It's Official - Republican Platform anti Poker

[hackmeplz]

As much as I want to the US players back on the tables, it is way low on my list of things that are important when looking to chose who to vote for. It is on the list, but many things are higher, like health care, education, taxation and on and on. Guns are another topic which it seems no party at all gets. The right to bear arms is supported across the board.

A multi party system would be so beneficial to the US, but I dont see it happening. So I am left with a choice of voting for a third party, which essentially gives the Republicans a vote, since most 3rd party supporters come from the Democratic camp, or voting Dem as I always do.

I find both choices rather distasteful.

Still, vote we must. I hope the turn out is good. Apathy - regardless of if it is understandable or not - keeps too many people out of the booths on election day.

The funny part is your position is what enables the very thing you're complaining about to happen. You talk about not voting being bad but then you're going to vote for the 2nd worst candidate.

 

[fletchdad]

The funny part is your position is what enables the very thing you're complaining about to happen. You talk about not voting being bad but then you're going to vote for the 2nd worst candidate.

we have been through this before. Dont make try to make your opinion mine, cause it is not. And keep what I say in the context it is said.

 

[Debi]

As much as I want to the US players back on the tables, it is way low on my list of things that are important when looking to chose who to vote for. It is on the list, but many things are higher, like health care, education, taxation and on and on. Guns are another topic which it seems no party at all gets. The right to bear arms is supported across the board.

But when neither party is going to get shit done on the important matters you mention - or when it is half and half as it often is - then at least for me the issue of online poker moves way up the list of priorities to the point of potentially influencing my vote when combined with the very few "important" issues I think one or the other might actually do something positive with.

Nothing personal - but it always kind of irks me when the online poker issue is trivialized because it is an important issue to me. Will it save lives, improve education, provide healthcare etc, etc? Of course not. But with the crappy candidate options we seem to be getting lately all of that important stuff is too often split for it to make a difference on which I vote for.

It would never be the single driving issue that influences my vote - but it matters to me.

 

[fletchdad]

But when neither party is going to get shit done on the important matters you mention - or when it is half and half as it often is - then at least for me the issue of online poker moves way up the list of priorities to the point of potentially influencing my vote when combined with the very few "important" issues I think one or the other might actually do something positive with.

Nothing personal - but it always kind of irks me when the online poker issue is trivialized because it is an important issue to me. Will it save lives, improve education, provide healthcare etc, etc? Of course not. But with the crappy candidate options we seem to be getting lately all of that important stuff is too often split for it to make a difference on which I vote for.

It would never be the single driving issue that influences my vote - but it matters to me.

IMO you are confusing my intentions. Trivialize is one thing, prioritize another. The issue of online poker is also quite important to me personally, but I also put it in a place on my list of "important" things that need to happen (IMO) in the US,and it just is in the place I put it. Important to ME, but perhaps not the most pressing issue to society as a whole.

As to who will get things done, well, that is a sad story. I believe the Obama administration would be in the best position to actually make a difference, but whether or not they will???

The Reps or Dems will get in, not another party. Am I 100%certain? Of course not. Am I fairly certain? Yes... SO.... You can argue if you like it or not, but realistically, is the Green party, the Libertine party, gonna be in control in November? No. Does that "fact of life" need to be adjusted in the future? IMO yes. But it is what it is, and a US run by the Republican party as it stands now is the worse outcome IMO. And since I believe a vote for possibly good alternatives comes down to a Republican vote - since, as I have stated, I think the alternative parties only take votes away from the Democrats - then it does come down, for me anyway, to a question of priorities.

My vote is sadly more a vote "against" one party rather than "for" the other, but as I said, it is what it is......

 

[Charade You Are]

But it is what it is, and a US run by the Republican party as it stands now is the worse outcome IMO. And since I believe a vote for possibly good alternatives comes down to a Republican vote - since, as I have stated, I think the alternative parties only take votes away from the Democrats - then it does come down, for me anyway, to a question of priorities.

That may have been true when Nadar ran as the Green Party candidate, but IMO a Libertarian vote this time takes away from the Republicans, more than the Dems since Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate.

..and since I cannot in good conscience vote for either party, Gary gets my vote. If enough of us did vote for third party candidates, maybe the morons would get the message. The fact that he is also pro poker only sweetens the pot (pun intended). http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...s-beat-up-on-republicans-democrats-in-debate/

 

[fletchdad]

That may have been true when Nadar ran as the Green Party candidate, but IMO a Libertarian vote this time takes away from the Republicans, more than the Dems since Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate.

..and since I cannot in good conscience vote for either party, Gary gets my vote. If enough of us did vote for third party candidates, maybe the morons would get the message. The fact that he is also pro poker only sweetens the pot (pun intended). http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...s-beat-up-on-republicans-democrats-in-debate/

OK, I respect your opinion. So I may have missed something in my assessment. I will look at your link. I was under the impression that a libertine vote was more Democrat based.

And a poker pro??? Jesus how did I miss that????

I agree that it tis time for a change in voter pressure, maybe I am just not convinced that now is the time, due to the importance of keeping Romney OUT of office......

