Please tell me who I should vote for

[Mizzles]

I know nothing about politics
I've never voted before
I love poker
I live in Maryland

Could someone give me a list of who I should vote for, also do I have to register to vote first, thanks

Miz

[DeliciousBass]

Once you register...

...vote for the individual or group of individuals that you feel best represents your ideals. But before you do that, read something about the group, know why you are making that choice, laugh off all political ads in the weeks or months leading up to the election.

Welcome to Democracy.

[pa3lsvt]

[ QUOTE ]
do I have to register to vote first

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm embarrassed for the state of high school civics classes in MD.

Yes you have to register. If you didn't register when (if?) you got your driver's license, then 99.999% chance it's too late for this election. Once you are registered, as long as you keep voting (requirements vary by state) your registration stays active.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone give me a list of who I should vote for

[/ QUOTE ]

On a very fundamental level, that is not a good thing. I don't mean to be offensive, but if you don't know anything about politics, government, or current events, I'd rather you not vote.

[mshalen]

If you come to an internet poker site inorder to get information on who you should vote for then please stay home. If you really want to become confused then I would advise you to visit the Politics forum.

[Kevmath]

Unfortunately, you're unable to register to vote in MD at this time until mid-November.

web page (http://elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/index.html#When)

[pifhluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, you're unable to register to vote in MD at this time until mid-November.

web page (http://elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/index.html#When)

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant register at the polls in MD with a drivers license or utility bill?

[Uglyowl]

Although it may be too late for this election, get out and register. Start making phone calls and let the candidates know what is important to you.

[SumZero]

You should realize that your vote for a candidate is likely choosing between someone who will keep in power a party that is very anti-poker versus a party that doesn't care much about poker but if push came to shove is probably also anti-poker. In other words it may be sort of like a what's a better all-in heads up hand 23o or 95o if poker is all you care about.

For senate you should vote for Ben Cardin (D). This is a close and significant race.


Depending on what congressional district you are in you want to vote for:

1. Corwin
2. Ruppersberger
3. Sarbanes
4. Wynn
5. Hoyer
6. Duck
7. Cummings
8. Hollen Jr.

Who are all the Dens in each district. But all of these races are expected to be not-close with the Dems winning all but 1 and 6.

[cowboyzfan]

too late to register in Maryland. Which is pretty good since you got some poor advice in one post. Ben Cardin voted to ban online poker, to vote for him to "save poker" is a freaking joke.

[LuckyTxGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you register...

...vote for the individual or group of individuals that you feel best represents your ideals. But before you do that, read something about the group, know why you are making that choice, laugh off all political ads in the weeks or months leading up to the election.

Welcome to Democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could someone give me a list of who I should vote for

[/ QUOTE ]

On a very fundamental level, that is not a good thing. I don't mean to be offensive, but if you don't know anything about politics, government, or current events, I'd rather you not vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with both comments.

I totally disagree with SumZero. I'm a die hard conservative but I would not suggest you blindly go out and vote for every conservative in a race. You need to do what DeliciousBass said and research the parties, the issues, and the candidates. Vote what your convictions are. If they are different than mine, then we can disagree and I can try to convince you to see it my way, but I will not tell you to vote the way I do, "just because".

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
I totally disagree with SumZero. I'm a die hard conservative but I would not suggest you blindly go out and vote for every conservative in a race. You need to do what DeliciousBass said and research the parties, the issues, and the candidates. Vote what your convictions are. If they are different than mine, then we can disagree and I can try to convince you to see it my way, but I will not tell you to vote the way I do, "just because".

[/ QUOTE ]

He said he was a single issue poker voter. If that is the case then it is foolish to look at the candidates in Federal races, but much smarter to look at the party that will win power. Who do you want to head committees? Who do you want setting the agenda for what gets voted on and passed? If you are truly a single issue poker voter than you want the dems in power. I mentioned in my post that this wasn't like Dems are great for poker but more like Dems are not great for poker and Republicans are much, much worse.

If you were a more nuanced voter or for a single issue voter on an ambiguous issue with respect to where the parties stand then it often still makes sense to just vote straight party lines for the one that you estimate best matches your views, but sometimes it makes sense to look at the candidate in question. For the single issue poker voter this isn't the case.

