By: a guest on Jan 3rd, 2012
| syntax: None
| size: 1.10 KB | hits: 16 | expires: Never
@Tea_Party_Tory My view is this. We (people of our persuasion) in the UK are always complaining about the lack of proper choice here. The three main parties are insufficiently different, most politicians repeat the same tired party lines, including but not limited to the undying obsession with the NHS. And now in the US someone has come along who is a really, really good candidate. He is radical and principled. But because he has one or two views which probably aren't optimal - I'm thinking here his foreign policy (although I broadly agree with it, apparently he was anti the US getting involved in WWII until they were attacked) - a lot of us end up supporting someone who is frankly just like the rest of them, perhaps marginally better. Ron Paul is FAR closer to us overall. Letting Iran get a nuke probably isn't ideal, but to be honest it just can't be the top of our priorities list realistically. I think it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater to support some tired old standard establishment candidate over and above someone who fundamentally sees the world the same way we do. Sorry about the long post.