It's going to do a lot of good "standing for something" when illegal aliens make it so Americans don't control our own government anymore. It's already worked in California and NYC.

I assume by "Americans" you mean the actual people. So I hate to break it to you, but we don't control jack ***** The politicians aren't accountable to us. It's a running joke in here how nothing ever happens…and it's true. Govt just tramples all over us all the time at an accelerating rate. The constitution itself can't even be relied on to prevent or stop the infringements. More taxes, more spending, more regulation, inflation, less freedom, and so on …that has been the trend for decades and it isn't slowing down. Do you really think that Massie, or any other politician is going to slow the tide, let alone stop it, by "playing ball?" I wish I had your optimism.

Call me a cynic, but I believe the whole thing is screwed. These bickerings and the calls to "go along" are just more evidence that our govt cannot be corrected.

Oh and to address your point about illegal aliens…easily the biggest hot-button issue in America right now. You know why I don't really care about it? It's because neither side is even talking about the ONLY real solution: ending the welfare state. If we remove the magnet that is drawing them all here and costing the taxpayer a fortune, this problem becomes rather small. Whatever minuscule immigration problems remain can be dealt with then. Until we start seriously talking about ending the handouts and wasteful govt spending, I just don't really care about all the rest.

McMassie?

Helicopter Ben said:

---

This thread is a hoot. Almost everyone in here would agree with the underlying meaning behind "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Yet that is exactly what so many in here are asking Massie to do. Abandon his principles and vote with the party. I hear it all the time, there are way too many RINOs. It's all just a uniparty. Congress is worthless. And so on. Yet these are the exact people you want him to "play ball" with.

Massie is one of the very few limited govt politicians out there. We need a lot more like him, and a lot less "playing ball."

---

So his principles are to demand personalized public apologies from other public officials in return for his vote? Is that what small government libertarianism is about? Putting petty personal squabbles with the speaker over voting together on things we would otherwise vote for? How very prinicpled of him...

We definitely need a lot more limited govt politicians, and the place to achieve that is at the ballot box during the republican primaries, not in the middle of legislative dog fights against committed leftist socialists. We need more, but we don't have them in congress right now, which is what makes it even more important to find ways to compromise to get as much as we can with less than ideal partners to work with. I believe in the things Massie wants to stand up for, but I believe even more in not squandering opportunities to claw back the leftward motion of the country any time we have a chance to do so. Massie standing up for "muh principles" to obstruct R legislative action is letting perfect be the enemy of "as good as we can get right now".

Massie only stands up for Massie at times that benefit himself. If he was principled and truly cared about the children of Epstein, he would have said something before now.

He was silent under Obama and Biden. He has been there since 2012 and only is vocal when he can buck President Trump.

Massie is self-serving and only cares what will benefit himself.

txags92 said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

This thread is a hoot. Almost everyone in here would agree with the underlying meaning behind "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Yet that is exactly what so many in here are asking Massie to do. Abandon his principles and vote with the party. I hear it all the time, there are way too many RINOs. It's all just a uniparty. Congress is worthless. And so on. Yet these are the exact people you want him to "play ball" with.

Massie is one of the very few limited govt politicians out there. We need a lot more like him, and a lot less "playing ball."

---

So his principles are to demand personalized public apologies from other public officials in return for his vote? Is that what small government libertarianism is about? Putting petty personal squabbles with the speaker over voting together on things we would otherwise vote for? How very prinicpled of him...

We definitely need a lot more limited govt politicians, and the place to achieve that is at the ballot box during the republican primaries, not in the middle of legislative dog fights against committed leftist socialists. We need more, but we don't have them in congress right now, which is what makes it even more important to find ways to compromise to get as much as we can with less than ideal partners to work with. I believe in the things Massie wants to stand up for, but I believe even more in not squandering opportunities to claw back the leftward motion of the country any time we have a chance to do so. Massie standing up for "muh principles" to obstruct R legislative action is letting perfect be the enemy of "as good as we can get right now".

