Poker Players Alliance Forums » Poker Players Alliance

Please, if only this one time, don't vote Liberal in 2008

(14 posts)
  • Started 3 months ago by tvzellers
  • Latest reply from TheEngineer

  1. tvzellers
    Member

    As much as I want pro online poker legislation passed, there are many, many, more important, issues facing our country to be considered when choosing a President. It's been said that a majority of the online poker players are conservatives and if that is the case, then you should stay true to your conservative beliefs when voting for a President. Please don't be sucked in to believing all the hype the media and others are spewing about how great things will be if Obama were to get elected. History has proven otherwise when Liberals are in the Oval Office. Do your own research, find the truth (it is out there, but you won't find the networks telling it), and then vote for what is best for your country.

    We live in the greatest country in the world and we don't need to change our country so that it fits the mold of others. We do have issues, but we are not broken, and we can fix what needs to be fixed. Why do you think so many people immigrate here? It is because of the freedoms and way of life that exists in the United States. It is because of our capitalistic opportunities that they can open their own thriving businesses. It is because anyone, and I do mean anyone, can come to the United States, go to college, become an attorney, and then spew forth the Liberal bunk about what is wrong with our country and what they are entitled to receive from the government...all entirely based upon so-called facts that they have scewed to try to justify their point of view. It's time for each of you to stand up and tell the Liberals that you love your country and it's freedoms and if they don't, then they can go live in the other countries that they are trying to turn ours into. It will be true disaster for the United States (in many more ways than just online poker) if the ultra-Liberal Democrat with questionable intentions is elected.

    That being said, I also believe that the congressional elections are where we, as online poker players, need to focus our attention. Electing supportive congress men and women to change the legislation is what we need and the only true way to make an impact. Voting a straight ticket is doing a disservice to all Americans and is not an effective use of your votes. Any suggestion otherwise is ill-conceived and based upon a false sense of entitlement. Targeting specific non-supporters in Congress is the best answer. Once you are able to replace a few key Congressmen, the others take notice and get the message very quickly. This sort of grass-roots approach is what will eventually allow us to realize our goals. That is how our system was designed to work and it still proves to be the most effective and efficient means of doing so.

    I'll refrain from addressing any comments about the religious right, or moralists, or anything else along those lines as that discussion probably would be best conducted in a different forum.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  2. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    As a believer in free speech and because in some sense this is an attempt at rebutting my other post, This post should IMHO stay. But you really miss the point.

    This is the forum for the POKER PLAYERS Alliance. I will not use this forum to debate your overall view, that debate should take place elsewhere.

    But you are absolutely wrong to think that we can achieve anything legislatively if John McCain is elected president. If your fear of "liberals" is so great that stopping "their agenda" is more important than openly legal online poker, so be it. One freedom that the Republican party has not taken away over the last 8 years is your ability to vote how you please.

    But you are no longer free to decide what online games you will play against others for money. The Republican platform supports the removal of that freedoom of yours. That is John McCain's party. John McCain my be too busy to say he disagrees with that removal of a freedom, but his VP pick is pretty clear on the subject.

    Virtually all the legislative work for poker has been done by Democrats (mostly at the hands of people you call liberals). You can count our Republican allies on one hand.

    So when we get a bill like Wexler's finally throguh the House and Senate and John McCain vetos that bill to show his support for "social conservatives" and the McCain DOJ then begins its REAL campaign against online poker, you may be able to say 'well at least we dont have a liberal in the White House." But that will be small consolation to me and the millions of others who enjoy onine poker and do not have such fear as yours of "liberals."

    Skallagrim

    Posted 3 months ago #
  3. tvzellers
    Member

    Hey there Skalligrim,

    I don't totally disagree with your assessment of McCain. It's obvious that you have a well thought out basis for your opinion, even if it is wrong. ;-) It could very well be true that if we were to get a Congress to pass a bill in our favor, that McCain would veto it. However, there is also no guarantee that Obama would sign off on it, and even if he did, the other risks to this nation that would be generated by an Obama presidency far, far outweigh the possibility that he would support online poker.

    The point that I still stand behind is that many of the other issues that this nation faces are realistically more important than a single issue (in this case online poker) when it comes to choosing a President. The online poker issue will quickly take a back seat to many other things if Obama's real agenda ever gets put in place. The discretionary money that players now use for online play will quickly dry up when the Libs bring back double-digit inflation, force businesses to close, job loss to escalate, gas prices to sky rocket again and this time stay there, etc. There won't be any money to put into online poker and so that single issue would quickly become a minor one for most Americans. Without fiscal conservatism that supports the concept of capitalism (which grow the economy), you won't have to worry about the social conservatives stopping online play...there won't be any discretionary money to play with.

