Justin Amash votes to condemn Russia for its incursion into Ukraine

[Brett85]

I don't really have a problem with simply criticizing Russia, but all of the other things that the resolution calls for aren't good. Hopefully Justin just voted for it since it was just a non binding resolution without any force of law.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

This is the kind of statement that neoconservatives can use to further themselves so much. Nothing the United States did justified what Japan did. Why do people seem to put the U.S. on a different moral plane than other nations? No one here would attempt to excuse the U.S. bombing another country because they slapped some form of sanctions on us, so why even write stuff that gives off even the faintest hint of making an excuse for Japan (or anyone else) bombing another country because of sanctions?

Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that the sanctions against Japan were good. Why shouldn't a country sanction another that's on the warpath, as Imperial Japan was at the time? Is it morally right to give oil to a country in need of it that is doing what Japan was in 1941?

Is anyone here excusing the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor? Nope. Are we suggesting that because the U.S. stuck its nose in China and Japan's business, Japan launched a strike in retaliation for sanctions and brought the U.S. into the most devastating war in human history? Yup.

And why should "Government A" punish the people living under "Government B" when it's "Government B" who is responsible for committing atrocities?

 

[erowe1]

There was a bill that lowered trade restrictions with Russia while also applying some sanctions that Amash voted for. He explained that he supported lowering tariffs while opposed the sanctions. In this particular vote, does this mean Amash supports intervention given his explanation?

In the former case, it was a practical matter with actual effects where the various effects could be weighed against one another. In something like that, I can see making a pragmatic decision.

But in the latter case, where it's making a statement, to vote for it is to agree with the statement as a whole. I agree that one could vote for it while quibbling over various points. But if you're going to compare it with the example you gave, then the determinative parts of the resolution should be the ones that have practical import for Congress, and those are precisely the worst parts of it.

 

[klamath]

Good for Amash. As far as Japan, damn right we had the right to NOT supply the Japanese war machine raping Nanking.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It's a sense of congress. It does nothing and authorizes nothing.

I would much prefer they kept their "sense" to themselves. They sure as shit don't speak for me. Lest someone who has been wronged by their senses think I am to blame. It's tragic how they play their little partisan, hegemonic, games while real people are put at risk. Let it finally be the sense of the people that the Congress shuts the fuck up for a while. They've said and done more than enough already.

As a matter of fact, most times their speaking is only to benefit themselves and the selected few they truly represent. I'm not referring specifically to Amash but just as an in general of the fine folks in Washington. They couldn't relate to the average American if the police seized their vehicle. How out of touch they are is of no short order. Feinstein whining of CIA impropriety. Ha.

 

[MichaelDavis]

He did vote for a resolution that called for doing that.

I'm from Missouri. Show me. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

 

[RPforPrez.]

I think I lost brain cells reading this post.

The fact that there is even a debate as to Justin Amashs' purity is ridiculous. That people are questioning his actions and saying they won't donate to him is absurd.

This is the exact mentality of the movement that has lead to minimal gains. If you're looking for people who exactly mimic all of your opinions and thoughts, run for office yourself.

Amash has consistently been the strongest voice on both the Congressional and national stage for our thoughts and ideas. This is a nonbinding resolution. It does nothing.

By voting for it, it doesn't mean he agrees with everything in the bill. Do you guys understand how many bills are passed through Congress with random little things in it? Should a bill be voted against if you disagree with 1% of it?

This bill does nothing. He is expressing that he feels its wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine. He hasn't come out and said the US should go invade Russia.

I honestly find it disheartening that so many of you are so critical of one of the only people in Congress who supports the libertarian ideas.

It's not like Massie is perfect. He's had his flaws. Get over them.

I rarely even come on here anymore, even to read posts, just because of the constant negative attitude of everyone here. The only reason I find myself posting anymore is to defend attacks on people like Amash, or Rand or Lee, who are the biggest supporters of our ideals, but find themselves consistently bombarded here with negativity, not to mention in the media or by establishment and democrats.

If Amash can't receive support here, where can he get it?

Rarely is a vote by someone praised. Rarely does anyone point out the hundreds of good votes that Amash has made. Only the one bad vote.

The fact that someone else, perhaps Bentivolio for instance, may align with us on far more issues than someone like McCain is absolutely useless to the people here, as he doesn't align with us on every single one.

 

[2young2vote]

He's done this in the past - vote for bills that have no actions associated with them, even though he disagrees with the content. He views them as throw-away bills that help him politically. He has voted correctly enough to gain my trust. I have no doubt about his sincerity and integrity.

Edit:

and from the other thread on this page about providing loan guarantees to Ukraine - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml He voted no.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

//

 

[muh_roads]

People need to stop calling Rand, Amash etc. neocons just because they express disapproval over Russia's actions in Ukraine. As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

I'm not okay with sanctions. Why should the Russian people suffer just because these assholes like playing chess?

 

[fr33]

I don't really like the bill but those defending Russia for "protecting their assets" might as well defend the US protecting their assets in countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Justin Amash has now consistently shown he's no non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Is it because he has an establishment primary challenge? Is he selling out his principles to cozy up to the establishment? Or does he genuinely believe what he's voting for?

Well about 20 RPF members just proved themselves to be interventionists in a recent poll...so far only about 4 of us voted no for non-interventionism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...you-risk-your-life-to-save-an-Obama-supporter

 

[William R]

Or they were simply protecting the Ukranian population against western intervention and the media tricked you into believing there is no western intervention in Ukraine.

Same thing Hitler said when he went into the Sudetenland in 1938. Just protecting the German speaking majority. Not saying Putin is Hitler, but Russia did sign the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Ukraine gave up thousands of nukes for assurances that its territory wouldn't be violated.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-nuclear-arms-in-1994-deal-russia-flouts.html

 

[erowe1]

I'm from Missouri. Show me. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

I already did.

 

[erowe1]

I honestly find it disheartening that so many of you are so critical of one of the only people in Congress who supports the libertarian ideas.

Why?

 

[erowe1]

Good for Amash. As far as Japan, damn right we had the right to NOT supply the Japanese war machine raping Nanking.

Sanctions don't afford us that right. They violate the corresponding right that we have to trade with people there.

If you don't believe in doing trade with the people of some other country, then don't. If you think I should join you in your boycott, then persuade me to do so voluntarily.

 

[belian78]

Once again, if people are getting disappointed over issues like this, I believe there is a strong isolationist segment in this movement. And yes, I know it is different from non-interventionism (and also protectionism).

Wow.. I never thought I'd see that word be used with any type of seriousness on these boards. But I am not surprised who it's coming from.

 

[William Tell]

Glad I never sent any money to Amash.

If I ever do send money to a politician, it looks like it'll be Massie.

What about non incumbents? they need the most help.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Glad I never sent any money to Amash.

If I ever do send money to a politician, it looks like it'll be Massie.

No wonder we never get anywhere.

Amash is pretty damned fantastic. To act like he isn't, because of this one thing seems like a pretty stupid move to me.

 

[William Tell]

Well about 20 RPF members just proved themselves to be interventionists in a recent poll...so far only about 4 of us voted no for non-interventionism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...you-risk-your-life-to-save-an-Obama-supporter

There was so much wrong with that poll....