[cowboyzfan]

I am sick of this crap. If this is a Democratic poker site, then fine; to each his own. But the fact of the matter is that Democrat principles are anti-poker and a majority of Democrats supported anti-online gambling legislation is both houses of Congress.

I am against Kyl, I think he is a total jerk. Yet it is folly to think Pederson is pro gambing rights, he has NEVER said he was.

I think many are using emotion and not their 2+2 logic. The fact is historically most libertarians have voted Repub and most libertarian representatives are in the Republican party. Democrats believe in centralized state control, basically they think they know better how you should live than you do. I admit there are freaks in the Republican party such as Frist, Kyl, and Goodlatte. But think about it, one man, Bill Frist made this ban happen. I have never heard Bush mention the issue a single time.

If you are Dem vote Dem. But do not lie to many non political types by saying Dems are libertarian and support poker rights, it is simply untrue.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of this crap. If this is a Democratic poker site, then fine; to each his own. But the fact of the matter is that Democrat principles are anti-poker and a majority of Democrats supported anti-online gambling legislation is both houses of Congress.

I am against Kyl, I think he is a total jerk. Yet it is folly to think Pederson is pro gambing rights, he has NEVER said he was.

I think many are using emotion and not their 2+2 logic. The fact is historically most libertarians have voted Repub and most libertarian representatives are in the Republican party. Democrats believe in centralized state control, basically they think they know better how you should live than you do. I admit there are freaks in the Republican party such as Frist, Kyl, and Goodlatte. But think about it, one man, Bill Frist made this ban happen. I have never heard Bush mention the issue a single time.

If you are Dem vote Dem. But do not lie to many non political types by saying Dems are libertarian and support poker rights, it is simply untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]lol , I love ya cowboy.As much as i disagree with some of your posts.At least you will go down with your ship,if it comes to that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
it is folly to think Pederson is pro gambing rights, he has NEVER said he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diane Feinstein, my California Democratic Senator, is anti-online gambling. Ironic, since California is a pro gambling state if there ever was one.

We need to look at each candidate on this issue.

[cowboyzfan]

5th, yeah i hear ya, same to you sir. I respect people that stay with their team even to the bitter end. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

but i do stand by what I said, i do truly believe it.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are Dem vote Dem. But do not lie to many non political types by saying Dems are libertarian and support poker rights, it is simply untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are the Republicans. If you're a libertarian, maybe you should consider voting for the Libertarian Party.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of this crap. If this is a Democratic poker site, then fine; to each his own. But the fact of the matter is that Democrat principles are anti-poker and a majority of Democrats supported anti-online gambling legislation is both houses of Congress.

I am against Kyl, I think he is a total jerk. Yet it is folly to think Pederson is pro gambing rights, he has NEVER said he was.

I think many are using emotion and not their 2+2 logic. The fact is historically most libertarians have voted Repub and most libertarian representatives are in the Republican party. Democrats believe in centralized state control, basically they think they know better how you should live than you do. I admit there are freaks in the Republican party such as Frist, Kyl, and Goodlatte. But think about it, one man, Bill Frist made this ban happen. I have never heard Bush mention the issue a single time.

If you are Dem vote Dem. But do not lie to many non political types by saying Dems are libertarian and support poker rights, it is simply untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sick of your crap. You mislead everyone as much as some idiot that says vote Dem, Dem's love poker! We aren't saying Dem's love poker. Saying it repeatedly does not make it true. Peterson's stance on poker is basically irrelevant. Let's make this simple:

Vote for the guy who enacts anti-poker laws, and wants to go after the wire act, or vote for the guy that has a chance to keep him out of the Senate? Not that friggin hard to understand. It's not pro-Dem, it's pro-not-Kyle, and the Dem has the best chance of being elected because the libertarian has no shot in hell. You think Pederson will attack the wire act if elected? No, neither are most of the Republicans. And, if Kyl is elected but without a Republican majority in the Senate, Kyl won't be able to continue his crusade. The Democrats could care less about poker, but they don't let Republicans dictate legislative schedules when they have the majority. Kyl's chit will be way on the back burner. Again, our messages are not VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS CUZ THEY LUV POKER, it is that just a handful of anti-poker Republicans are on a mission aided by two facts: 1) they continue to be reelected in their home states 2) they hold a majority in Congress that allows them to control what does and does not make it to the floor. Poker isn't important enough to me to atually dictate who I vote for, but apparently it is to some people here. And, if it your position that (Pederson + Democractic majority) is no better than (Kyl+ Republican majority), you are completely ignorant of the legislative process. Nothing is going to get overturned anytime soon, this is more about damage control on future acts.

