http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ Poker Players Alliance Forums Topic: On Voting Republican vs Democrat en Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:34:22 +0000 http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-755 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:04:39 +0000 Abe3689 755@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Done, and done. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-754 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:56:46 +0000 TheEngineer 754@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <blockquote><p><em>No, Congressman Reichert is a Republican. And after what the Democrats have done here, I will be voting a straight Republican ticket.</em></p></blockquote> <p>I encourage you to write and call all of them before and (the ones who win) after the election so they know their supporters want them to support our freedoms. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-753 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:56:57 +0000 Abe3689 753@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Thanks again for the further explaination TheEngineer. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-752 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:55:29 +0000 Abe3689 752@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>No, Congressman Reichert is a Republican. And after what the Democrats have done here, I will be voting a straight Republican ticket. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-751 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:13:15 +0000 Skallagrim 751@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Abe, your posts point out that every rule of thumb is just that, a rule of thumb, not a precise analysis. Although IN GENERAL Republicans tend to be against us and Democrats in favor of us, that is indeed JUST A RULE OF THUMB.</p> <p>There are a few Republicans on our side; there are a few Democrats vehemently against us.</p> <p>But when making general arguments its too tedious to always point this out.</p> <p>HOWEVER, when making an important decision like voting, you CANNOT rely on the rule of thumb and must look at the specific person in question.</p> <p>Clearly in WA you want to vote against the Democratic Governor. But you want to vote for the good Democratic Congressmen. Thats why TheEngineer has his list, so you can find the details and not just rely on a rule of thumb.</p> <p>Skallagrim </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-749 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:38:28 +0000 TheEngineer 749@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <blockquote><p><em>Thank you for the responses and explaination. I don't think it's fair to penalize Congressman Reichert for voting on UIGEA. Many politicians did not know that the gambling ban was embedded. And those that did, many still voted for the bill because the security issue was too important</em>.</p></blockquote> <p>Glad to help explain the process. Thanks.</p> <p>As for Reichert, he voted for HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. It was worse than UIGEA, and it was stand-alone at that time. It passed the House 317-93. It was modified in the Senate, where it became UIGEA, and attached to the Safe Ports Act. Despite all this, I rated congressmen who voted for HR 4411 with no other statements or actions regarding online poker a mere "?-" for 18 months after UIGEA passed, figuring this was sufficient time to cosponsor other legislation or to at least say something in our favor if they were so inclined. Some did, but Reichert and many others did not, so I then dropped them down to D. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-746 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:00:35 +0000 Abe3689 746@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Thank you for the responses and explaination. I don't think it's fair to penalize Congressman Reichert for voting on UIGEA. Many politicians did not know that the gambling ban was embedded. And those that did, many still voted for the bill because the security issue was too important. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-743 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:23:47 +0000 TheEngineer 743@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <blockquote><p><em>A couple of issues I have with those blogs. Wasn't John McCain only supportive of a ban on internet college sports betting? That really doesn't say much about our situation.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>McCain has voted for these bills without working at all to exclude poker. He's always been willing to take us down to get at sports betting. He's also never spoken in our favor when asked about the general issue. As such, he obviously can't be an A or a B. He's not a hardliner against us at all, so he's not an F. With this, I had him at C-, but moved him to D when he refused to endorse even a study on online gaming prior to the NV caucus, despite Clinton and Obama both endorsing it.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Secondly, Palin opposing gambling expansion does not mean she is supportive of an internet gambling BAN. Many politicians oppose gambling expansion because it is dangerous for society, and there may be some truth to this statement. However, as long as they don't go into people's homes and try to take away civil liberties like Sen. Jon Kyl has attempted to do, they shouldn't get an F.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>To opponents, online gaming represents a huge expansion. Surely you can't say having poker in everyone's home is not an expansion. Here's a letter her staff wrote to Wayne McGregor, the Alaska State Director, regarding poker tournaments:</p> <blockquote><p>Wayne, </p> <p>Thank you for writing in with your questions. </p> <p>In response to your questions about what Sarah’s general opinion of poker and poker playing in Alaska, please know that Sarah recognizes that poker tournaments run on an entertainment basis are benign in nature and provide many with a form of enjoyment and entertainment. </p> <p>While she makes note that poker games have the potential to be good for fundraising and charity events, there are many concerns regarding expansion of legalized gambling for purposes other than these. Sarah in general opposes the expansion of legalized gambling.</p> <p>Please note that we understand that the legislature rejected the legalization of large scale traditional Las Vegas style gambling. The reasons apparently included a long list of questions and concerns that include the addition of social issues such as addiction problems. </p> <p>While poker is the least egregious of all of gambling related activities, again it should be noted that the legislature recently rejected the expansion of gambling that afforded the introduction of poker rooms. Sarah does not support an approach that eliminates the ability for the legislature to maintain safeguards they employ when considering new bills. </p> <p>Please join me in supporting Sarah Palin for governor,<br /> Anita Halterman for Sarah Palin</p> </blockquote> <blockquote><p><em>Many politicians oppose gambling expansion because it is dangerous for society, and there may be some truth to this statement.