---

Massie is not principled. He's an ineffective prima donna. His job it to help move the ball forward. You get some of what you want; but never everything. but you don't try to hold up the agenda of the things you purport to be for because someone hurt your feelings and you didn't get everything you wanted. In life, you generally get what you're successful at making happen. If he's dissatisfied with what his party is doing, maybe he should start by looking in the mirror.

txags92 said:

---

Massie standing up for "muh principles" to obstruct R legislative action is letting perfect be the enemy of "as good as we can get right now".

---

I've been hearing that excuse for 40 years now. You know why the govt keeps growing and only manages to make things worse? Because we keep accepting that excuse. We're just supposed to accept the relentless growth, intrusion, and destructive nature of our government because that's "as good as we can get." Well that's a recipe for ruin if we let it go on long enough…and we already have.

Name even one truly limited government politician other than Massie or Rand Paul. And Paul gets the same criticism as we're seeing here whenever he "doesn't play ball." I'm sick of it, and that's why I don't care about any of it anymore. The only principles I care about in a politician are that of liberty and limited govt which are really the same thing IMO.

At this point, I would support a candidate that ran on the platform of voting no on absolutely everything unless a much larger cut is included with whatever is being proposed. If that breaks things, so be it. It's already broken beyond repair. Maybe if it breaks all the way, we can discuss options that will actually solve things.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Massie standing up for "muh principles" to obstruct R legislative action is letting perfect be the enemy of "as good as we can get right now".

---

I've been hearing that excuse for 40 years now. You know why the govt keeps growing and only manages to make things worse? Because we keep accepting that excuse. We're just supposed to accept the relentless growth, intrusion, and destructive nature of our government because that's "as good as we can get." Well that's a recipe for ruin if we let it go on long enough…and we already have.

Name even one truly limited government politician other than Massie or Rand Paul. And Paul gets the same criticism as we're seeing here whenever he "doesn't play ball." I'm sick of it, and that's why I don't care about any of it anymore. The only principles I care about in a politician are that of liberty and limited govt which are really the same thing IMO.

At this point, I would support a candidate that ran on the platform of voting no on absolutely everything unless a much larger cut is included with whatever is being proposed. If that breaks things, so be it. It's already broken beyond repair. Maybe if it breaks all the way, we can discuss options that will actually solve things.

---

This sentiment is growing. It's about time!

I am not happy with Massie lately.... but he would have voted to terminate Obamacare. That means he is better than politically treacherous John McCain to me.

McCain was a military hero. And a treacherous politician.

Know a person who hate Massie. When asked why they couldn't give an answer. Obviously it's because Trump doesn't like him all for passing a bill to do what Trump said he would do.

Insanity.

aggie93 said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

I am not happy with Massie lately.... but he would have voted to terminate Obamacare. That means he is better than politically treacherous John McCain to me.

McCain was a military hero. And a treacherous politician.

---

More relevantly Massie is doing exactly what he said he would do. McCain ran on getting rid of Obamacare and then switched at the last minute because he hated Trump. He literally switched his position on a major issue out of pure spite to try to harm Trump because Trump said mean things about him.

Massie actually is one of the best defenders on most of Trump's policies, he reads every detail of every bill and can speak in depth on them. His knowledge on 2A issues is probably better than anyone in DC and he has humiliated Dems before with their lack of knowledge in committees. He took huge heat from Trump because he saw the problems with the Covid bills and how they would end up as a disaster if they weren't fixed but Trump tried to destroy him then too even though Massie was 100% correct and if Trump had listened to him he would have won in 2020.

He's the bad guy though and we need to replace him with another RINO that uses his time in office to get rich.

---

Example of Massie defending a Trump policy via legislation and getting blocked by the rules comittee

Receipt: https://t.co/Zl6G9Bvftp

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 25, 2026

txags92 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

ellis gets it. as a former ayn rand screen name, i appreciate he's the one who gets it

---

He's actually advocating for the opposite of Ellis would in Ayn Rand's book.

---

By allowing Epstein to derail legitimate issues, you're allowing the marxists to entrench themselves further. They will add to their numbers of judges, they'll throw the borders back open, and America will be powerless to stop them.

