# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Thomas Massie Forum >  Foreign Policy

## phesoge

SO, I was browsing http://www.thomasmassie.com/, and I did not see anything under the platform section regarding foreign policy. Seeing as Thomas is a member here, I am assuming Thomas is a proponent of a much more restrained foreign policy. Does the campaign plan on addressing this issue? 

Hope the initial kick off of the campaign is going well.

----------


## Jeremy

In the various interviews he's been in so far, he says he's against nation building and foreign aid.

----------


## bluesc

> In the various interviews he's been in so far, he says he's against nation building and foreign aid.


Does he have a position on Iran? Intervention? I notice on the post in the thread in which the entire mod team of RPF is getting behind Massie, foreign policy wasn't mentioned.




> Thomas Massie is an active member of the forums. He has donated to Ron and Rand, and worked hard to get Rand elected in 2010. He was also elected to a County Judge Executive in 2010. In the first nine months of his administration, he eliminated enough wasteful government spending to pay his first three years salary as Judge Executive.
> 
> He is now running for Congress in an open primary. The district is heavily Republican, meaning a victory in the primary all but ensures victory in November.
> 
> *Massie is great on fiscal policy. And like Ron, he understands the importance of protecting the Constitution and our civil liberties*

----------


## Jeremy

He's good on fp too.  By the way it's not like the mods and admins all sat down at a table and discussed why he might be a good candidate.  We just all know him and have talked to him over the years.

----------


## bluesc

> He's good on fp too.


Yeah, the team here keep saying he's good on things, but never expand. We always complain that the presidential candidates are never vetted, yet we have a candidate being promoted here, and no one knows anything about his foreign policy. Are people here going to elect someone that will vote for military action against Iran?

All we know is that he doesn't like Ron's foreign policy.

----------


## Jeremy

> Yeah, the team here keep saying he's good on things, but never expand. We always complain that the presidential candidates are never vetted, yet we have a candidate being promoted here, and no one knows anything about his foreign policy. Are people here going to elect someone that will vote for military action against Iran?
> 
> All we know is that he doesn't like Ron's foreign policy.


 I don't think it's true that he "doesn't like" Ron's fp.  He was just trying to say he doesn't agree with it 100%.  They didn't ask him on what in that interview.  Anyway, the race barely even started.  Most people in his district haven't even heard of the 3 candidates yet.  So wait for some more questions and answers if you still aren't sure yet.

----------


## Slutter McGee

God, not this $#@! again. Support the man damnit.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## bluesc

> God, not this $#@! again. Support the man damnit.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


There are concerns and questions, naturally. If there's one thing that the liberty movement won't accept, it's candidates being forced down their throats, which you are attempting. When people get to know his positions, I'm sure they will be happy to support him.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> There are concerns and questions, naturally. If there's one thing that the liberty movement won't accept, it's candidates being forced down their throats, which you are attempting. When people get to know his positions, I'm sure they will be happy to support him.


Yep, I am trying to force him down your throat. I have so much power here, I demand you support him. And since you can't exercise free will, it will work. Seriously, how bout you $#@!ing wait until he actually says something on the subject before negatively contributing to these bull$#@! threads. Perhaps he is trying to win a goddamn election by focusing on the issues HIS electorate cares about. 

If you don't want to support him fine. That's your choice. But why don't you give it more than a $#@!ing week before you start with the Rand Paul treatment all over again ad nauseam. 

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## bluesc

> Yep, I am trying to force him down your throat. I have so much power here, I demand you support him. And since you can't exercise free will, it will work. Seriously, how bout you $#@!ing wait until he actually says something on the subject before negatively contributing to these bull$#@! threads. Perhaps he is trying to win a goddamn election by focusing on the issues HIS electorate cares about. 
> 
> If you don't want to support him fine. That's your choice. But why don't you give it more than a $#@!ing week before you start with the Rand Paul treatment all over again ad nauseam. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


Yeah, you're overreacting. People ask questions about candidates who are seeking their support. That's just part of the game. I didn't bash him at all.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Yeah, you're overreacting. People ask questions about candidates who are seeking their support. That's just part of the game. I didn't bash him at all.