    I believe that if we can affect Congressional elections to the point where we have a strong majority of votes in favor of online poker, THEN, we can go to work on McCain. Shucks...he'll may even sit and play a game or two with the PPA and you can show him that it takes skill to play correctly. The same is true for the members of Congress. Educate 'em on poker skills, help them understand the concepts of poker skill vs. luck, and then possibly we'll have a chance to get some favorable legislation.

    Keep the faith...we'll get 'em eventually.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  4. tvzellers,

    Please don't be mad at us for our current opinions regarding the GOP. Rather, be angry at the GOP for opposing our rights. They made their decisions to be the party of the big government nanny-state, and they'll only expand their hatred and fear of liberty if real conservatives like us remain silent. The fact is that both parties now represent big government, and we're helping the GOP by not supporting this slide to big government.

    I put together a few articles on the presidential and the congressional candidates regarding our liberty to play poker. Check it out here.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  5. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    tvzellers, in another place I think I would truly enjoy continuing this debate with you. But this, as I said before, is the PPA forum. Where I disagree most is not that other things may be more important than poker. Hell, thats an easy point to concede. But I really want you to understand, and not underestimate because you otherwise see favorable things about him, that a McCain victory is, at the very least, a 4 year setback for openly legal online poker through legislative means. Our most committed enemies will be among the foremost of the groups he "owes." And no way will online poker ever have veto proof support.

    So while I, a libertarian for the most part, could write pages here, let me say simply this: I feel there is absolutely no possible way in which 4 years of Obama could even remotely be as bad for this country as the last 8 years of Bush. McCain actually promises to be more of the same. So I can let the issue of openly legal online poker matter when deciding how to vote (and I also find it emblematic of other bad intrusions into my life, mostly supported by RRR republicans). If you cannot, again, so be it,

    I do not consider this forum the right place to have a liberal v. conservative v. libertarian debate (but I am only one opinion here, we can dedicate some space for it if you guys really want) - I do consider this the right forum to state one thing pretty directly: If you are considering voting for McCain, understand that that will be very bad for online poker, maybe even result in a large scale stoppage through one DOJ means or another, and at the least will make passing any good legislation extremely difficult.

    If thats not enough for you to reject McCain, OK, thats your choice - I can disagree strongly but still respect such an opinion. Just dont try and tell me, and dont try an fool yourself, that such a vote is anything but a vote against progress towards openly legal online poker.

    Skallagrim

    Posted 3 months ago #
  6. tvzellers writes:
    As much as I want pro online poker legislation passed, there are many, many, more important, issues facing our country to be considered when choosing a President. It's been said that a majority of the online poker players are conservatives and if that is the case, then you should stay true to your conservative beliefs when voting for a President.

    We already did this, in both 2000 and 2004. What happened? Well, we did lose a lot of our freedom to play poker (hard to move cash, etc). It remains legal, but the DoJ still treats the freedom to choose to play a little poker as a dangerous thing. You say other things are more important, so let's see what we gained in exchange:

    Government expanded greatly. Bush acts like all freedoms are subject to government whims, and Cheney is even worse. Spending is way up, too. Contrary to common belief, conservatism is not low taxes and big spending....all that is is a tax increase on a deferred payment plan.

    As for foreign policy, Bush's policy has been a disaster. Many real conservatives like Pat Buchanan and George Will continue to take him to task for his bad ideas and even worse execution.

    As a conservative, I can't wait for the GOP to stop kowtowing to the neocon/theocon minority of the party. Voting for a big government neocon nanny-stater who's pretty much the opposite of a real conservative won't help that, IMO.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  7. JPFisher55
    Member

    IMO, the online gambling issue is more important than most voters realize. It may be monetarily insignificant, but it says volumes about personal freedom, individual responsibility and large role of government in our lives and the economy.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  8. machetero
    Member

    Amen to both Engineer and JPF and Skallagrim. TVZ, don't not just fool yourself that a vote for McCain is a vote against online poker, you must also understand that McCain is no conservative. Conservatives/libertarians like myself have plenty of other problems with McCain. The late reintroduction of the anti-gambling language (and selection of Palin) just reinforced this one final straw, but there are many other conservative reasons (McCain-Feingold, amnesty, never-ending nation building in Iraq, and who knows what kind of additional pandering to the freedom-hating "religious right") that make Obama not sound so bad (although I probably won't vote for him for many of the same reasons you won't, I think he's actually better than McCain).

