state and federal levels."

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 07:39 AM
True and that's a problem.
What does conservative mean? What does liberal mean? When everybody has this problem it isnt really a problem :D haha

cajuncocoa
07-03-2016, 07:55 AM
Not after the libertarian party. Now it means social liberal fiscal coservative.

To be libertarian will always be minarchist or anarchist only, IMO.

There is a constitutional difference. Don't get me wrong I like the constitution and wish we abode by it but libertarians are typically more extreme than constitutionalists (not the Gary Johnson libertarian, but a real one)

constitutionalist - states rights
hardcore libertarian - states don't have rights, people do

Here's a good copy pasta

"Many of Ron Paul's supporters are constitutional conservatives but would be offended to be called libertarians. Constitutional conservatives believe that the Federal Government possesses only the small number of powers delegated to it in the constitution, and that all other governmental powers are invested in the state governments. So, constitutional conservatives are very libertarian at the federal level. However, many of the constitutional conservatives believe that the states have almost unlimited power to enact whatever laws they would like. You will often hear constitutional conservatives say that the state governments were intended to be 50 laboratories in which public policy experiments may be tried. Thus, I think most constitutional conservatives would say that the people of a particular state may choose to have any type of government they want: minarchist, totalitarian, theocracy or whatever they want. The idea being that people can then move to whichever state matches their ideal government best.A libertarian is someone who believes that the government has a few specific tasks to perform (deontological libertarians and consequentialist libertarians will have some disagreements about exactly what those tasks are), and that it should not be engaged in any activities outside those tasks. A libertarian would agree that the best form of state government is one limited to the small set of specific tasks that government needs to perform.
Therefore, I would say that whether one is a libertarian and whether one is a constitutional conservative are completely independent questions. It is possible to be both a libertarian and a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be very strictly limited to the constitution, and who thinks that the best form of state government is also libertarian, but who thinks that each state should get to decide for itself what sort of government it should have. It is possible to be a libertarian but not a constitutional conservative: this would be somebody who thinks the federal government should be strictly limited, but also that all the state governments should be strictly limited as well (in other words, states do not get to decide for themselves how libertarian they want to be). It is possible to be a constitutional conservative but not a libertarian: this would be somebody who is libertarian at a federal level, but thinks that each state should decide what form of government it would like to have and who does not think that the best form of state government is libertarian (e.g., they might want a pure democracy or a theocracy at a state level). And then, of course, it is possible to be neither a libertarian nor a constitutional conservative which is the majority of the population.
The majority of the non-college student Ron Paul supporters here in Iowa are of the constitutional conservative but not libertarian variety. The people at the top of his campaign here would absolutely love to institute a theocracy at the state level if they got the chance, but they are true-blue libertarians at a federal level. It makes for a very, very uneasy alliance.
tl;dr Constitutional conservatives are libertarian at a federal level but are for states deciding on their own form of government. Libertarians want government strictly limited at both state and federal levels."That's your definition. Or some definition you might find on the Internet. Ask someone else, or look somewhere else on the Internet and you get something completely different. It's like a Flavor of the Month now.

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 08:03 AM
That's your definition. Or some definition you might find on the Internet. Ask someone else, or look somewhere else on the Internet and you get something completely different. It's like a Flavor of the Month now.
I'll start calling myself a classic liberal

cajuncocoa
07-03-2016, 08:37 AM
I'll start calling myself a classic liberal
Most people will probably assume you're a Bernie supporter if you tell them that. They'll just hear "liberal." It's our principles that matter, not any of the the labels. Let supporters of Trump call him a libertarian, or William Weld, Beck, or Mary Matalin. They don't have what it takes to wear the label, but it doesn't matter, as long as we continue the fight for the principles of liberty.

RJ Liberty
07-03-2016, 08:54 AM
He's NOT the most libertarian...he's for government-controlled borders and all the grave violations of the libertarian non-aggression principle of enforcing government-controlled borders

Open borders is the only possible libertarian position on immigration

http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/


It's not just the open borders issue where Castle isn't libertarian. Check out his platform on pornography (https://www.constitutionparty.com/pornography-obscenity-and-sexually-oriented-businesses/):


Pornography, obscenity and sexually oriented businesses are a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. This results in emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.

Due to a lack of prosecution, the sexually oriented business industry has proliferated, aggravating the problems of child pornography, human trafficking and sexually transmitted diseases. This is decreasing our safety by increasing crime rates, specifically rape and molestation in additional to the loss of dignity belonging to all human beings.