The rest of your comments are such partisan rhetoric, that your quip at Democrats makes you no better than the 'operatives' you claim to see lurking in the shadows.

[cowboyzfan]

I hear what you are saying. But historically, the Republican party of Goldwater and Reagan has been libertarian in philosophy. There are many Republicans that are conservative/libertarian, check out the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The Libertarian party is simply not serious and can not win elections. libertarian with a small l is a philisophy, not neccessarily a political party. The founder of the modern Libertarian Party supports Republicans.

again, we have several big government types in the Republican party, they need to be purged. But the Dem party is not even worrying about this, big government is their mantra.

[cowboyzfan]

what an ass you are. I did not make this personal. Yes, the reality of life is there are more issues than poker. Have you not noticed we have troops getting killed fighting for us?

I do NOT want a Democratic majority because most of them are anti-American and have NO good policies. IF a kyl loss means the Dems control the senate then i am for kyl. But the reality is the Republicans HAVE paid for this Frist cheap shot at poker. You think they will go farther?, please, hell Frist is gone.

Again, not that you will ever understand, PeDerson (not peterson) has never supported online gambling rights, not ever.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
what an ass you are. I did not make this personal. Yes, the reality of life is there are more issues than poker. Have you not noticed we have troops getting killed fighting for us?

I do NOT want a Democratic majority because most of them are anti-American and have NO good policies. IF a kyl loss means the Dems control the senate then i am for kyl. But the reality is the Republicans HAVE paid for this Frist cheap shot at poker. You think they will go farther?, please, hell Frist is gone.

Again, not that you will ever understand, PeDerson (not peterson) has never supported online gambling rights, not ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an ass. Need me to drag out quotes where you called everyone dumb, and accused us of being spies? You made it personal when you called out anyone who had views opposing yours. No chit there are more issues than poker. HOWEVER, some people here are actually voting purely on poker. To them, this is the only issue. That is their right.

Democrats are "anti-American and have NO good policies"? Amazing. Are you this partisan that you accuse Democrats of being traitors with no merit? Republicans have some good qualities, but I can actually admit that. To say that about any party other than the Nazi's or someone is just blanket ignorant hate.

I DONT CARE if Pederson supports our rights. I care that he replaces John Kyl, who actively attacks poker. I made that clear in my post, and you refuse to read my simple English. Find where I said "Pederson supports our rights". Pederson will stick his thumb up his ass and do whatever he wants, and he has never expressed interest in targeting poker.

How did Republican's pay for this? Enlighten me. Revenge is a poor motive anyway. This is about preventing future harm. Frist was the majority leader the helped Kyl along. Frist being gone a positive, but Kyl was the architect of the legislation, and has STATED that he wants to go futher and revise the wire act. Denying that is like denying that you have fingers.

[cowboyzfan]

wow you have been here an entire month. no you are not a Democratic operative. Hey i admit that you are making headway, getting people to vote for your party. kudos. but i am a long term member here, i have won and lost more than you have on the tables, and your [censored] will never sway me.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
wow you have been here an entire month. no you are not a Democratic operative. Hey i admit that you are making headway, getting people to vote for your party. kudos. but i am a long term member here, i have won and lost more than you have on the tables, and your [censored] will never sway me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to sway you, I'm just calling you out on your bullchit. I have been playing poker for many many many years. Whether you have played more than me, whether you have been here longer than me, is irrelevant. Many many Republicans post here, and I haven't said a word to them. Most of them make sense, don't spout off non-facts or accuse dissenters of being operatives. I understand their positions, and their arguments make sense. You just bring blanket hate of all things not-your position, try to convince us with generalized one-liners that you think sound good in your head, and then point fingers all over the room. People who take opposing positions are not operatives, they are people with opposing positions. You say Democrats in the Senate won't help us. Fine, we counter-argue. Rather than continue the argument like every other conservative here, you call us brainwashed idiots and democratic spies. I will call you out every time you pull that.

[cowboyzfan]

you are wrong sir. I have stated my point clearly and logically. Most libertarian minded people vote Republican and most libertarian minded representatives are Republican. There is a push to give money to Pederson, yet he does not support our cause, there is no logic in it. I would rather give money to Barney Frank (D) because he supports us.