> All we know is that he doesn't like Ron's foreign policy.


This is bull$#@!, a misquote, and incorrect. It very likely could turn people off, despite the fact that it isn't true. What he has said, is that he agrees more with Rand than Ron. We all know how similar their policies are. We also know that they present their policies different. Have we not $#@!ing learned anything?

Thank you,

Slutter McGee

----------


## bluesc

> This is bull$#@!, a misquote, and incorrect. It very likely could turn people off, despite the fact that it isn't true. What he has said, is that he agrees more with Rand than Ron. We all know how similar their policies are. We also know that they present their policies different. Have we not $#@!ing learned anything?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Slutter McGee


You assume I don't like Rand. 

Try answering the questions instead of saying "Support the man dammit". If someone asks you a question about a candidate and you just tell them to shut up and support said candidate, that could turn people off too.

Just to be clear what my concerns were about**: "I don't necessarily agree with his defense policies"

Thank YOU,

Bluesc

----------


## phesoge

Obviously Thomas is going to want to discuss the issues that meatter to his electorate, but he will be at the national level now and foreign policy is going to play a role. Also, for a lot of people on this forum foriegn policy is a leading issue. I don't think it is unreasonable for some of us to want some clarification on his foreign plicy before we start donating our time and money. In the interview posted on his website he says about Ron: "I don't necesarrily agree with his defense policies." Also, he says he is going to support whoever the Republican nominee is. These statements sort of beg some clarification on his foreign policy.

----------


## unknown

> Does he have a position on Iran? Intervention? I notice on the post in the thread in which the entire mod team of RPF is getting behind Massie, foreign policy wasn't mentioned.


If you get an idea as to where he stands, let me know.  No mention of foreign policy on http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/.

There will be other decent people but very few Ron Pauls who will stand up in front of the nation and lecture the neo-cons on how its insane to war monger against a nation like Iran.

----------


## unknown

> In the interview posted on his website he says about Ron: "I don't necesarrily agree with his defense policies." Also, he says he is going to support whoever the Republican nominee is.


Disappointing.

But again, how many Ron Pauls will we see in our lifetime.  Just one.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Slutter is a bit abrasive in how he communicates the point, but what he is saying is accurate.  You guys do a ton of damage to the liberty movement by attacking people within the movement.  Saying what you believe is not always the best way to get elected.  In an election in a small congressional district in Kentucky, getting elected is a lot more important for our cause than shouting the truth from the mountain tops.  When will you doubters see that?  Never, it would seem.

So don't support him if you choose not to, but please keep your mouths shut and stop actively damaging the liberty movement.  Unless you think one of his alternatives is a better option?  Those of us who know and have spoken to Thomas, don't doubt his foreign policy chops, and we also understand why he tones certain policy views down. If you don't trust Rand's opinion or your peers, that is your freedom of conscience, but please STOP HURTING THE MOVEMENT.   I'm sorry that you fail to see the importance of running an election to win.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> In extraordinary circumstances, it may be in our national interest to temporarily provide foreign aid to allies in need.  One Bill, One Vote, One Country is an appropriate policy.





> National Defense is the most essential function of the federal government enumerated in the United States Constitution.  We must defend our national security interests.





> Taxes are too high and too complicated.  Between my wife and me, we have three engineering degrees from MIT and we can’t do our own taxes.  We need tax reform that is simple, flat, and fair.  *All citizens should have to pay it, no exceptions*.  Economic growth means more jobs.  More jobs mean more prosperity for everyone willing and able to work.  The tax system needs to promote economic growth, not punish it.


WHAT? How hard would it freaking be to simply say "I will work to relieve the tax burden of every single American, as much as possible"? If we're going to give a nothing statement, why advocate taxing some people MORE? If we're going to wimp out in the very next cycle, I can't even imagine how horrible "liberty" candidates are going to be in ten years. This isn't growing our helping the movement; this is cutting it off at the knees.

