His voting record refutes that claim entirely. Show me one vote where Massie sided with Democrats on substance. Procedural votes to protect constitutional process are not the same thing as ideological alignment. The links are in my prior comment.
"Goes against Trump on almost everything" is not a constitutional argument. Massie votes against unconstitutional spending, unconstitutional debt expansion, and unconstitutional executive power — regardless of which party is pushing it. That is not disloyalty to Trump. That is loyalty to the document Trump swore an oath to. The Big Beautiful Bill added trillions to the debt. Opposition to that is a feature, not a bug.
His voting record speaks for itself, and he is no democrat. He has nearly a 100% liberty score for voting with the Constitution. It doesn't matter who the donors were.
The debt ceiling vote is a legitimate critique worth examining. But one procedural vote you disagree with does not erase a decades-long voting record that no other member of Congress can match for constitutional consistency. If your standard is perfection, you will never find your representative. If your standard is the most constitutionally consistent member currently serving, the record still points to Massie.
This is why Massie's voting record looks so unusual to people conditioned by the modern political environment. He is not voting against his party. He is not confused. He is applying the actual constitutional standard consistently — and when you apply that standard honestly, the overwhelming majority of what the federal government currently does has no legitimate constitutional basis whatsoever.
The question is not whether Trump should dismantle unconstitutional agencies. The question is whether 200 years of unconstitutional accumulation can be unwound properly, through the legitimate constitutional process, rather than simply trading one form of executive overreach for another.
The goal is correct. The republic the Founders built had no FBI, no Department of Education, no DEA, no ATF, no DHS. It functioned. It was freer. And it was exactly what the Constitution authorized.
Kirk's assassination is exactly why principles matter more than ever. Abandoning the Constitution to "win" means you hand the left a weapon they'll use against you the moment the table turns. Winning without principles isn't winning — it's just changing who holds the whip.
You make the faulty assumption that we are playing a gentlemanly game where the Left will keep the heat down if we don't escalate.
This is a faulty assumption. Trump didn't attempt to unlawfully coup any American leaders, yet the Left gladly attempted a military coup during J6th to remove POTUS as CIC. In and of itself, that is enough proof that not playing for keeping means you are playing to lose.
The assumption isn't that the left will keep the heat down. The assumption is that the Constitution is not a tactical instrument — it is the foundation. When you abandon it because the enemy fights dirty, you haven't beaten them. You've joined them. The left has been waiting for 100 years for the right to justify executive overreach on their behalf. Don't hand them that precedent.
Again, Nancy Pelosi, a former US Speaker of the House, attempted a military coup by trying to usurp Trump's role as POTUS/CIC to gain control over the nation's nuclear arsenal.
There is no further escalation or overreach than that. A rouge politician attempting to seize the nation's most destructive weapons is not "waiting to justify overreach" at all.
Massie's mistake is that he tries to massively shift the whole system all at once instead incrementally advancing it forward over time, sometimes on the backs of less palatable legislation. If he had his way, this country would rapidly devolve into Communism by default.
The logical inversion here is stunning. Reducing federal power to its constitutional limits is the opposite of communism. Communism is total state control. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent that. Incrementalism has been the left's strategy for 100 years — and it worked. Every decade of "incremental" compromise is why we're having this conversation at all.
It is counterintuitive yes, but Massie and other libertarians try to convince a 50-50 Congress to go 100 percent libertarian in one fell swoop, if they refuse, and they always do, opting for a bill that is 75 percent libertarian, Massie and such refuse to vote for it, often cuasing it to fail in close votes. So instead of us advancing 75 percent towards liberty, we get nothing. Then the Democrats win the next Congress because this one rejected a bill 75 percent liked. The Democrats, with no Massie types, just pass their communist agenda with impunity.
Where are all of the Massie "fan boys" on this board now? Hurts to know the truth huh fellas! Oh wait, they are downvoting the comments. We see you now!
Whenever I see something like this, I conclude that it isn't because those people find agreement with Massie, but that they (wrongly) see an opportunity to sow division among MAGA/America First. I thought the same with the Globalist donors to DeSantis' 2024 Primary campaign. That said, anyone to the right of center wishing political success should avoid donations from entities known to be left of center.
Massie is very confused. Like his hair.
Messie
You would think, with the bribes he received, he could afford a comb.
Not surprising, he’s been acting like he was bought and paid for. Siding with the democrats is a dead giveaway.
His voting record refutes that claim entirely. Show me one vote where Massie sided with Democrats on substance. Procedural votes to protect constitutional process are not the same thing as ideological alignment. The links are in my prior comment.
Are you posting this as sarcasm, or are you serious? He goes against Trump on almost everything.
Here's the first thing I checked, the OBBB...
https://abc7.com/post/republicans-voted-big-beautiful-bill-thomas-massie-brian-fitzpatrick-legislation/16939525/
"Goes against Trump on almost everything" is not a constitutional argument. Massie votes against unconstitutional spending, unconstitutional debt expansion, and unconstitutional executive power — regardless of which party is pushing it. That is not disloyalty to Trump. That is loyalty to the document Trump swore an oath to. The Big Beautiful Bill added trillions to the debt. Opposition to that is a feature, not a bug.
or at a bare minimum - compromised.
