From HRC to Libertarian - One Poker Player's Path

[schroedy]

My response to Mrs. Clinton's initial request for (more) financial support:



_____________________ __________________ __________________

I have long been a "positional" and "financial" supporter of Mrs. Clinton's. I recall my (then) 8 year old daughter who was studying the Presidents in school asking me with earnest curiosity, why out of all 42 Presidents, not one had been a woman. Jokingly, I pointed out that you COULD get 42 straight tails by flipping a coin. A short discussion of the women's suffrage and more general liberation movement followed. To which she replied, "Oh Dad. You're talking about the stone ages." Thus, Mrs. Clinton's candidacy has symbolic as well as political positional impact for me. I would love to be a vigorous supporter. (My daughter is 22 today.)

However, in light of recent activity of the Department of Justice in the oppression of online gaming, generally, and in particular as it affects online poker, I will not be supporting any candidate for any office unless they overtly come out in support of legalization and regulation of online gaming, or at least poker. I understand that the Libertarian party has had discussions with World Series of Poker main event champion Greg Raymer about the Vice Presidential slot on their ticket. Because I am certain that Mr. Raymer's views on online poker correspond to my own, I will be supporting the Libertarian ticket, unless and until a democratic candidate comes out overtly in favor of the legalization and regulation of online poker. This issue may seem trivial to you, but it clearly represents BY FAR the issue in which the policy and activity of the federal government mosts affects my day to day life and livelihood.

Everyone that knows me knows that my vote was (and my contributions were) HRC's to lose (in fact many were quite sick of hearing me extol her virtues). However, I cannot continue to support her unless she overtly opposes the recent activity of the DOJ with respect to online gaming (or at least poker).

[pvn]

So you're not really concerned with the restriction of freedom, you're concerned with the restriction of things *you* want to do.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not be supporting any candidate for any office unless they overtly come out in support of legalization and regulation of online gaming

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really know what libertarian means.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he cares what libertarian means. The OP wants to vote his pocketbook. It's as American as apple pie.

[hmkpoker]

If this guy were a strictly B&M player, I'll bet he'd support the ban.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
From killer to prey

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp


Welcome to politics. Be a real libertarian and don't play the game.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I am saying is that a society that operates without rules/regulations is operating in anarchy. It's not that Libertarians don't believe in regulation, it's that we don't believe in regualtion that treads on our civil liberties. Express legalization and regulation of online poker, when done properly protects our civil liberties and is therefore within the libertarian philosphy. Unless, of course, I'm completely misinformed (wouldnt' be the first time, meh).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't really know what libertarian means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you are implying that it means anarchist? Or are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I believe the objection is that OP is saying "I am a libertarian who will support a candidate that is for the legalization and regulation of online poker". Libertarians don't vote for regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I am saying is that a society that operates without rules/regulations is operating in anarchy. It's not that Libertarians don't believe in regulation, it's that we don't believe in regualtion that treads on our civil liberties. Express legalization and regulation of online poker, when done properly protects our civil liberties and is therefore within the libertarian philosphy. Unless, of course, I'm completely misinformed (wouldnt' be the first time, meh).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear how you think regulation by the federal (as well as any other) government protects civil liberties. How can regulation do anything but restrict freedom?