Of course i believe Democrat operatives like you are using this site, mostly those who joined in the last month. You are going to convince me that is not true? please.

for the last time, i do NOT support Kyl, i am against all that try to take away our rights. But I do NOT think giving the Senate to the anti-American Democrats makes any sense at all, they are socialists and have NEVER supported online gambling rights.

you say i am full of hate, that is a total crock. 5th street hog is opposed to my view but we respect each other. YOu are the one who made this personal, yet still i have no hate, even for you, it is just politics. piece of advice, simma down now.

[NorthDakota]

LOL... Poofler... we've been found out... What time is the Democratic operative Conference Call tonight???

[Poofler]

I joined recently because someone directed me to 2+2 when I asked about news on what sites were opening up. I like it here, so I stick around. It's really not that sinister. But if you keep it up, I'm just going to refer to you as a Republican operative, since we might as well both be ridiculous about it.

Ok we made some headway. You don't like Kyl, you think he is an enemy to poker right?

So, you don't see logic in supporting the man who could replace the enemy of poker? Given Kyl's stance that he wants to continue revising gambling legislation? He's made it clear he isn't done yet. In order for there to be no logic in this, you have to assume 2 things. 1) Kyl is finished with poker or 2) Pederson wants to do as much to poker as Kyl has said he wants to. Can you support either claim with some evidence? Honestly, I really would like to know why you think Pederson is no worse to poker, or why Kyl won't follow through with his wire act goals?

As far as the hate, I'll dig up some quotes and then tell me how 'civil' you were being originally.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL... Poofler... we've been found out... What time is the Democratic operative Conference Call tonight???

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh CRAP! I forgot about that. I was supposed to break into a hotel tonight and steal some Republican strategy documents. Argh!!! Then there is the forging documents party later. AND then I have to fly to Afghanistan and give our miltary secrets to Al Qaeda. I think you have to count me out, way too busy right now. Hail Howard Dean!

[NorthDakota]

LOL

[cowboyzfan]

yeah too bad people are deceived by cheap jokes. seems like the Dem charge here is all newbies all the time.

[bigalt]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you register...

...vote for the individual or group of individuals that you feel best represents your ideals. But before you do that, read something about the group, know why you are making that choice, laugh off all political ads in the weeks or months leading up to the election.

Welcome to Democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem with the OP's request, the tangential argument besides.

If you identify a group you trust to do the research for you, why do it yourself? It's the only way our government works (insofar that it does work).

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah too bad people are deceived by cheap jokes. seems like the Dem charge here is all newbies all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If tenure here is the end all, then the to vote against Kyl is fine. Been here since 2002 /images/graemlins/smile.gif You have been acting bad ass since you signed up a few years back.

In all seriousness you should know, length of time on this site has nothing to do with the strength of your posts and ideology.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah too bad people are deceived by cheap jokes. seems like the Dem charge here is all newbies all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Republican operative, why did you respond to a joke instead of my previous question regarding your Pederson is no better than Kyl logic. Seems like an awfully Republican operativey thing to do, Republican operative.

If you do answer, please answer those questions specifically. Telling me for the 5th time that Pederson won't fight for us is unrelated to my question regarding the issue of future potential legislation by either candidate.

[cowboyzfan]

poof, feel free to take my words, yes "Democratic Operative" is effective. What questions do you want me to answer specifically? I am honest and fair. You are for a socialist, left wing, anti-American, party. That is your own business, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POKER.

I said I dislike Kyl, Frist, and Goodlatte, what more do you want?? The Republican party is split between traditional libertarians and Christian Right do gooders. Yet the Democratic Party is not split, they are for socialism, big governmet, and if you did not go to an Ivy League school you are an inbred. You stand up for Democrats that will NEVER help poker and will at best tax away the winner's advantage. The libertarians, those that believe in liberty, are in the Republican Party. Yes i admit you have the mojo here, but since I have worked on Capitol Hill I think i know what i am saying, hell I worked in the Capitol Building.

What it comes down to is you will win the popularity contest among those not in the know. But kyl will win and then what will you say? I think kyl sucks, but in no way is the Democratic Party for poker. In fact the most famous presidential poker players were Eisenhower (R) and Nixon (R).

