Hi DrDave,
I haven't made it to the swamp of Washington DC yet. I currently serve in the Maine State Senate, so I spend most of my time at the state capitol in Augusta, ME, but I am running for the US Senate in November 2018.
To answer a few of your questions, people ask me all the time whether or not I support Donald Trump. To that I reply, I support the Constitution of the United States of America and the principles of human liberty enshrined within it. I cannot and will not pledge my allegiance to any person because you cannot be a servant of two masters. When President Trump's actions and proposals align with our Constitution and the principles of liberty, I will support him. When his actions and proposals do not, I will stand against him. For me, the person or the party that proposes an idea matters very little. What matters are the ideas themselves and the principles behind them.
On North Korea, I think we need to tread very carefully. We have experienced enough war these last two decades and the last thing we should want is to engage in another war halfway across the world. We should always exercise diplomacy first.
On Russia, I think its pretty clear that Russia did favor Trump over Clinton. They may have even directly engaged with platforms like Facebook in an attempt to sway American public opinion. And to that, I say, "So what?" I certainly don't like other nations involving themselves in our elections, and also, its hardly cause for World War III. Our own government regularly interferes in the elections of other nations across the world in ways far more troubling, in some cases completely overturning election results and deposing elected leaders. We should never mistake the leaders of Russia for "good guys" --- they are politicians, which generally means they are the most rotten examples humanity has to offer --- and at the same time, I can understand why they would try to sway American public opinion towards Trump. Hillary Clinton was threatening to establish a no fly zone over Syria and shoot Russian planes out of the sky. She was actively calling for American war against their nation. If all they did is post to Facebook, I can hardly blame them. American foreign policy has demonstrated that, when a candidate for office is calling for war against us, we interfere in ways far worse. Of course, Trump has not delivered on his campaign promise of staying out of Syria and ending the failed policy of nation building that we've pursued over the last two administrations, so maybe Russia made a mistake. Whoever is President, the warmongering continues.
Obamacare --- I oppose it, want to repeal it, and believe free markets, increased competition and consumer choice is how we will make healthcare affordable again.
Alternative Energy --- I believe the market should decide energy policy and that means cutting corporate welfare subsidies to all forms of energy (including big oil). Personally, I believe nuclear energy is the most promising technology available to save our environment, establish energy independence and generate affordable energy for Americans. There are many ways to pursue nuclear energy that are safer, cleaner and cheaper than what has been pursued in the past. There is a lot of promise held in research into thorium as an alternative nuclear energy source (instead of uranium) and liquid fluoride reactors as a safer alternative to traditional light water reactors.
I am pro-life. And my pro-life principles extend far beyond the issues of abortion. I believe human life is sacred and that is why I oppose the death penalty and oppose the senseless wars we have been waging without end in the Middle East for seventeen years. The Republican Party likes to call itself the "Pro-Life Party," but it makes a mockery of those ideals every time it proves itself the "Pro-War Party." We cannot call ourselves pro-life while we casually throw the lives of our men and women in uniform into conflicts with no clear mission and dismiss the deaths of millions in other nations as "collateral damage."
I hope that answers most of your questions. Thank you for taking the tie to engage.
For Liberty!
Sen. Eric Brakey
Wow. Senator . Your like Ron Paul dope!!!
Senator Brakey,
Thank you for the replying to my questions so fast. I didn't think it would be cool to take over your entire post with my followup questions (ended up being pretty long) so I have placed the whole interaction in a separate post (including new questions/ comments). I appreciate your engagement and am looking forward to your response to my reply to my posts reply questions... Whew breathe... :)
In all seriousness, I would like you and anyone else interested to check it out and continue the discussion. Our lives really do depend on the future Senators and Representatives we send to Washington... That means YOU... ;)
https://steemit.com/politics/@drdave/my-reply-to-state-senator-eric-brakey-s-introductory-post-announcing-he-is-running-for-us-senate
@senatorbrakey
Thanks for sharing your platform with us.
Doesn't your pro-nuclear energy policy contradict your overall position as an advocate against BIG GOVERNMENT?
NOBODY wants a nuclear waste facility in their vicinity, yet we have a system in the U.S. of stockpiling radioactive waste at nuclear power plants all over the country. This incredibly dangerous government policy can not be made safe against unpredictable natural disaster.
Most nuclear reactors are built next to the sea for cooling. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster vividly illustrates what can go wrong when a reactor is hit with a tsunami or earthquake. Surrounding areas are rendered unsafe for humans for thousands of years. The cost to clean up Fukushima is $187 billion and growing.
You've said, "the market should decide energy policy and that means cutting corporate welfare subsidies to all forms of energy." You mentioned BIG OIL. Does your policy also apply to nuclear? Will you be seeking to eliminate the government-subsidized insurance nuclear power plants receive?
No insurance company will insure a U.S. nuclear power plant because it's too risky. BIG GOVERNMENT has made taxpayers the unwilling insurers of the nuclear industry. If this hidden insurance cost was priced into nuclear power, the cost rise would put the nuclear power industry out of business overnight.
As an advocate against BIG GOVERNMENT, how do you justify your support of BIG GOVERNMENT forcing hazardous radioactive nuclear waste storage upon unwilling local residents while propping up the nuclear power industry with free insurance that can cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars?
One more thing, Fortune reports that In the UK, Wind is Already Cheaper than Nuclear.
That's why I am a big proponent of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology: safer, cleaner & cheaper than the traditional Light Water Uranium Reactors we commonly think of when we think nuclear. You wouldn't need government subsidies. You just need government to get out of the way to let private research and investment do it.
Learn more here: http://energyfromthorium.com
Thank you for joining us here on Steemit. As an irish national i cant vote in your elections but have a big interest in US politics as unfortunately it effects all of us. I like your honest answers to the above. But i wonder what is your stance on Citizens united and on the major problem, (as i see it) of cooperate money in politics?
Thanks for the follow-up. Will you directly answer these two nuclear power policy questions?
Do you oppose the U.S. government continuing to provide free insurance to the nuclear power industry?
Taking into consideration that all U.S. nuclear power plants are also long-term storage nuclear waste dumps, do you oppose constructing nuclear reactors in communities that object to hosting a nuclear waste dump?
LFTR nuclear power, the power plant technology you favor, doesn't actually exist yet. To take LFTR from prototype to commercial reactor will cost billions of dollars in R&D, see Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2.
In the wake of the nuclear power financial disasters of the Westinghouse bankruptcy and the Fukusima meltdown, private investors have no appetite for nuclear power. Development of LFTR technology is subsidized by the U.S. government under a plan that will build power plants in a communist country (China) where anti-nuclear protesters can't stop construction. See Fortune http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/.
Is this the way forward you support?
By the way, the site you referred us to, http://energyfromthorium.com, belongs to Kirk Sorensen, the president of Flibe Energy in Alabama. LFTR development depends upon this one U.S. company (of unknown assets according to Crunchbase) and the U.S. DOE. When, if ever, this technology will be ready is unknowable. May not be prudent to pin national policy on the hope it succeeds.