I guess some of you will be happy then, even though not a single other person will be prosecuted related to Epstein. I hope that is the America you want for your children, because it's the America they will get.

---

Bondi, Johnson, or Trump could easily solve this behind closed doors but they chose not to. Massie has been very clear he wants transparency and doesn't care who is involved. He was patient as well. He just isn't going to compromise his principles over this.

---

But he was totally willing to compromise his principles and not vote for something he was otherwise willing to vote for just because Johnson wasn't willing to fellate him publicly for his "win". I don't care so much that he pushed for the Epstein stuff...whatever. What bugs the crap out of me and shows his true colors was that he was willing to withhold his vote over something that matters to absolutely nobody but Massie. He could have withheld his vote in return for bringing another amendment to the floor or to block some other bill he didn't like, but he didn't. His narcissistic price was a public apology that nobody but he would care about. He was willing to hold up GOP legislation over it and that is what makes him an idiot. He may be very smart and very principled and very libertarian, but he is a political retahd.

---

That situation is a bit more complicated than that, Massie has shown he is willing to He was looking for Johnson to be honest which was a bridge too far for him. Johnson despises Massie. Massie knows he has very limited power and he has used it to get as much of the Epstein stuff released as possible. BTW, if that was truly the only issue than why wouldn't Johnson do it? It would be a win/win if so. He would rather dig his heels in and try to take out Massie though than work with him or certainly admit he was right.

I am not saying Massie is pure and I have said I disagree with his stance here. He knows that no matter what he does Johnson would rather lose 10 seats to Democrats rather than have Massie back next session as would Trump. It's kind of like the idiocy of the Senate Republicans spending $60 million to back John Cornyn in the primary instead of spending that money on the General, certainly Democrats are thrilled to see them set money on fire and waste cycles propping up someone the voters don't want. Did the same thing with Murkowski and that worked out great.

Who knows all of the internal intrigue on this but there is plenty of blame to go around, I just find it laughable that Massie is the only bad guy here when the 3 people that could fix this easily refuse to do so.

---

Because if Johnson does it, then every other R with an ax to grind about any issue is going to want his moment in the spotlight with Johnson going down on him in public, and that is not a pathway to strong leadership. And you are delusional if you think that any opinion Johnson has about Massie would cause him to be ok with losing 10 seats to dems. That is a ridiculous statement on its face and goes well beyond hyperbole. Johnson has his flaws as a speaker (being generous to him), but willingly giving up power to Ds over a personal squabble isn't one of them.

---

It's kind of comical for you to act like the Speaker making compromises with Reps to get their votes is something that doesn't happen on virtually every bill. If all Massie wanted was a little spotlight to get his vote (personally I think Massie probably asked for it knowing Johnson wouldn't do it) then Johnson is a fool to instead decide he wants to keep up his feud with Massie instead. I can't imagine how many folks he is compromising with NOT to just force the release of everything and on stuff like the BBB.

He has spent far more time bashing Massie and trying to make it clear he wants him out than he has campaigning against vulnerable Dems. It's about how you spend your resources and time. Massie seems to be enemy #1 for him. Does he want to lose seats? No, but his actions will cause that.

Once again I don't like what Massie is doing but this is easily fixable by Trump, Bondi, or Johnson if they just do what they said they were going to do.

---

He wasn't asking for the speaker to compromise, he was asking him to prostrate himself at Massie's feet. If he were asking for a compromise from Johnson I am sure they could have worked something out.

---

"Prostrate himself"? Please. He just wanted to have Johnson to stop his vendetta against him and admit that he actually was making some good points and was an ally. He was willing to work with Johnson but Johnson would only compromise with RINOs not conservatives like always. If Massie just asked for some money or a bridge to nowhere that would have been fine.

Once again I don't think Massie handled this well overall and I really don't like him going on some MSM shows and being used as a tool. I have the same issues with Rand Paul at times. Still those guys aren't the problem. The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Massie standing up for "muh principles" to obstruct R legislative action is letting perfect be the enemy of "as good as we can get right now".