For the last time, i am NOT defending Kyl, he is a jerk. But it is a lie to tell non voters on this site that Democrats give a [censored] about them. It is a Democratic operative lie.

[Poofler]

For time #12,649 I never said Dems would fight for poker. I don't think they will. I don't even vote Dem all the time. You grossly mischaracterized the party. It's like if I were to say the new Republican party is for war-mongering, civil liberities stealing, fear pandering, and abandoning of fiscal conservatism. It's just a string of inflammatory statements that would apply drastically different to everyone within that party, and wouldn't apply at all to many. Hell, I can admit Pelosi scares me. So does Ashcroft. But I'm not going to debate broad political philosophy with you, because neither one of us will ever succeed. We can do that on the politics forum. And working on the Hill doesn't make you infallible. I've worked for a Congressmen on the Hill as well. Does that make us both right? This is about poker, and my question was about poker.

I know you denounce Kyl, I'm just trying to get how you can state that having Pederson would be less helpful to us than having Kyl. Here are my questions again:

Kyl's has enacted legislation (not just voted) regarding gambling in the past. He expressed a desire to revise the wire act, which would be a far broader and more effective tool to stop internet gambling. It seems clear that he isn't done yet. In order for us to be no better off with Pederson, you logically must assume one of two things:

1) Kyl is finished with poker, and somehow without Frist, Kyl will cease attacking internet gambling.
or
2) Pederson wants to do as much to poker as Kyl has said he wants to, making both candidates equally dangerous going forward.

I can dig up cites if you need me to. So, can you support either 1) or 2) with some evidence? And again, I concede Pederson, like almost all politicians, will not go out of his way to repeal the CURRENT legislation. This is about future damage.

Let's call a truce on the flaming right now. No one here is an operative. No more side comments about the party philosophy, just logical comparisons between Kyl and Pederson for the future.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the Democratic Party is not split, they are for socialism, big governmet,

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl's biggest goal is to stamp out internet gambling. He has said himself he wants to go further and UIGEA is just the first step. I would rather have someone indifferent to online gambling than Kyl. Other races (other than Leach) I have no super strong feelings on.

Further Cowboyz, this probably belongs in politics, but "big government" applies to even the Republicans nowadays. See the budget deficit, see their intrusion into our personal lives in poker, I could go on.

I really wish the Republicans were small government, I know some are, but the overall course of the party has gotten too "religious".

[NorthDakota]

Personally, I would never argue your point about Democrats not saving Poker. Democrats... Republican... it doesn't matter... Poker isn't even a consideration for any of them and that is why we are... where we are... Poker isn't building highways or Museums for any of them... Poker isn't paying for the gas in their Airplanes... I get your point...

I live in a Red State with Blue Congressman and this year I'm Voting Republican(I'll probably lose my Democratic Operative Card for doing so) because I realize that the only way we undo this mess is to vote against those that voted against us... And My Blue Congressmen Voted against us... So I'm Red now...

There are larger issues in the world... And I really don't want to debate any of them with the likes of you (cowboyzfan)... I'm actually ashamed that I've become a single Issue guy because Internet Poker Is so Pale in Comparison to War, Education, Border Security, Taxes, Health Care and everything Else... But, I'm Forced to be single issue because Washington has made an issue of my game with Legislation and the only way to counter the legislation is to Band Together and Show Strength in Numbers otherwise we just bend over and take it... Money and Votes is the only thing any of them understand... If $16,000 Dollars from the NTRA can get a Carve out from Goodlatte... We have the same hope... And that is what it's about... Donating and Banding together toward a common goal... The Goal of removing Kyl is a longshot but the message is there... Kyl is our enemy and maybe we were not ready this time but we can and will be next time... That's what this is about... Kyl is one of the Evil 4(they just happen to be Republicans) and that is why he has been targeted... Even if we fail... And it may be likely... Any Politician will change his tune quickly if they suspected for a second that we could band together and fight... In 2 years if it turns out that a Democrat has picked up the leadership role in Killing Poker... Than I will be there to donate Money to bringing that Blue Guy Down as well...

For GOD's SAKE... YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS THREAD THAT IS TRYING TO MAKE IT A PARTISAN ISSUE... We get your point... The Dem's won't help poker and they will let the Brown Guys cross the river enmasse... WE GET YOUR POINT... IT"S JUST NOT OUR POINT... THESE ARE THE LAST WORDS THAT I WILL TYPE IN YOUR DIRECTION...