Where's the principle? This is straight up GOP nonsense! What, is this tactic going to potentially get us 50 Representatives who got into office using strict Republican rhetoric by 2040? What the hell good is that going to do? Our national debt is greater than our GNP, and we have dozens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities barreling our way.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Disappointing.

----------


## bluesc

> Slutter is a bit abrasive in how he communicates the point, but what he is saying is accurate.  You guys do a ton of damage to the liberty movement by attacking people within the movement.  Saying what you believe is not always the best way to get elected.  In an election in a small congressional district in Kentucky, getting elected is a lot more important for our cause than shouting the truth from the mountain tops.  When will you doubters see that?  Never, it would seem.
> 
> So don't support him if you choose not to, but please keep your mouths shut and stop actively damaging the liberty movement.  Unless you think one of his alternatives is a better option?  Those of us who know and have spoken to Thomas, don't doubt his foreign policy chops, and we also understand why he tones certain policy views down. If you don't trust Rand's opinion or your peers, that is your freedom of conscience, but please STOP HURTING THE MOVEMENT.   I'm sorry that you fail to see the importance of running an election to win.


"He's just saying this to get elected, trust me, you'll see how he really feels once he wins"

... Skip forward a year...

"He's just saying this to work his way up the establishment ladder, he doesn't really believe it, he's just taking one for the team"

$#@! that. I'm not stupid. I would never support someone so that they could go to DC to continue the same game with a change of team.

If you can't stand on principle while you're running, why the hell should anyone trust you to stand on principle once you win? He is up for reelection after two years after all....

So, I was only asking questions about a candidate just as any person should, and now you lose your $#@! saying I'm "attacking him" and "hurting the movement" and "keep your mouth shut!" it seems an awful lot like "shut up, we just want him to get elected, then you can ask questions because it won't matter!" I'm not supporting him so that you can have a cushy office job in DC. Sorry dude, but after that, there's no way I trust you or your candidate.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You assume I don't like Rand.





> "He's just saying this to get elected, trust me, you'll see how he really feels once he wins"
> 
> ... Skip forward a year...
> 
> "He's just saying this to work his way up the establishment ladder, he doesn't really believe it, he's just taking one for the team"
> 
> $#@! that. I'm not stupid. I would never support someone so that they could go to DC to continue the same game with a change of team.
> 
> If you can't stand on principle while you're running, why the hell should anyone trust you to stand on principle once you win? He is up for reelection after two years after all....


Even Rand hadn't "stood on principle" by not endorsing Ron's FP in its entirety, he'd said he & Ron "disagreed on some issues", Massie is doing exactly the same thing, & back then there were plenty to doubted Rand (I was one) & said that he'd be nothing like his father & that he's playing both libertarians as well as neo-cons & so on but he's done a great job since taking office




> Americas sluggish economy and persistently high unemployment are due to our governments massive debt,  over regulation of our businesses, and a  tax system that punishes achievement.  -  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman was one of my professors at MIT.  He failed to convince me then that Keynesian economic policies could work.  Krugman, like Keynes, believes governments can borrow and spend their way into prosperity.  It does not.  History is littered with failed countries that followed Keyness advice.  Innovation by private companies and entrepreneurs create well-paying jobs and opportunities for economic prosperity, not politicians and bureaucrats.  *I am opposed to* bailouts, corporate subsidies, *undeclared wars*, and so called stimulus spending  on economic, moral, and constitutional grounds.

----------


## Jeremy

> If you get an idea as to where he stands, let me know.  No mention of foreign policy on http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/.
> 
> There will be other decent people but very few Ron Pauls who will stand up in front of the nation and lecture the neo-cons on how its insane to war monger against a nation like Iran.


Very few Ron Pauls?  I don't think you are aware how Ron Paul ran for his congressional seat for decades.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> If you get an idea as to where he stands, let me know.  No mention of foreign policy on http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/.
> 
> There will be other decent people but very few Ron Pauls who will stand up in front of the nation and lecture the neo-cons on how its insane to war monger against a nation like Iran.