---

I've been hearing that excuse for 40 years now. You know why the govt keeps growing and only manages to make things worse? Because we keep accepting that excuse. We're just supposed to accept the relentless growth, intrusion, and destructive nature of our government because that's "as good as we can get." Well that's a recipe for ruin if we let it go on long enough…and we already have.

Name even one truly limited government politician other than Massie or Rand Paul. And Paul gets the same criticism as we're seeing here whenever he "doesn't play ball." I'm sick of it, and that's why I don't care about any of it anymore. The only principles I care about in a politician are that of liberty and limited govt which are really the same thing IMO.

At this point, I would support a candidate that ran on the platform of voting no on absolutely everything unless a much larger cut is included with whatever is being proposed. If that breaks things, so be it. It's already broken beyond repair. Maybe if it breaks all the way, we can discuss options that will actually solve things.

---

No! We don't have to just accept it. But 1 man grandstanding that holds up things we DO want done doesn't change a F-ing thing! We have to change what happens in the primaries and that means getting active for and electing true conservatives to run in the general elections. Just understand that power shifts happen and when the Ds take control next, they are going to have no problem getting the their votes in line to yank the wheel to the left and drive us further into the ditch. So guys like Massie and Paul are great, but when all they are doing is sitting in the passenger seat with their foot on a brake pedal that isn't connected to anything bleating about principles, they are accomplishing less than nothing and are actually doing anything to keep us from driving into the ditch.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

Why was he silent when Obama and Biden were President?

last night at the SOTU it was idiot Massie with his BFF Ro Khanna on the Plenum Floor hugging each other.

the most left wing democrat in the Congress.

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

Those on the right are only hating on Massie because he's decided to make himself more important than the conservative movement. Liz Cheney voted overwhelmingly conservative, but she decided to become a self-righteous boil on the party and go against the duly-elected President's agenda. Politics is a team sport, and sometimes you have to vote with your team to advance the agenda on things you don't 100% agree with so that they will be on your side when you introduce legislation. When you decide grandstanding to gain strange new respect from those across the aisle (giving them political ammo to say not even Republicans support their President's agenda), you lose all political capital. There's a reason Democrats overwhelmingly fall in line. They understand party politics way better than Republicans.

Massie is also an idiot on foreign policy. Isolationism is the foreign policy of a high school libertarian that thinks if you just leave people alone they'll be nice to you.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

A direct quote from Thomas Massie from the article on the 1st page:

"One day they needed my vote and I offered to give them my vote if he would issue a press release thanking me for my good work on the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That's all I required to get my vote. And I think he probably went and gave somebody else a bill to pass instead of doing the public statement."

That isn't standing up for some conservative principle or acting as a bulwark against the slow creep of socialism. That is grandstanding. He was totally willing to vote for the bill Johnson wanted passed, and his price was for Johnson to issue a press release polishing his knob. Thomas Massie has some great ideas and has put forth some amendments that all Rs should have gotten behind. But the reason he doesn't get the support is that he routinely pulls crap like he mentioned in that quote above. He sticks his thumb in somebody's eye and then when they refuse to play ball with him and give him what he wants later, he acts all wounded and plays the poor pitiful me card acting like he is the lone voice in the wilderness trying to get something done. It is a tiresome act and I hope he loses his primary because of it.

Tea Party said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

---

The time to do that is right now...primary season. We need to elect more conservatives for sure. But the guy who walked over to the democrat side and picked up a rifle to start firing shots at his fellow Rs was Massie. When you have only a couple vote margin, you can't afford to keep guys like that around if they are unreliable when you need them to get votes passed. So it is natural that Trump and Johnson start courting his challenger. Sucks for Massie, but there are good ways to encourage more Rs to be more conservative and bad ways, and he picked a bad way.

Kvetch said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

Massie is also an idiot on foreign policy. Isolationism is the foreign policy of a high school libertarian that thinks if you just leave people alone they'll be nice to you.