Signed

NorthDakota
Accused Political Operative

[cowboyzfan]

poofler, yes I am willing to calll a truce. I could take cheap shots but will not, that is what a truce is all about. I know you believe what you are saying, I do too, that should mean something, we shoud be pals when you think of it.

I very much do not defend Kyl, Frist, or Goodlatte. I do truly believe that libertarians in the Republican party will stop the Christian Conervative types. I could be wrong, and ni many ways I hope Kyl goes down even though it is unlikely.


I want to be clear, I did say do not support PEDERSON because I thought i poker pac would be more effective. Hell, i think kyl sucks ass and will cheer with you all ifhe goes down. I just don't think he will. But i do think that big government social Christian Repubs have seen they are playing with fire. The Repub party of Goldwater and Reagan stands for individual freedom. That is what i stand for.

Look, we are all poker players, we are trying to deal with the political times we live in. We all want poker to be open to all that desire to play, I know i am for that, and IO think poofler is for the same.

[Poofler]

Ok... thanks for the truce. But getting back to the question, are you saying that poker is better off with Pederson in office or Kyl in office? All other issues aside, just poker. If your answer is neither, why do you think Pederson is capable of the same degree of future harm that Kyl has expressly stated he wants to achieve?

[Poofler]

Cowboyz?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear what you are saying. But historically, the Republican party of Goldwater and Reagan has been libertarian in philosophy. There are many Republicans that are conservative/libertarian, check out the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The Libertarian party is simply not serious and can not win elections. libertarian with a small l is a philisophy, not neccessarily a political party. The founder of the modern Libertarian Party supports Republicans.

again, we have several big government types in the Republican party, they need to be purged. But the Dem party is not even worrying about this, big government is their mantra.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can vote for the lesser of two evils or one can vote for no evils at all. The idea that a 3rd party can't win is both false, if you look at history, and a self fulfilling prophesy. I'm not putting forward the thesis that the Libertarian Party can win this election or the next. I'm saying that I'm going to stand up for what I believe in and vote for those that best represent that. If I have money or time to give to a political candidate, it's going to be to someone that stands with me. Maybe they'll never win. Maybe Americans will never get tired of being ruled by morons and degenerates that push policies that have never worked and never will. If that's the case, then they'll get the country they deserve. I'm not going to be a part of that process though.

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of this crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and me both, but you replied to my message and misrepressented my position. And continue to do it. Also, note that it is a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominim) to dismiss people's points by merely calling them Democratic opperatives. You must argue against their points individually, not merely say "people have joined recently, therefore they are opperatives and we can ignore their points". Also note, that unless I planned ahead brilliantly for Frists later poker ban that I joined in 2004 and have more than twice as many posts here as you, the vast majority of them poker related. So even if your argument via ad hominim was legit, it doesn't work against me. Also note I'm not saying because I've posted more than twice as much as you that I'm more than twice as credible. That would be a foolish
appeal to authority fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). But it also means you can't dismiss people who haven't posted much either.

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact of the matter is that Democrat principles are anti-poker

[/ QUOTE ]

to some degree they are. Hence why in the very message you are replying to, as well as in my original post, I never said the Dems were pro-poker. For instance I said:

[ QUOTE ]
wasn't like Dems are great for poker but more like Dems are not great for poker and Republicans are much, much worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
choosing between someone who will keep in power a party that is very anti-poker versus a party that doesn't care much about poker but if push came to shove is probably also anti-poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

your later point:

[ QUOTE ]
a majority of Democrats supported anti-online gambling legislation is both houses of Congress.... The fact is historically most libertarians have voted Repub and most libertarian representatives are in the Republican party. Democrats believe in centralized state control, basically they think they know better how you should live than you do. I admit there are freaks in the Republican party such as Frist, Kyl, and Goodlatte. But think about it, one man, Bill Frist made this ban happen. I have never heard Bush mention the issue a single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

is mostly misleading or incorrect. It is true that the majority of libertarians vote Repub (although that is changing over the last few years as Bush is showing, once again, that the Republicans are just as big gov't as the Dems and much of the Patriot act type of spying is relatively anti-libertarian, as is this poker stuff), but the libertarian wing of the Republican party has no power and much of your argument here is another fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Just because pure libertarians would be pro-poker and most libertarians have been Republican it does not follow that Rebuplicans are pro-poker. And since the religious wing of the Republican party is very anti-poker and they are the wing with the most power, the Republican party is very anti-poker.