Not only is Jeremy's points dead on, but you have to remember that there is no platform to "stand up in front of the nation" when you are running for a small congressional district in Kentucky.  Without the platform, "standing on principle" accomplishes nothing for the movement whatsoever.  The real issue is that you naysayers value words more than actions, which is a sign of tremendous stupidity.  

Luckily, Thomas is going to win, even though you people are so short sighted and are trying to actively damage our efforts.

----------


## bluesc

> Even Rand hadn't "stood on principle" by not endorsing Ron's FP in its entirety, he'd said he & Ron "disagreed on some issues", Massie is doing exactly the same thing


I didn't support Rand when he was running either. I also know where he stands on the war issue.

Massie is marketed as "one of our own" yet has been told to avoid this site and him and his people refuse to say where he stands, instead trying to force support. Rand was asked if there was anything he and his father disagreed on. Massie was there ready with his "I don't agree with Ron" talking points that he forced out at the first mention of Ron. If he wants to distance himself from Ron, he shouldn't market himself to Ron Paul supporters as "one of our own".

----------


## bluesc

> Luckily, Thomas is going to win, even though you people are so short sighted and are trying to actively damage our efforts.


Asking questions about candidates is not actively trying to damage efforts. Please stop saying that, you sound like an idiot.

----------


## Jeremy

> Asking questions about candidates is not actively trying to damage efforts. Please stop saying that, you sound like an idiot.


 You could just ask him yourself.  Many of us have talked to him... some talk to him a lot...

----------


## bluesc

> You could just ask him yourself.  Many of us have talked to him... some talk to him a lot...


Surely the people here who are constantly promoting him over other liberty candidates would know his foreign policy views before throwing support behind him?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Asking questions about candidates is not actively trying to damage efforts. Please stop saying that, you sound like an idiot.


You aren't asking questions with the intention of getting an answer.  You are doing it for rhetorical reasons.  If your intention was to get answers, you would ask Thomas yourself, but we both know that isn't your actual intent.  I'm not the one who sounds like an idiot.  You are going after someone who a great number of people within our movement our vouching for in a public place, that seems a lot like an attempt to damage the cause, not an attempt to get answers.

Again you value words over actions, a mark of tremendous stupidity.

----------


## bluesc

> You aren't asking questions with the intention of getting an answer.


Nope.

----------


## Jeremy

> Surely the people here who are constantly promoting him over other liberty candidates would know his foreign policy views before throwing support behind him?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Nope.

----------


## 1836

*MASSIE WOULD BE A HUGE MORON TO HOOT AND HOLLER ABOUT AGREEING WITH RON'S FOREIGN POLICY AND LOSE THE WHOLE PRIMARY SO HE CAN "PASS THE TEST" OF SOME HARDCORE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS WHO WOULD HAVE EVERY CANDIDATE WE PUT UP LOSE BY NEVER GETTING POLITICS. AT THAT POINT HELL JUST JOIN THE LP; THEY HAVE A HEAD START ON LOSING. SOME OF US ACTUALLY WANT LIBERTY CANDIDATES IN OFFICE, NOT JUST PISSING AWAY OUR HARD EARNED MONEY!!!!!*

/rant

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I didn't support Rand when he was running either. I also know where he stands on the war issue.
> 
> Massie is marketed as "one of our own" yet has been told to avoid this site and him and his people refuse to say where he stands, instead trying to force support. Rand was asked if there was anything he and his father disagreed on. Massie was there ready with his "I don't agree with Ron" talking points that he forced out at the first mention of Ron. If he wants to distance himself from Ron, he shouldn't market himself to Ron Paul supporters as "one of our own".


