Please tell me who I should vote for

[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 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. 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. 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. 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 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".