The Soviet Union didn't share our values in WW2, but out of necessity we sided with them, turned Stalin into Uncle Joe, and otherwise glossed over all our differences. Then when WW2 ended and the Cold War began, we sided with all kinds of dictators and governments for the greater good of defeating the Soviet Union. We covertly supported Saddam (who we later had to fight...twice) when it was necessary to counter Iran. We sided with nutty mujihadeen in Afghanistan who don't share our values in order to prevent the spread of communism and help bankrupt the USSR. Many Christians in places like India, Thailand, etc, have to vote for non-Christian political party's that don't share their values in order to at least make some difference. The list goes on and on and on. Alliances of convenience in politics and war is a part of life.
I have decided that I am going to vote for that Virgil Goode individual.
Your talking about the Constitution Party that supports the kind of protectionists trade policies Bernie Sanders would love, and an isolationist foreign policy that would make Ron Paul dance in glee. Sorry, the Constitution is not a serious alternative. They will get around the same .15% of the vote they got last time and make zero difference.
As for free trade I am against it, so thanks for telling everyone where the Constitution Party stands. Tariffs funded this country until the early 20th century.
As for isolationism, I may not be one but if this is our only bane of contention then the Constitution Party meets my needs 99%. I can live with that.
Wadderya, stupid?
If that's the best you've got in the way of criticism, then I will reply with an hearty "SO WHAT?"...
I mean, really... compared to what we have now, and what Romney will invariably champion...
And in considering the fact that isolationism and protectionism in and of themselves can hardly injure this country like the open scrogging we are already getting from the socialist/communist/globalist crowd that is legislating us into oblivion...
Such a concern seems miniscule in the face of the mountain of crap one would have to settle for in voting for Romney.
Your comment is the epitome of 'straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.' Or is it mere 'Republicanism', and a fear of what might be beyond the tall fences of the plantation?