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 shit again. Support the man damnit.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[bluesc]

God, not this shit 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 fucking wait until he actually says something on the subject before negatively contributing to these bullshit 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 fucking 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 fucking wait until he actually says something on the subject before negatively contributing to these bullshit 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 fucking 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 bullshit, 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 fucking learned anything?

Thank you,

Slutter McGee

 

[bluesc]

This is bullshit, 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 fucking 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"

Fuck 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 shit 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"

Fuck 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.