He is a fake patriot.
His voting record speaks for itself, and he is no democrat. He has nearly a 100% liberty score for voting with the Constitution. It doesn't matter who the donors were.
His voting record is public, and unimpeachable. That is the only metric that matters. Show me any other elected representative with a voting record as consistently in line with the Constitution and the principles upon which our Republic was founded. You won't find very many as consistent with the Constitution. https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members/M001184/117 https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/thomas-massie https://freedomindex.us/legislator/1414 https://rlc.org/rlc-releases-2023-house-liberty-index/
The debt ceiling vote is a legitimate critique worth examining. But one procedural vote you disagree with does not erase a decades-long voting record that no other member of Congress can match for constitutional consistency. If your standard is perfection, you will never find your representative. If your standard is the most constitutionally consistent member currently serving, the record still points to Massie.
Yeah, but he doesn't take the AIPAC money so we can't allow him to be in congress.
You missed the post where he has his very own JUICE handler didn't you! Same, Same...AIPAC or his very own juice handler. Zero difference there.
Oh now that is a very interesting bit of info.
I had been giving Massie a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt because of his previously reasonable positions.
But the sources of the campaign funds is a powerful indicator. And nothing good is associated with ActBlue.
Thank you OP.
This is why Massie's voting record looks so unusual to people conditioned by the modern political environment. He is not voting against his party. He is not confused. He is applying the actual constitutional standard consistently — and when you apply that standard honestly, the overwhelming majority of what the federal government currently does has no legitimate constitutional basis whatsoever.
The question is not whether Trump should dismantle unconstitutional agencies. The question is whether 200 years of unconstitutional accumulation can be unwound properly, through the legitimate constitutional process, rather than simply trading one form of executive overreach for another.
The goal is correct. The republic the Founders built had no FBI, no Department of Education, no DEA, no ATF, no DHS. It functioned. It was freer. And it was exactly what the Constitution authorized.
I don't care.
They shot Donald Trump.
They KILLED Charlie Kirk.
Fuck "principles." I want to WIN.
Kirk's assassination is exactly why principles matter more than ever. Abandoning the Constitution to "win" means you hand the left a weapon they'll use against you the moment the table turns. Winning without principles isn't winning — it's just changing who holds the whip.
You make the faulty assumption that we are playing a gentlemanly game where the Left will keep the heat down if we don't escalate.
This is a faulty assumption. Trump didn't attempt to unlawfully coup any American leaders, yet the Left gladly attempted a military coup during J6th to remove POTUS as CIC. In and of itself, that is enough proof that not playing for keeping means you are playing to lose.
The assumption isn't that the left will keep the heat down. The assumption is that the Constitution is not a tactical instrument — it is the foundation. When you abandon it because the enemy fights dirty, you haven't beaten them. You've joined them. The left has been waiting for 100 years for the right to justify executive overreach on their behalf. Don't hand them that precedent.
Again, Nancy Pelosi, a former US Speaker of the House, attempted a military coup by trying to usurp Trump's role as POTUS/CIC to gain control over the nation's nuclear arsenal.
There is no further escalation or overreach than that. A rouge politician attempting to seize the nation's most destructive weapons is not "waiting to justify overreach" at all.
Massie's mistake is that he tries to massively shift the whole system all at once instead incrementally advancing it forward over time, sometimes on the backs of less palatable legislation. If he had his way, this country would rapidly devolve into Communism by default.
The logical inversion here is stunning. Reducing federal power to its constitutional limits is the opposite of communism. Communism is total state control. The Constitution was specifically designed to prevent that. Incrementalism has been the left's strategy for 100 years — and it worked. Every decade of "incremental" compromise is why we're having this conversation at all.
It is counterintuitive yes, but Massie and other libertarians try to convince a 50-50 Congress to go 100 percent libertarian in one fell swoop, if they refuse, and they always do, opting for a bill that is 75 percent libertarian, Massie and such refuse to vote for it, often cuasing it to fail in close votes. So instead of us advancing 75 percent towards liberty, we get nothing. Then the Democrats win the next Congress because this one rejected a bill 75 percent liked. The Democrats, with no Massie types, just pass their communist agenda with impunity.
Where are all of the Massie "fan boys" on this board now? Hurts to know the truth huh fellas! Oh wait, they are downvoting the comments. We see you now!
I think it's a little weird that he got married 15 months after his wife, that he was supposedly so in love with, died
Joe & his 1st wife come to mind....
Checks out
7000 here’s that number again, not sure if Jew false flag or real, ACTBlue is 90% straw donors anyway.
Why is there so much opposition to one of the very few anti-Zionist members? Odd, no? Follow the money.
Now do everyone else, seems that most big donors will give to both sides to hedge their lobby bets.
Whenever I see something like this, I conclude that it isn't because those people find agreement with Massie, but that they (wrongly) see an opportunity to sow division among MAGA/America First. I thought the same with the Globalist donors to DeSantis' 2024 Primary campaign. That said, anyone to the right of center wishing political success should avoid donations from entities known to be left of center.
Im far more concerned with trumps zionism than his few detractors.