We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity.

So no porn under a Castle administration?

Check out his platform on drugs (https://www.constitutionparty.com/drug-abuse/):



The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

Sounds very anti-drug.

Check out his platform on gambling (https://www.constitutionparty.com/gambling/):



Gambling increases crimes, destroys families, grows governmental bureaucracies, exploits those who are addicted and leaches the economic prosperity out of our communities.. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling such as lotteries, casinos or subsidization of Native American casinos. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

No gambling, either?

Check out his platform on Puerto Rico (https://www.constitutionparty.com/statehood/).

The CP is tripping over the Constitution in order to oppose statehood for Puerto Rico, which isn't even on the radar.

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 09:34 AM
It's not just the open borders issue where Castle isn't libertarian. Check out his platform on pornography (https://www.constitutionparty.com/pornography-obscenity-and-sexually-oriented-businesses/):



So no porn under a Castle administration?

Check out his platform on drugs (https://www.constitutionparty.com/drug-abuse/):



Sounds very anti-drug.

Check out his platform on gambling (https://www.constitutionparty.com/gambling/):



No gambling, either?

Check out his platform on Puerto Rico (https://www.constitutionparty.com/statehood/).

The CP is tripping over the Constitution in order to oppose statehood for Puerto Rico, which isn't even on the radar.

With the exception of his immigration plan (which I disagree with), those appear to be from the CP and not necessarily Castles positions. I'm not denying he could feel that way, it's just not on his website. Johnson, btw, holds some positions that are against the LP platform.

RJ Liberty
07-03-2016, 10:02 AM
With the exception of his immigration plan (which I disagree with), those appear to be from the CP and not necessarily Castles positions. I'm not denying he could feel that way, it's just not on his website. Johnson, btw, holds some positions that are against the LP platform.

Darrell Castle wrote this piece (http://castle2016.com/depopulation/). It's on his official campaign website. It talks about the homosexual depopulation agenda. It sounds to me like Mr Castle is a bible-thumper masquerading as a liberty advocate. His party would ban porn, gambling, and drugs, and he himself states on his official website that the homosexuals are part of a globalist conspiracy to depopulate the world.

There are folks here who support his message, but let's not pretend it's a libertarian message: it's a biblical, hellfire and brimstone message.

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 10:13 AM
Darrell Castle wrote this piece (http://castle2016.com/depopulation/). It's on his official campaign website. It talks about the homosexual depopulation agenda. It sounds to me like Mr Castle is a bible-thumper masquerading as a liberty advocate. His party would ban porn, gambling, and drugs, and he himself states on his official website that the homosexuals are part of a globalist conspiracy to depopulate the world.

There are folks here who support his message, but let's not pretend it's a libertarian message: it's a biblical, hellfire and brimstone message.

That's his opinion and that's fine as long as he doesn't try to legislate it. I have lots of opinions but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to force them on you. For reference sake, Gary Johnson wants to the GOVERNMENT to legalize gay marriage (I don't give a crap if gays want to get married but GOVERNMENT shouldn't be involved in marriage at all). GJ also wants to FORCE you to serve people you may not want to in your business. Also not libertarian. I'm not arguing that Castle is a libertarian but I think he's better than Johnson. Either way, I don't have a dog in this fight because my standard is Ron Paul. Ya have to be at least as good as him to get me off my ass to vote.

From the op.


This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 10:24 AM
That's his opinion and that's fine as long as he doesn't try to legislate it. I have lots of opinions but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to force them on you. For reference sake, Gary Johnson wants to the GOVERNMENT to legalize gay marriage (I don't give a crap if gays want to get married but GOVERNMENT shouldn't be involved in marriage at all). GJ also wants to FORCE you to serve people you may not want to in your business. Also not libertarian. I'm not arguing that Castle is a libertarian but I think he's better than Johnson. Either way, I don't have a dog in this fight because my standard is Ron Paul. Ya have to be at least as good as him to get me off my ass to vote.

From the op.
not a bad philosophy. one i may need to consider. i feel like i have to vote for local issues though

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 10:29 AM
not a bad philosophy. one i may need to consider. i feel like i have to vote for local issues though

I vote on local issues but I only support candidates that I feel comfortable endorsing - which happens to be none of the above this go round.

