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.

[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.

[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.

[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".