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".

[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....