---

Nice straw man here. Normally I'd let this go as not relevant to the OP, but I gotta dispel this. That is NOT the limited government position on foreign policy. I remember this exact argument being made to belittle Ron Paul and it doesn't sit well now.

The real position goes something like this: we don't need a military empire with bases in hundreds of different countries. We don't need to be injecting ourselves into every conflict on the globe. We could spend a fraction of our military spending on actual DEFENSE and no country would dare threaten us. We are objecting to the enormous amounts of money being spent on the military that does nothing to defend Americans. And on the contrary, a lot of US military action could be argued to make Americans less safe by increasing foreign hostility towards Americans. I know this is crazy, but I believe the US govt should only be concerned with things that benefit Americans. And our tax dollars should only be used to benefit Americans. The vast majority of what defense spending does serves no useful purpose to our citizens.

There is an argument that keeping peace in the world to allow for commerce and trade and stability in the world has enriched Americans.

Of course Trump is overturning that now.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

Massie is also an idiot on foreign policy. Isolationism is the foreign policy of a high school libertarian that thinks if you just leave people alone they'll be nice to you.

---

Nice straw man here. Normally I'd let this go as not relevant to the OP, but I gotta dispel this. That is NOT the limited government position on foreign policy. I remember this exact argument being made to belittle Ron Paul and it doesn't sit well now.

The real position goes something like this: we don't need a military empire with bases in hundreds of different countries. We don't need to be injecting ourselves into every conflict on the globe. We could spend a fraction of our military spending on actual DEFENSE and no country would dare threaten us. We are objecting to the enormous amounts of money being spent on the military that does nothing to defend Americans. And on the contrary, a lot of US military action could be argued to make Americans less safe by increasing foreign hostility towards Americans. I know this is crazy, but I believe the US govt should only be concerned with things that benefit Americans. And our tax dollars should only be used to benefit Americans. The vast majority of what defense spending does serves no useful purpose to our citizens.

---

Are you living in Kentucky?

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

---

The time to do that is right now...primary season. We need to elect more conservatives for sure. But the guy who walked over to the democrat side and picked up a rifle to start firing shots at his fellow Rs was Massie. When you have only a couple vote margin, you can't afford to keep guys like that around if they are unreliable when you need them to get votes passed. So it is natural that Trump and Johnson start courting his challenger. Sucks for Massie, but there are good ways to encourage more Rs to be more conservative and bad ways, and he picked a bad way.

---

Again with the team v team nonsense.

As soon people realize it's entirely possible to have principles, and those principles can guide votes rather than being a puppet for said "team", then the better we will be.

And no he did not pick a bad way for encouraging conservativism. He picked the principled way that does not jive well with the big bloated monsterosity that our government has become. The D party and the R party like the status quo where team is more important than policy.

Whether in the primary, general, or term it is always a good time for politicians and voters to advocate policy and principles over party. Winning is futile if the win results in one step right now and two steps left later.

lcraggie said:

---

Are you living in Kentucky?

---

How could that possibly have anything to do with what I posted? But just out of curiosity, no. I live in rural Utah if that somehow helps.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

lcraggie said:

---

Are you living in Kentucky?

---

How could that possibly have anything to do with what I posted? But just out of curiosity, no. I live in rural Utah if that somehow helps.

---

I did not know if you lived in Massie's district.

It blows my mind that people can only think in binary terms. Not wanting to jump into another ME war doesn't equal isolationism. Wanting to seriously rethink our global role in terma of foreign aid and bombing campaign is not isolationism. It get criticized as such because there's literally not a single evidence to support a benefit to our geopolitics over the last several decades and so instead of reason the opposition offers insults. It has no good policy ideas. Only name calling. Our foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for decades.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He's not grandstanding. He's trying to do what republicans have said they would do for fifty years. Those on the right hating on Massie are just as braindead as those on the left. Just different color, red vs blue.

---

Massie is also an idiot on foreign policy. Isolationism is the foreign policy of a high school libertarian that thinks if you just leave people alone they'll be nice to you.