    Quoting Ron Paul (my favorite Republican), the philosophy of freedom is always elegant. While I am a Christian with very strong beliefs against such things as homosexuality, smoking, etc., I would not use to police power of government to force those beliefs upon someone else, so I agree with JPF that this issue is more important than just gambling, becuase it is about the principle of freedom, which leads to consequences that we may not like, but have to allow because the principle is more important. However, JPF, I think you just made a good argument for voting Libertarian, which you tried to argue against in Skallagrim's parallel post. If this issue is so important as to transcend the specifics because of the bigger principle of freedom, I fail to see how it only solicits a response of staying home from you.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  9. JPFisher55
    Member

    Machetero, the reason that I will not vote Libertarian is because it is not worth going to the voting place to do so. Voting Libertarian this year is the same as not voting. Maybe that will change in the future. You will know the difference from pre-election public opinion polls just like in 1992 when I realized that voting for Mr. Perot was not a wasted vote.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  10. ObviousJack
    Member

    Hahahahhahahaha.............

    Seriously, that's one of the funniest things I've read in a long long time.

    I love playing poker, and I want to keep playing poker, and a conservative leader would in no way help that. So please, shut up.

    It IS time for a CHANGE.... McCain is not, nor will he ever be in it for change... McCain is part of the OLD way of screwing up our country. Obama may not do any better, but guess what, I'd rather take that chance than to stick with something that I KNOW will keep us down with the SAME OLD WAY OF THINKING.

    OBAMA in '08
    Time to DEAL in someone NEW.
    (haha, I crack myself up)

    Posted 2 months ago #
  11. JPFisher55 writes:

    Machetero, the reason that I will not vote Libertarian is because it is not worth going to the voting place to do so. Voting Libertarian this year is the same as not voting. Maybe that will change in the future. You will know the difference from pre-election public opinion polls just like in 1992 when I realized that voting for Mr. Perot was not a wasted vote.

    To me, it seems the major parties, especially the losing one, will take note of the number of votes third parties receive (as they feel they own 100% of the votes). In our case, poker players have sent John McCain over 10,000 letters since that offensive plank was added back to the GOP platform last week. Along with PPA's lobbying, surely a stand against those who'd take our rights from us will pay off to some degree, even if it's just on principle.

    I live in Kentucky. As Obama cannot possibly win here, a vote for him is "wasted" by this definition. Likewise, UglyOwl and MassPoker have no options in Mass -- as Obama will win, a vote for McCain is "wasted". It's easy for me. I think my dissatisfaction with the positions of the major parties is best registered by voting for Barr/Root. If the Libertarian Party can pull 3% or more, it won't be a waste...it will be a coveted block, as that percentage could exceed the victor's margin of victory.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  12. machetero
    Member

    There is no such thing as a wasted vote. You are expressing your opinion even if you don't get the candidate of your choice elected. That is the only way your opinion gets counted, win or lose. Election results is not the only goal here for us; though that may be the main one, the goal is also to be noticed/heard by the candidates regardless of the outcome. We are already getting some action from Democrats; perhaps in the future we will not be ignored by the Republicans either. Wouldn't it be a great result to have both major parties on our side?

    Furthermore, Ralph Nader is widely credited for costing Gore the White House in 2000. He received less than 3% of the national vote, but all he needed to do was tilt Florida in Bush's direction to have a huge effect in the election results ( hey, maybe it's Nader we poker players need to be mad at then, but I digress ;) ). I don't know where this 10% criteria comes from, but it's not supported by recent history.

    Posted 2 months ago #
  13. srlcott
    Member

    hello everyone, im new here and joined to hopefully become a better poker player. but i need to inform most on the fact that it wont matter what party you vote for because online poker for money will allway be illeagle. Seems for the most part people here want to vote for obama bin laden thinking change is coming. only change you will see is when your playing poker online illeagely someone will break into your house with a gun and rob and maybe kill you and your family because obama hates guns and wants to take away your rights to protect yourself and your family. If you think voteing for the dems are going to get online poker for money legal again you live in a dream world. I live in washington state, wich is a big dem state, and our govenor made it a felony to play online poker for money. Get caught and you will spend more time in jail than a rapest. hmm go figure. we also have 2 women U.S. Senetors that voted to make online gambling illeagle. Only reason its illeagle is because our government cant tax it... and thats what its all about im voteing republican

    Posted 2 months ago #
  14. hello everyone, im new here and joined to hopefully become a better poker player. but i need to inform most on the fact that it wont matter what party you vote for because online poker for money will allway be illeagle

    It's not illegal now....what makes you think it will be later? Also, you speak with 100% certainty, then suggest that our best course of action is to vote for those most likely to, in fact, make it unlawful.

    Only reason its illeagle is because our government cant tax it

    Proof? I'm not sure how you're so certain of this.

    I'll tell you that we do have a good shot if we press for our freedoms. We're underdogs, but there's hardly a reason to vote against our interests. Don't blame us....blame the GOP for adopting a big government, nanny state attitude regarding our liberties.

    Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.