You claim that a majority of Democrats supported anti-online gambling legislation which is true, but misleading. Check out the house vote on HR 4411Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-363). What do we see:

201/230 Republicans voted for it, more than 87%. Only 7% of Republicans voted against it. Hmm, where's that libertarian record?

As for the Democrats, you are right a majority supported it, but look:

115/201 Democrats voted for it, just 57%. Around 38% of Democrats voted against it. Hmm, looks like the Democrats in the house are better for poker by a 30% margin.

In the senate it was a voice vote so we can't tell who was for it or against it (since most were for the Safe ports act it was attached to), but we know Harry Reid was against it as was Barney Frank, both of whom would have key positions in a Democratic Senate. Bush hasn't talked about the UIGEA specifically, but had the chance to veto the bill if he wanted (although at the cost of the safe ports, which likely could have been repassed without, but maybe not for some time) and didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
do not lie to many non political types by saying Dems are libertarian and support poker rights, it is simply untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

So again you are committing another fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) as I never said that and you are replying to my messages. Again, as a reminder, I said:

[ QUOTE ]
wasn't like Dems are great for poker but more like Dems are not great for poker and Republicans are much, much worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
choosing between someone who will keep in power a party that is very anti-poker versus a party that doesn't care much about poker but if push came to shove is probably also anti-poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

and if you look at the actual evidence and facts those are very accurate. You may not like the fact that the Republicans are more anti-poker than the Democrats. You may not like the fact that the key anti-poker people are important Republican figures. You may not like the fact that voting for even a libertarian pro-poker Republican for Federal office (not that this is an option here) actually has the real world effect of making the key anti-poker Republicans have more power should their party keep control. But those are the facts and wishing they weren't or disguising the issue through a bunch of fallacies doen't make it not the fact.

Now some people might say "sure the republicans are worse for poker, but there is more in the world going on and the republicans are better on Iraq or the economy or sex scandals or running FEMA or military intelligence or balancing the deficit or what not and these issues are more important and therefore you should vote republican." And if that's how you feel, then that's how you should vote. I feel these people are wrong, you feel they are right, OP doesn't care so this one thread should be about OP's request and should strictly be about poker. OP asked specifically for how to vote if all that mattered in the world was poker. And it is clear that if all that matters to you is poker, you must vote Dem in this 2006 election (at least for congress and senate) because the Dems are less bad for poker than the Republicans. Note "less bad" does not mean "great".

[permafrost]

Good post. Since 73% of the House voted for H.R.4411 (which had harsher legislation than the new law), we got problems and must work together intelligently.

[NapoleonDolemite]

Don't vote. Instead, go to a book store or library and read up on political philosophy, then go get some coffee. Then go home and watch the whole circus unfold on a 24 hour cable news network.

While you're doing this, eat a light snack and be glad you aren't waiting in line just to put some rich person in an even better position.

P.S. I might be kidding. (but probably not)

[ccartman2]

Any one voting should pick the candidate best for them, and not expect someone to do it for them. It's easy to research this stuff with sites like Project Vote Smart. At any rate, voting because of poker isn't going to help in most cases, because most of them are too stupid to understands the economic benefits of regulation. On one side you have bleeding heart liberals worried about addicts, who will just bet the horses to piss it away. On the other, you have religious Zealots trying to save our souls.

The way this gets fixed is by a lobbiest group such as the one that just started, or through the courts. I'd have to believe that a good Lawyer could make a hell of an argument that if they are willing to exempt Horse Racing and Lotteries, that they are just discriminating against poker players.