Ok, he said "I don't necessarily agree with his foreign policy" yeah & then what did he say, did he go on to state that we should nuke Iran & raze the whole of the world into dust until USA is the "only man standing"??? NO, he immediately switched his tone & pointed to Mullen's statement that the biggest threat to our national security is the DEBT; this is EXACTLY the kind of thing Rand did & STILL does, he sidesteps the Ron's FP by saying they disagree on it & brings the issue back to debt crisis, which is obviously the most pressing issue for Kentucky electorate so what is important is to sneak in as many liberty-people into the governmen as possible rather than expecting them beat their chest, talking about controversial issues, I sure see that he's taken some sound advice from Rand





And again, go read his "issues", they're the closest to liberty than any candidate that's running there & Ron personally believes there should be no war but he's said many times that if people mandate a war through Congress then he'll go regardless of his personal opinion & that's the position Massie seems to have, so long as he stands by the Constitution then that's that

http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/jobs-the-economy/




> America’s sluggish economy and persistently high unemployment are due to our government’s massive debt,  over regulation of our businesses, and a  tax system that punishes achievement.  -  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman was one of my professors at MIT.  He failed to convince me then that Keynesian economic policies could work.  Krugman, like Keynes, believes governments can borrow and spend their way into prosperity.  It does not.  History is littered with failed countries that followed Keynes’s advice.  Innovation by private companies and entrepreneurs create well-paying jobs and opportunities for economic prosperity, not politicians and bureaucrats.  *I am opposed to* bailouts, corporate subsidies, *undeclared wars*, and so called stimulus spending — on economic, moral, and constitutional grounds.


If you expect every supporter of liberty to openly state their positions on everything irrespective of their electorate then liberty-movement will remain stuck in the ground like the Libertarians party - no two people agree on everything as such but libertarians often harp on 5-10% they disagree on rather than working together on the 90-95% that they DO agree on, that's been the plight of liberty so far & that needs to change 

I'd urge you to look up the rest of Massie's platform rather than just holding steadfast on a single issue, which even Rand doesn't want to touch

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ok, he said "I don't necessarily agree with his foreign policy" yeah & then what did he say, did he go on to state that we should nuke Iran & raze the whole of the world into dust until USA is the "only man standing"??? NO, he immediately switched his tone & pointed to Mullen's statement that the biggest threat to our national security is the DEBT; this is EXACTLY the kind of thing Rand did & STILL does, he sidesteps the Ron's FP by saying they disagree on it & brings the issue back to debt crisis, which is obviously the most pressing issue for Kentucky electorate so what is important is to sneak in as many liberty-people into the governmen as possible rather than expecting them beat their chest, talking about controversial issues, I sure see that he's taken some sound advice from Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, go read his "issues", they're the closest to liberty than any candidate that's running there & Ron personally believes there should be no war but he's said many times that if people mandate a war through Congress then he'll go regardless of his personal opinion & that's the position Massie seems to have, so long as he stands by the Constitution then that's that
> 
> http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/jobs-the-economy/
> ...


Anyone wishing to force all citizens to pay an income tax, as Thomas Massie wishes to do, is anti-liberty. End of discussion.

How hard is it to say ""I will work to relieve the tax burden of every single American, as much as possible"? Nope, instead, Massie says all people need to pay an income tax.

Disgusting. Oh, and even worse, he uses the taxation is the source of private wealth GARBAGE argument in that same platform.

Everything else is dressing on a crap salad.

----------


## LibertyIn08

>

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> 


Yeah, dude, we need to reduce the government by growing the government, and advancing some of the most vile intellectual arguments in existence for the state. And attribute of all this to limited government and liberty.

Freedom!

We have candidates actually running on reducing the size and scope of government, and dressing it in paleo-conservative language. Those candidates, like Karen Kwiatkowski, need to be promoted.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> 




If you don't like Thomas, concentrate on Karen's campaign. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by coming in here and trashing the man's campaign or his supporters. Those who did so during Rand's campaign just ended up being unnecessary distractions.

Working positively on Karen's campaign (however futile I consider that particular venture to be) will be far more constructive than accusing Thomas of being anti-liberty. You're not going to convince his supporters and you're taking time away from helping candidates you perceive to be superior. The CD4 field is finalized, so there's not going to be another candidate jumping into this race in Northern Kentucky. Don't like the current list of candidates? Then just move on. 

