What about the Democrats makes some here support an anti-poker party?

[jj_frap]

1. I'm not American: I'm Canadian, but since you guys appointed a Bob Jones-"educated" segregationist (Back when he graduated, Bob Jones was segregated and probably more proud of that fact than any other "educational" institution in the South) who knows nothing about my country as your ambassdor to Canada, I'm going to be an obnoxious prat about everything you do. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Besides: In many cases, American and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Chinese policy affect life in Canada. (You think we'd ban cannabis if Washington and Beijing weren't blackmailing us to do so? Forget about it!)

2. If I were American, I would often vote Green, Socialist (the real ones...Not the Social Democrats USA neo-con front group), or (in spite of my misgiving about unregulated capitalism) even Libertarian before voting Democratic. (Clinton's gang were also censorship-loving bigots. Whether your a religious lunatic or a PC wacko pandering to religious lunatics so that you don't get your ass kicked even more than you already do in every election, you're still far beneath meriting my support.)

That being said, the Democrats are generally benign to friendly with regards to playing poker on the Internet, while many Republicans are pretty overt in their attempts to get it banned.

What is it about the Democrats or the third parties that's so bad that you'd prefer support a party that's working to ban your hobby and -- in many cases -- your primary or secondary source of income?

[JackWhite]

Probably because very few perceive this as a real threat. Kyl has been working on this for years without success. If the majority of Republicans were actively working on this, and it has a legit chance to pass both houses of Congress, then people would react differently.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the Democrats are generally benign to friendly with regards to playing poker on the Internet

Please cite some sources to back this up. In my experience, the Democrats are just as paternalistic with respect to gambling, and certainly support the Draconian way gambling is taxed in the US.

The only party in the US that's truly gambling-friendly is the Libertarian Party

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm Canadian...I'm going to be an obnoxious prat about everything you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this go without saying?

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, the Democrats are generally benign to friendly with regards to playing poker on the Internet, while many Republicans are pretty overt in their attempts to get it banned.

[/ QUOTE ]
As someone else said, prove it. Democrats are probably just as likely to support regulation/taxation of gambling as Republicans.

[ QUOTE ]
What is it about the Democrats or the third parties that's so bad that you'd prefer support a party that's working to ban your hobby and -- in many cases -- your primary or secondary source of income?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) The knowledge that it's not going to happen
2) I don't like the Democrats position on many other more imnportant issues
3) I don't feel like wasting a vote on a 3rd party who won't be elected to anything. Better for me to spend my effort supporting candidates that can actually get elected than to waste it on those who can't. Eh? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't feel like wasting a vote on a 3rd party who won't be elected to anything.

If you think such votes are wasted, you should read up on Norman Thomas. Without his candidacy for president, there would have been no New Deal. I'd say that's a pretty profound effect.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
you should read up on Norman Thomas. Without his candidacy for president, there would have been no New Deal.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not a good example if you want me to not consider 3rd parties as a wasted vote...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Huh? Why not? Just because you and I disagree with the result doesn't change the fact that a 3rd party candidate who could never be elected was the catalyst for a huge change in the platform of a major party.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you and I disagree with the result doesn't change the fact that a 3rd party candidate who could never be elected was the catalyst for a huge change in the platform of a major party.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I don't vote 3rd party. Any popular 3rd party platform/issue will eventually be absorbed by one of the two major parties.