[kidpokeher]

Sponsors of anti-online gambling bills:

Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
Rep. James Leach [R-IA]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte[R-VA]

Cosponsors:

Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R-AL]
Rep. Robert Cramer [D-AL]
Rep. Terry Everett [R-AL]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-AL]
Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. John Hayworth [R-AZ]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R-CA]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R-CA]
Rep. William Thomas [R-CA]
Rep. Joel Hefley [R-CO]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO]
Rep. Nancy Johnson [R-CT]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Robert Simmons [R-CT]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R-FL]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R-FL]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Mark Foley [R-FL]
Rep. Ric Keller [R-FL]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R-FL]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]
Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA]
Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA]
Rep. David Scott [D-GA]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R-IA]
Rep. James Nussle [R-IA]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Ray LaHood [R-IL]
Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL]
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R-IN]
Rep. John Hostettler [R-IN]
Rep. Michael Sodrel [R-IN]
Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R-KS]
Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]
Rep. Ben Chandler [D-KY]
Rep. Ron Lewis [R-KY]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Richard Baker [R-LA]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA]
Rep. Bobby Jindal [R-LA]
Rep. James McCrery [R-LA]
Rep. Steve King [R-IA]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. David Camp [R-MI]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R-MI]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI]
Rep. John Schwarz [R-MI]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI]
Rep. Gilbert Gutknecht [R-MN]
Rep. Mark Kennedy [R-MN]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN]
Rep. James Ramstad [R-MN]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R-MO]
Rep. Kenny Hulshof [R-MO]
Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R-MT]
Rep. John Coble [R-NC]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D-NC]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]
Rep. Robert Hayes [R-NC]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Charles Taylor [R-NC]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
Rep. Thomas Osborne [R-NE]
Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE]
Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ]
Rep. Heather Wilson [R-NM]
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert [R-NY]
Rep. Sue Kelly [R-NY]
Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY]
Rep. Thomas Reynolds [R-NY]
Rep. James Walsh [R-NY]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
Rep. David Hobson [R-OH]
Rep. Ralph Regula [R-OH]
Rep. Ernest Istook [R-OK]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R-OK]
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Melissa Hart [R-PA]
Rep. John Peterson [R-PA]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. William Shuster [R-PA]
Rep. Luis Fortuño [?-PR]

Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
Rep. Henry Brown [R-SC]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]
Rep. Bob Inglis [R-SC]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D-TN]
Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]
Rep. William Jenkins [R-TN]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX]
Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
Rep. Thomas DeLay [R-TX]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX]
Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. William Thornberry [R-TX]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R-WI]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV]
Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]

Sources for HR4411 and HR4477

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4411

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4777

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]

In the senate it was a voice vote so we can't tell who was for it or against it (since most were for the Safe ports act it was attached to), but we know Harry Reid was against it as was Barney Frank, both of whom would have key positions in a Democratic Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh, given that Barney Frank is in the house, his only key role in the Senate might be to bring in the takeout dinner for some of his friends. I hope that they're not counting the voice vote of any pizza delivery guy who happens to be walking through these days. You never know, I guess.

[Python49]

Um, the OP was just someone who isn't into politics who wants to know who he should vote for given that he is only interested in online poker, i don't see anything wrong with this. I myself am not into politics much either and getting information from the people who are into politics is better than just blindly going to the polls and voting for whoever. One thing I know is that although I do not know about politics, I sure as hell won't be voting for republican simply because the man responsible for this is republican. Don't like my logic? Oh well, thats what happens when you get young 18-21 year olds who don't follow politics and push them to the polls. Or, someone could enlighten me on the best canidates to vote for if my only concern is online poker. I am not going to go spend 3 weeks to educate myself on the matter since i'm not really interested.

[Ace upmy Slv]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the Democratic Party is not split, they are for socialism, big governmet, and if you did not go to an Ivy League school you are an inbred.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think the Republicans are not about Big Gov't and control, then you are kidding yourself. The Repblicans may have gotten away with this smoke screen for several years, but as soon as they gained control, they did the same thing Dems did and it was ALL about Gov't.

It doesn't matter what either party wants you to believe in order to get votes, in the end it's all about Gov't control whether Dems or Reps are in control. If it isn't the right side controling our rights based on what they think is 'moral', it's the left side controling our rights to protect us from ourselves. A two party system has gotten old in this country and proves time and time again it just doesn't work. Voting for another party, whether it be Libs on Inds, is not a waste of time. The change has to start somewhere. I guess the Revolutionary War was a waste of time and effort too......

Until the Federal Gov't is weakened, power goes back to the states, and the big money is taken out of Gov't, we will be stuck in this no win situation. Oh yeah, don't forget the 'supposed' seperation of Church and State that we somehow lost s few terms ago. I guess that has nothing to do with the Evangilistic....I mean....Bush Administration....