---

Nice straw man here. Normally I'd let this go as not relevant to the OP, but I gotta dispel this. That is NOT the limited government position on foreign policy. I remember this exact argument being made to belittle Ron Paul and it doesn't sit well now.

The real position goes something like this: we don't need a military empire with bases in hundreds of different countries. We don't need to be injecting ourselves into every conflict on the globe. We could spend a fraction of our military spending on actual DEFENSE and no country would dare threaten us. We are objecting to the enormous amounts of money being spent on the military that does nothing to defend Americans. And on the contrary, a lot of US military action could be argued to make Americans less safe by increasing foreign hostility towards Americans. I know this is crazy, but I believe the US govt should only be concerned with things that benefit Americans. And our tax dollars should only be used to benefit Americans. The vast majority of what defense spending does serves no useful purpose to our citizens.

---

And the retort to that is that if America withdraws from the global stage other powers will fill the vacuum. Sure, we could physically defend ourselves due to our geographic advantages and military might, but if we allow China or a similar power to rise up on the world stage as the global hegemon, we risk our economic security and ability to influence others to operate in manners that are good for America.

We live in a global world. Having those bases around the world and our hand on the controls is what allows us to remain a superpower. Could we survive as a completely isolated entity? Sure. Would we be just as prosperous and safe? Not a chance.

You can have intelligent debates about the extent to which we should involve ourselves in specific issues, but if your position is that we should completely withdraw and only "worry about ourselves," you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not a strawman. Isolationism is an unintelligent, short-sighted policy that assumes the only true threat to our nation is physical.

Tea Party said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

---

The time to do that is right now...primary season. We need to elect more conservatives for sure. But the guy who walked over to the democrat side and picked up a rifle to start firing shots at his fellow Rs was Massie. When you have only a couple vote margin, you can't afford to keep guys like that around if they are unreliable when you need them to get votes passed. So it is natural that Trump and Johnson start courting his challenger. Sucks for Massie, but there are good ways to encourage more Rs to be more conservative and bad ways, and he picked a bad way.

---

Again with the team v team nonsense.

As soon people realize it's entirely possible to have principles, and those principles can guide votes rather than being a puppet for said "team", then the better we will be.

And no he did not pick a bad way for encouraging conservativism. He picked the principled way that does not jive well with the big bloated monsterosity that our government has become. The D party and the R party like the status quo where team is more important than policy.

Whether in the primary, general, or term it is always a good time for politicians and voters to advocate policy and principles over party. Winning is futile if the win results in one step right now and two steps left later.

---

He didn't "engage in conservatism". He withheld his vote on something he was totally willing to vote for because Mike Johnson wouldn't slobber over him in a press release. That is not some noble act of conservative rebellion, it is childish grandstanding to piss Johnson off just because he had the power to do it.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It blows my mind that people can only think in binary terms. Not wanting to jump into another ME war doesn't equal isolationism. Wanting to seriously rethink our global role in terma of foreign aid and bombing campaign is not isolationism. It get criticized as such because there's literally not a single evidence to support a benefit to our geopolitics over the last several decades and so instead of reason the opposition offers insults. It has no good policy ideas. Only name calling. Our foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for decades.

---

You're making the claim without the counterfactual world where we did nothing. It's easy to poke holes with 20/20 hindsight. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that says every aspect of our foreign policy post-WWII has been a huge success. But when you think about how the world could be different in the alternative situation, any honest person will tell you that we wouldn't be living in a situation of world peace with American as strong as it is today. Peace through strength requires the strength part, not an abstract defensive strength that doesn't proactively advance American interests. You like Taiwan being independent? You like Iran not having nuclear capabilities? You like Europe not being a communist hellscape that speaks Russian? Because that's what you're advocating for in your abstract world. It's not binary. Theres a large chasm between being the world's police and total isolationism. We should pursue a foreign policy that is firmly in the middle of those two poles.

Just because we haven't been perfect doesn't mean your alternative solution is better. There's a reason Ron Paul or Rand Paul should never be commander in chief. Great senator material. Terrible military strategy.