Simple as that.

----------


## bluesc

> 


Then do tell.

----------


## bluesc

> 


0/10. More effort next time.

----------


## Supernaut

It seems like a lot of people want to jump on Ron Paul's bandwagon to get support but then throw him under the bus when it is politically expedient.  Foreign policy is what got most of us into this movement to begin with.  Someone who stays silent on that issue is not even worth considering in my opinion.

----------


## Jeremy

> It seems like a lot of people want to jump on Ron Paul's bandwagon to get support but then throw him under the bus when it is politically expedient.  Foreign policy is what got most of us into this movement to begin with.  Someone who stays silent on that issue is not even worth considering in my opinion.


I'm guessing you don't support Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, or Ron Paul for Congress (in his last Congressional elections) either?  You don't win by being an in-your-face anti-war pacifist.  But clearly the candidates I mentioned have an understanding of Constitutional power and support a humble foreign policy within our means.



> Then do tell.


Maybe we don't want to speak for him or his campaign?  They haven't gotten their whole Issues section done yet.  You could just ask him, like I said earlier...

But perhaps you missed: "I am opposed to bailouts, corporate subsidies, undeclared wars, and so called stimulus spending — on economic, moral, and constitutional grounds."

----------


## LibertyIn08

> 0/10. More effort next time.


You got more effort than your post deserved.




> It seems like a lot of people want to jump on Ron Paul's bandwagon to get support but then throw him under the bus when it is politically expedient.  Foreign policy is what got most of us into this movement to begin with.  Someone who stays silent on that issue is not even worth considering in my opinion.


Thomas was supporting Ron way before he ever considered running this race or the previous one. He "jumped on the bandwagon" because he believes in Ron's message.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anyone wishing to force all citizens to pay an income tax, as Thomas Massie wishes to do, is anti-liberty. End of discussion.
> 
> How hard is it to say ""I will work to relieve the tax burden of every single American, as much as possible"? Nope, instead, Massie says all people need to pay an income tax.
> 
> Disgusting. Oh, and even worse, he uses the taxation is the source of private wealth GARBAGE argument in that same platform.
> 
> Everything else is dressing on a crap salad.


Bro, he's taking the positions he needs to take to win in this district.  Would we love for him to be as nerdy and particular about libertarianism as we armchair internet warriors?  Yes.   Can he win in district 4 like that?  No.

Anti-establishment candidates are still looked at as "fringe" here.  Gatewood never got close to being governor.  Moffett never caught on, even though everyone hated Williams.  Rand was an exception because of a few different factors....money, timing, message, etc.  

Believe me, Kentucky is still very comfortable with electing establishment big government candidates.  Why would Thomas destroy his chances by being seen as a fringe candidate.   Webb-Edington is already going to paint him as kook, so he doesn't need to feed the flames.  We can win this and get a really good candidate in a position where he can stop some of this spending.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Bro, he's taking the positions he needs to take to win in this district.  Would we love for him to be as nerdy and particular about libertarianism as we armchair internet warriors?  Yes.   Can he win in district 4 like that?  No.
> 
> Anti-establishment candidates are still looked at as "fringe" here.  Gatewood never got close to being governor.  Moffett never caught on, even though everyone hated Williams.  Rand was an exception because of a few different factors....money, timing, message, etc.  
> 
> Believe me, Kentucky is still very comfortable with electing establishment big government candidates.  Why would Thomas destroy his chances by being seen as a fringe candidate.   Webb-Edington is already going to paint him as kook, so he doesn't need to feed the flames.  We can win this and get a really good candidate in a position where he can stop some of this spending.


Even if Thomas weren't being genuine (which he is) his campaign positions would make him better than every other candidate running. This is pure upside.

