Is this forum being stacked with Rightards

[brian ross]

Right/Libertarian here. I'm a typical tea party republican. I vote Republican in the primaries and more often than not vote against the incumbent in search of a true conservative. If there are no Democrats in a race I tend to vote Libertarian.

I'm interested, Tex. How do you define a "true conservative" and tell them from just a plain conservative?

I know I am not bien informé with American politics and their definitions of the political spectrum...

[Nom De Plume]

The Tea Party also supports the view of reduced spending by the government. They raise their voice against the increased government spending. They insist that the government should pay more attention towards the reduction of national debt too.

https://www.differencebetween.com/diffe ... publicans/

Epic giggles.

The Trump has spent more on Welfare and the military than Obama. Debt is at it's highest it has ever been. Administration costs are more under trump because he has grown the public service.... I could go on...

[Texan]

Right/Libertarian here. I'm a typical tea party republican. I vote Republican in the primaries and more often than not vote against the incumbent in search of a true conservative. If there are no Democrats in a race I tend to vote Libertarian.

I'm interested, Tex. How do you define a "true conservative" and tell them from just a plain conservative?

I know I am not bien informé with American politics and their definitions of the political spectrum...

I support people who are for personal freedom, individual rights, and low taxes. I see too many incumbents who make themselves rich at the expense of their constituents. Not all lice are democrats.

[Texan]

The Tea Party also supports the view of reduced spending by the government. They raise their voice against the increased government spending. They insist that the government should pay more attention towards the reduction of national debt too.

https://www.differencebetween.com/diffe ... publicans/

Epic giggles.

The Trump has spent more on Welfare and the military than Obama. Debt is at it's highest it has ever been. Administration costs are more under trump because he has grown the public service.... I could go on...

Trump caved on the budget deal for the badly needed military funds. I was against that, but I haven't been presented a better alternative. Go Trump!

[brian ross]

Right/Libertarian here. I'm a typical tea party republican. I vote Republican in the primaries and more often than not vote against the incumbent in search of a true conservative. If there are no Democrats in a race I tend to vote Libertarian.

I'm interested, Tex. How do you define a "true conservative" and tell them from just a plain conservative?

I know I am not bien informé with American politics and their definitions of the political spectrum...

I support people who are for personal freedom, individual rights, and low taxes. I see too many incumbents who make themselves rich at the expense of their constituents. Not all lice are democrats.

So, you'd be willing to vote for a Democrat if that candidate proposed protection for personal freedoms, individual rights and lower taxes?

The first two are easy, the latter much, much harder. I assume with lower taxes, you want lower government spending? Are you prepared to see more beggars on the streets, more people homeless, lower pay for civil servants, the military, children starving, increased crime, etc? Are you prepared to see your society's civil infrastructure decay even further, with more potholes in the roads, more bridges being closed, highways becoming dangerous? Are you prepared for slower police and fire call outs? That is what happens when taxes are cut and spending cut consummately.

Clinton was the last US President to balance the budget. Did you like his policies?

[Neferti]

I wish certain people here would realise that very few people in Australia vote for a certain "Party" because they are "rusted on", it is because they wish they didn' t HAVE to vote, so they "tick" one of the boxes.

The American voting system is entirely different. As is the British one.

[brian ross]

I wish certain people here would realise that very few people in Australia vote for a certain "Party" because they are "rusted on", it is because they wish they didn' t HAVE to vote, so they "tick" one of the boxes.

The American voting system is entirely different. As is the British one.

Yes and no. Both the UK and the US used a simplistic first-past-the-post counting system. The UK does not have a secret ballot though. Each vote's number is recorded against the person receiving it's entry in the electoral roll, so it is traceable. The US also has the (in)famous "electoral college" which allowed el Presidente Trump to win the last election. The electoral college determines how many votes each state has and who ever wins the majority in that state, wins all those votes in the electoral college which in turn can defeat the person who gained the most votes in the popular election, nationwide.

Australia has a far fairer system which determines that who wins that seat. The use of preferences ensures that a candidate which wins a seat accurately reflects the interests of the majority of the voters in that sea. This is why preference deals are important at election time.

[Neferti]

I wish certain people here would realise that very few people in Australia vote for a certain "Party" because they are "rusted on", it is because they wish they didn' t HAVE to vote, so they "tick" one of the boxes.

The American voting system is entirely different. As is the British one.

Yes and no. Both the UK and the US used a simplistic first-past-the-post counting system. The UK does not have a secret ballot though. Each vote's number is recorded against the person receiving it's entry in the electoral roll, so it is traceable. The US also has the (in)famous "electoral college" which allowed el Presidente Trump to win the last election. The electoral college determines how many votes each state has and who ever wins the majority in that state, wins all those votes in the electoral college which in turn can defeat the person who gained the most votes in the popular election, nationwide.

Australia has a far fairer system which determines that who wins that seat. The use of preferences ensures that a candidate which wins a seat accurately reflects the interests of the majority of the voters in that sea. This is why preference deals are important at election time

I don't care. Got it?

[brian ross]

I wish certain people here would realise that very few people in Australia vote for a certain "Party" because they are "rusted on", it is because they wish they didn' t HAVE to vote, so they "tick" one of the boxes.

The American voting system is entirely different. As is the British one.

Yes and no. Both the UK and the US used a simplistic first-past-the-post counting system. The UK does not have a secret ballot though. Each vote's number is recorded against the person receiving it's entry in the electoral roll, so it is traceable. The US also has the (in)famous "electoral college" which allowed el Presidente Trump to win the last election. The electoral college determines how many votes each state has and who ever wins the majority in that state, wins all those votes in the electoral college which in turn can defeat the person who gained the most votes in the popular election, nationwide.

Australia has a far fairer system which determines that who wins that seat. The use of preferences ensures that a candidate which wins a seat accurately reflects the interests of the majority of the voters in that sea. This is why preference deals are important at election time

I don't care. Got it?

I don't care that you don't care, Neferti. Got it?

[Texan]

Right/Libertarian here. I'm a typical tea party republican. I vote Republican in the primaries and more often than not vote against the incumbent in search of a true conservative. If there are no Democrats in a race I tend to vote Libertarian.

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget by Newt Gingrich and Congress. State governments are much more efficient than the feds. Government needs to be as close to the people as possible as declared in the 10th Amendment. As far as your poverty scenario, laziness should have consequences. Welfare should be for the disabled and begging should be a humbling experience.
I'm interested, Tex. How do you define a "true conservative" and tell them from just a plain conservative?

I know I am not bien informé with American politics and their definitions of the political spectrum...

I support people who are for personal freedom, individual rights, and low taxes. I see too many incumbents who make themselves rich at the expense of their constituents. Not all lice are democrats.

So, you'd be willing to vote for a Democrat if that candidate proposed protection for personal freedoms, individual rights and lower taxes?

The first two are easy, the latter much, much harder. I assume with lower taxes, you want lower government spending? Are you prepared to see more beggars on the streets, more people homeless, lower pay for civil servants, the military, children starving, increased crime, etc? Are you prepared to see your society's civil infrastructure decay even further, with more potholes in the roads, more bridges being closed, highways becoming dangerous? Are you prepared for slower police and fire call outs? That is what happens when taxes are cut and spending cut consummately.

Clinton was the last US President to balance the budget. Did you like his policies?