Please tell me who I should vote for

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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.