----------


## Jeremy

Feeding the Abscess  I don't see what you're talking about




> Taxes are too high and too complicated.  My wife and I have three engineering degrees from MIT and we cant do our own taxes!  As the founder of a company, I understand how the tax code throttles the development of new businesses.  Our tax system needs to promote economic growth, not punish it.  I will support legislation to achieve a simpler, flatter, fairer tax code that is helpful, not harmful, to domestic job creation and economic recovery.


 http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/tax-reform/

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Feeding the Abscess  I don't see what you're talking about
> 
> http://www.thomasmassie.com/issues/tax-reform/


This is what the tax reform section said when I posted in this thread:




> Taxes are too high and too complicated. Between my wife and me, we have three engineering degrees from MIT and we can’t do our own taxes. We need tax reform that is simple, flat, and fair. *All citizens should have to pay it, no exceptions*. Economic growth means more jobs. More jobs mean more prosperity for everyone willing and able to work. The tax system needs to promote economic growth, not punish it.


Still not a fan of the second half of the statement (it's supply side BS, and still too friendly to the taxation is the source of wealth idea), but at least he is no longer advocating that everyone pay an income tax. I can live with the way it is now.

If you run his website, there's a typo in the national defense section:




> National Defense is the most essential function of the federal government enumerated in the United States Constitution.  We must defend our national security interests.  The exclusive power of our Congress to declare war is a constitutional mandate. I’ll fight to ensure Congress works within constitutional restraints to protect life, liberty, property, and the sovereignty of the United *State* of America.





> Bro, he's taking the positions he needs to take to win in this district.  Would we love for him to be as nerdy and particular about libertarianism as we armchair internet warriors?  Yes.   Can he win in district 4 like that?  No.
> 
> Anti-establishment candidates are still looked at as "fringe" here.  Gatewood never got close to being governor.  Moffett never caught on, even though everyone hated Williams.  Rand was an exception because of a few different factors....money, timing, message, etc.  
> 
> Believe me, Kentucky is still very comfortable with electing establishment big government candidates.  Why would Thomas destroy his chances by being seen as a fringe candidate.   Webb-Edington is already going to paint him as kook, so he doesn't need to feed the flames.  We can win this and get a really good candidate in a position where he can stop some of this spending.


I get that, but if we can't even pitch our angle on taxation to the GOP, I don't see a way that we can forge a lasting coalition.

----------


## Jeremy

They just put up the Issues section today, so don't get too worked up about what it said before, typos, etc.

----------


## Jordan

> Yep, I am trying to force him down your throat. I have so much power here, I demand you support him. And since you can't exercise free will, it will work. Seriously, how bout you $#@!ing wait until he actually says something on the subject before negatively contributing to these bull$#@! threads. Perhaps he is trying to win a goddamn election by focusing on the issues HIS electorate cares about. 
> 
> If you don't want to support him fine. That's your choice. But why don't you give it more than a $#@!ing week before you start with the Rand Paul treatment all over again ad nauseam. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


I like this guy.

----------


## Jordan

Thomas Massie is the real deal.  I don't know why anyone wouldn't support him.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Even if Thomas weren't being genuine (which he is) his campaign positions would make him better than every other candidate running. This is pure upside.


+1

That's the f'cking point that people sometimes don't get 




> I get that, but if we can't even pitch our angle on taxation to the GOP, I don't see a way that we can forge a lasting coalition.


I'm a minarchist & I'd like taxless society but I don't delude myself into thinking that it's going to happen overnight

I think his statement "eveyone must pay" is the opposite of "only rich must pay & pay more", sure, it's not great to pay taxes but he supports a lot of liberty positions & I think we can save some bashing when he actually votes for more taxes

Generally speaking, many candidates play this game that they say one thing & do another, so I think liberty candidates should do that too, they can say more war, more taxes, etc etc when getting elected then vote to lower taxes & cut wars, that'd be dandy , especially since most of the voters have always been & probably always be dumb as brick 




> Thomas Massie is the real deal.  I don't know why anyone wouldn't support him.


Because they haven't yet thought about the alternative scenario, either that or they're not so good  with cost-benefit analyses

----------