Jesse James
07-03-2016, 10:33 AM
I vote on local issues but I only support candidates that I feel comfortable endorsing - which happens to be none of the above this go round.
so are you going to write in ron paul?

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 10:35 AM
so are you going to write in ron paul?

I might. I was contemplating just writing in Fuck you or none of the above but Ron Paul's always a good pick.

RJ Liberty
07-03-2016, 10:39 AM
That's his opinion and that's fine as long as he doesn't try to legislate it. I have lots of opinions but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to force them on you.

It's on his official campaign website, Suz. It's the stuff he's writing to get people to vote for him. In the extremely unlikely chance that he were to be elected, one would expect that the things he writes on his official website are his official campaign positions.



For reference sake, Gary Johnson wants to the GOVERNMENT to legalize gay marriage (I don't give a crap if gays want to get married but GOVERNMENT shouldn't be involved in marriage at all).

Gary's position on Kim Davis was this: "This elected official has every right to her religious beliefs, and her right to hold those beliefs should be protected. BUT, using those beliefs to deny the hard-fought legal rights of others is just wrong. If she can't handle that, then it is time to simply quit --without all this drama." I agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but since it is, the Libertarian Party has had a four-decade-long campaign (https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-four-decade-advocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us) to recognize gay marriage. This has been a plank of the LP platform since the 1970s, and is the complete opposite of Darrell Castle's "homosexual agenda" stuff.

69360
07-03-2016, 10:39 AM
Except they are nothing like actual libertarians.


Meh, close enough. The purity tests and whining on a forum about a candidate who doesn't support [your pet issue here] has got us nowhere. They aren't criminals like Trump and Clinton.

Suzanimal
07-03-2016, 10:55 AM
It's on his official campaign website, Suz. It's the stuff he's writing to get people to vote for him. In the extremely unlikely chance that he were to be elected, one would expect that the things he writes on his official website are his official campaign positions.

In that article, he never said anything about government doing anything in particular about gays.


Gary's position on Kim Davis was this: "This elected official has every right to her religious beliefs, and her right to hold those beliefs should be protected. BUT, using those beliefs to deny the hard-fought legal rights of others is just wrong. If she can't handle that, then it is time to simply quit --without all this drama." I agree with you that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but since it is, the Libertarian Party has had a four-decade-long campaign (https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-four-decade-advocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us) to recognize gay marriage. This has been a plank of the LP platform since the 1970s, and is the complete opposite of Darrell Castle's "homosexual agenda" stuff.



1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
https://www.lp.org/platform


I dunno why I add this video, you were talking about gay marriage. Derp. O_o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg

euphemia
07-03-2016, 12:35 PM
I don't think he has changed his position in drug access. What he opposes are federal drug laws that put people in jail forever when their only victim was themselves. He thinks states should have the right to make their own laws regarding drugs.

65fastback2+2
07-05-2016, 01:39 PM
Check out his platform on drugs (https://www.constitutionparty.com/drug-abuse/):



Sounds very anti-drug.


Check out your ability to not read.

He explicitly says in his interview


Whatís your view of the drug war? And what would be your approach to drugs, as President, from a constitutional standing?

I view the drug war as a total failure and would stop it immediately. The United States certainly has a right to determine what crosses its borders but in general drug policy should be on the state level. I personally favor decriminalization of drugs.

Zap!
07-10-2016, 03:17 PM
I love him. His views on social issues and immigration are one of the top reasons why I prefer the Constitution Party any day over the Libertarian Party.

Origanalist
07-10-2016, 03:51 PM
I love him. His views on social issues and immigration are one of the top reasons why I prefer the Constitution Party any day over the Libertarian Party.

I think he's as good as you're going to get as a presidential candidate excluding RP. However, as another member is wont to say we are going to get stuck with the one the general public deserves.

bunklocoempire
07-11-2016, 02:14 AM
Yes I am seeking Dr. Paulís endorsement and would be honored by it.

I think I'm probably gonna end up validating part of the system -again. 4 NOBP

Remember all that Bob drama? "Lowering the Barr", I think they used to call it.

Blasts from the past-


2008 Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader: We Agree (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/)

The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.


Ron Paul Announcement (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-09/ron-paul-announcement/)
Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/)
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader: A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance? (http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-20/ron-paul-and-ralph-nader-a-libertarian-progressive-alliance/)
2012 Chuck Baldwin Endorses Ron Paul for President (http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-01-03/chuck-baldwin-endorses-ron-paul-for-president/)