</em> </p></blockquote> <p>I don't believe there is truth to that statement, but that's just me. I think the restricting of liberty is dangerous, though. Also, just as an example, some politicians may think expansion of gun ownership is dangerous, but I doubt that would earn a decent rating from the NRA.</p> <blockquote><p><em>I am curious how these rankings are determined. </em></p> </blockquote> <p>I listed the criteria in the first paragraph of the article.</p> <blockquote><p><em>My congressman David G. Reichert is given a D, but as far as I know he hasn't voted or expressed an opinion on an internet gambling ban.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>He voted for HR 4411, which became UIGEA.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Lastly, I find the graph of the states misleading when Washington "supports internet poker," when they have a ban within the state.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The figure states that it solely illustrates support within the U.S. House of Representatives. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-740 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:00:50 +0000 Abe3689 740@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>A couple of issues I have with those blogs. Wasn't John McCain only supportive of a ban on internet college sports betting? That really doesn't say much about our situation. </p> <p>Secondly, Palin opposing gambling expansion does not mean she is supportive of an internet gambling BAN. Many politicians oppose gambling expansion because it is dangerous for society, and there may be some truth to this statement. However, as long as they don't go into people's homes and try to take away civil liberties like Sen. Jon Kyl has attempted to do, they shouldn't get an F. </p> <p>I am curious how these rankings are determined. My congressman David G. Reichert is given a D, but as far as I know he hasn't voted or expressed an opinion on an internet gambling ban. </p> <p>Lastly, I find the graph of the states misleading when Washington "supports internet poker," when they have a ban within the state. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-739 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:31:16 +0000 TheEngineer 739@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>I have three blogs that may interest you:</p> <p>Presidential Candidates and Internet Poker Rights: <a href="http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-candidates-and-internet-poker-rights/" rel="nofollow">http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-candidates-and-internet-poker-rights/</a></p> <p>Congress and Internet Poker Rights: <a href="http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights/" rel="nofollow">http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights/</a></p> <p>The Leach List: <a href="http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/the-leach-list/" rel="nofollow">http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/the-leach-list/</a> </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-735 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:07:18 +0000 machetero 735@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>I agree with you guys (sricott, I saw your post on a similar forum), but only at the local level. If I lived in Washington, I'd do the same thing. Poker aside, I tend to prefer Republicans over Democrats anyway. However, down here in GA, the situation is the exact opposite of yours. It is my Republican Congressmen, specifically Sen. Chambliss and Rep. Linder, who are strongly opposing online gambling (I have letters from them saying so). Sen. Isakson never responded to me, but I suspect he's on their side as well, plus I don't like him anyway for other reasons. On the federal level, I'm with you in that I'm not convinced Obama's any better on this issue than McCain, and certainly on other issues, which is why I'm voting Libertarian, the only ones who have a clear (and correct) position on online poker. I haven't made up my mind at the local level who I'm voting for, but it's anyone but a Republican there as well. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-734 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:58:52 +0000 Abe3689 734@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Democrats in the state of Washington are the most corrupt I have ever seen. The Washington State Democratic party has taken over $650,000 from Indian tribes, no wonder they are pushing for an internet gambling ban. </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-733 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:52:58 +0000 srlcott 733@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>Abe i also live in waaaa state and agree with you 100% dems do more to regulate our lives than let us live them. if out dem govenor gets re-elected i believe we will have another 15 cent a gallon gas tax because they gave the other tax away to special interests or the welfare system. GO DINO!!!! </p> http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/topic/254#post-731 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:20:15 +0000 Abe3689 731@http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/ <p>I live in Washington State, and as many of you know we have the strictest anti online gambling laws in the nation. The law criminalizes the player, and playing online poker for real money in the state of Washington is a felony. I think it is important to note that this law was pushed through the legislature by Democrats, and it was signed into law by our Democratic governor. </p> <p>Our governor is up for re-election, and her Republican opponent, Dino Rossi, is staunchly against this ban. In an interview with cardplayer, he was quoted as telling voters that the government should not be going into peoples homes and telling them what they can and cannot do on the internet. I encourage you to visit his website dinorossi.com and make a donation because he is the type of candidate online poker players need in elected office. I have also spoken to many law makers, and the majority of the Republicans within this state support legislation to over turn the ban. Most of the democratic law makers do not want to see a repeal.</p> <p>As far as I know, neither John McCain nor Obama have openly been quoted as saying they support an internet gambling ban. Yes, I know it is within the Republican platform, but many Republican candidates go against their party lines. Guiliani (R) is pro-choice, and Ron Paul (R) is sponsoring a bill to regulate internet gambling. </p> <p>The bottom line is that it is not black and white. While the majority of candidates at the federal level who oppose internet gambling happen to be Republican, it is not always the case. It is important to judge each candidate invidivdually, and if you happen to live in Washington, there is no reason at all to vote for any Democrat. </p>