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

---

The time to do that is right now...primary season. We need to elect more conservatives for sure. But the guy who walked over to the democrat side and picked up a rifle to start firing shots at his fellow Rs was Massie. When you have only a couple vote margin, you can't afford to keep guys like that around if they are unreliable when you need them to get votes passed. So it is natural that Trump and Johnson start courting his challenger. Sucks for Massie, but there are good ways to encourage more Rs to be more conservative and bad ways, and he picked a bad way.

---

Again with the team v team nonsense.

As soon people realize it's entirely possible to have principles, and those principles can guide votes rather than being a puppet for said "team", then the better we will be.

And no he did not pick a bad way for encouraging conservativism. He picked the principled way that does not jive well with the big bloated monsterosity that our government has become. The D party and the R party like the status quo where team is more important than policy.

Whether in the primary, general, or term it is always a good time for politicians and voters to advocate policy and principles over party. Winning is futile if the win results in one step right now and two steps left later.

---

He didn't "engage in conservatism". He withheld his vote on something he was totally willing to vote for because Mike Johnson wouldn't slobber over him in a press release. That is not some noble act of conservative rebellion, it is childish grandstanding to piss Johnson off just because he had the power to do it.

---

You view it as he was willing to vote for it because he likes it as is and wants it as is. That is not true.

What if he was willing to vote for it because he was willing to be a team player. And all he wanted was acknowledgement that he is doing a good job advocating for something that the entire GOP and President wanted during campaign season.

Tea Party said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The problem is we tolerate the RINOs and attack the conservatives.

---

Amen.

We instead should be tolerating the conservatives that want to pull too further to the right and be attacking the RINO's for not going along with conservative policy. The RINO's did sign up with the GOP after all instead of another moderate party, so it makes sense that if we have to put up with the two party charade, that the RINO's should compromise in supporting the conservative policy more.

---

The time to do that is right now...primary season. We need to elect more conservatives for sure. But the guy who walked over to the democrat side and picked up a rifle to start firing shots at his fellow Rs was Massie. When you have only a couple vote margin, you can't afford to keep guys like that around if they are unreliable when you need them to get votes passed. So it is natural that Trump and Johnson start courting his challenger. Sucks for Massie, but there are good ways to encourage more Rs to be more conservative and bad ways, and he picked a bad way.

---

Again with the team v team nonsense.

As soon people realize it's entirely possible to have principles, and those principles can guide votes rather than being a puppet for said "team", then the better we will be.

And no he did not pick a bad way for encouraging conservativism. He picked the principled way that does not jive well with the big bloated monsterosity that our government has become. The D party and the R party like the status quo where team is more important than policy.

Whether in the primary, general, or term it is always a good time for politicians and voters to advocate policy and principles over party. Winning is futile if the win results in one step right now and two steps left later.

---

He didn't "engage in conservatism". He withheld his vote on something he was totally willing to vote for because Mike Johnson wouldn't slobber over him in a press release. That is not some noble act of conservative rebellion, it is childish grandstanding to piss Johnson off just because he had the power to do it.

---

You view it as he was willing to vote for it because he likes it as is and wants it as is. That is not true.

What if he was willing to vote for it because he was willing to be a team player. And all he wanted was acknowledgement that he is doing a good job advocating for something that the entire GOP and President wanted during campaign season.

---

I view it as if he felt like it was a meaningful issue that he would prefer not to vote for, that he would have asked for something more meaningful in return for his vote. The fact that he asked for something that only benefitted him, and not something like a floor vote on an amendment to make it better suggests that he didn't feel like it was something particularly onerous to vote for.

What he did was the equivalent of Col Jessup asking Caffey to say "please" when he asked for the transfer order for Santiago in A Few Good Men. It was not a request for something meaningful, it was a request meant to piss off the person from who it was requested.

LMCane said:

---

last night at the SOTU it was idiot Massie with his BFF Ro Khanna on the Plenum Floor hugging each other.

the most left wing democrat in the Congress.

---

Massie is no different than Dade Phelan, Dustin Burrows, or Brad Buckley. His only principle is obstruction of conservatives. This is an easy excuse for him to hide behind.