But I may be wrong in my assumption of voter demographics......

 

[hackmeplz]

The Reps or Dems will get in, not another party. Am I 100%certain? Of course not. Am I fairly certain? Yes... SO.... You can argue if you like it or not, but realistically, is the Green party, the Libertine party, gonna be in control in November? No.

This is literally the same argument line as "Obama will win my state, I'm not going to vote".

You're basing your vote on who you think will win, but ignoring the very core of that argument, which is that your vote won't matter. I went over this in that other thread, but the point is that if you're going to vote for a major candidate instead of a 3rd party candidate you agree with because your vote won't count if you vote 3rd party, you should also consider that it won't count if you vote for the major candidate either. I think the odds of a 3rd party candidate winning my state is greater than the odds of my one vote being the difference in my guy winning or not.

 

[Charade You Are]

And a poker pro??? Jesus how did I miss that????:confused.

LOL (you made me look at my post to make sure I said pro poker and not poker pro).

 

[fletchdad]

This is literally the same argument line as "Obama will win my state, I'm not going to vote".

You're basing your vote on who you think will win, but ignoring the very core of that argument, which is that your vote won't matter. I went over this in that other thread, but the point is that if you're going to vote for a major candidate instead of a 3rd party candidate you agree with because your vote won't count if you vote 3rd party, you should also consider that it won't count if you vote for the major candidate either. I think the odds of a 3rd party candidate winning my state is greater than the odds of my one vote being the difference in my guy winning or not.

You really dont seem to get what I am basing my vote on. You dont like how I think. OK, you made your point. I dont care.

 

[fletchdad]

LOL (you made me look at my post to make sure I said pro poker and not poker pro).

LOL.

 

[starsmyle]

Why would we want a mormon running the country...He wants war and yet had 5 sons....not one went into armed forces.....I know people who got hurt in wars. It isnt fair to expect it from the rest but not do his part.

ohhh they were on missions....My son worked for a mormon for 5 years.....worked his azz off with low pay....well he got out of there and is now doing less work for more money.....what he is worth

They have a knack for taking care of their own and heck with the rest......and we want that running the country??? ok sorry for venting....going back in my box

 

[hackmeplz]

You really dont seem to get what I am basing my vote on. You dont like how I think. OK, you made your point. I dont care.

No I don't get what you are basing your vote on. Maybe you could expand on it a little bit. This is a forum after all...

 

[duggs]

most people vote because the derive utility from the action and believing their vote matters

 

[hackmeplz]

most people vote because the derive utility from the action and believing their vote matters

I believe you are right. That's pretty irrational though no? Not that that ever stopped anyone before.

 

[duggs]

I believe you are right. That's pretty irrational though no? Not that that ever stopped anyone before.

it is irrational, but our sense of self worth in general is pretty irrational. also when someone finds a wallet and hands it in they also derive utility from feeling like a good person.

I cant remember which country it was but they decided to allow voting via online and voter turnout dropped because the public no longer felt like they were self sacrificing their time to perform a civic duty. (maybe dutch)

heaps of economists refuse to vote due to the marginal value of the time spent v the outcome.

 

[Charade You Are]

most people vote because the derive utility from the action and believing their vote matters

I refuse to believe my vote doesn't matter. We rank lowest of all industrialized nations in voter participation. Refusing to vote because you believe that the system is hopeless becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and only gives more power to special interests.

We get to directly elect our representatives to the House every 2 years and they have more power than the president does in a lot of areas. Your vote also counts more in state and local elections and on ballot measures.

You should find a reason to vote, even if it is only to vote against the two-party system by voting for an intelligent, thinking person, rather than a party puppet or to set a good example for others who don't vote, but who should vote.

Not voting because one vote doesn't count, feels too much like the logic I use to hear from my grandmother who always voted the same as her husband because otherwise it would negate his vote.

 

[duggs]

you realise you just proved my point right. in economics terms, voting carries such a small return in EV that it is outweighed by the time sacrificed to vote.

hence people ie you derive utility from a feeling of pride in performing a civic duty and believing your vote matters.

 

[Charade You Are]

OK, I respect your opinion. So I may have missed something in my assessment. I will look at your link. I was under the impression that a libertine vote was more Democrat based.

But I may be wrong in my assumption of voter demographics......

While Johnson is no Nadar since he did run for the Republican nomination, he is far too socially liberal for the average Republican. My opinion was one I had reached months ago after I had decided there was no way I could vote for Obama. So in my mind, it was a choice between Romney or Johnson.

You could be right. But in a New mexico poll, Johnson hurt Obama as well as Romney, taking 6 percent of those who called themselves Democrats and 7 percent of Republicans in the state. Johnson garnered 12 percent of the vote from Independents.

But you might want to read this before you decide that a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote, especially if you vote in a state that is NOT a battleground state. If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote in 2012, the Libertarian Party has access to millions of government dollars in 2016.

http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/09/the-five-percent-threshold/

But this could be the first election where the Libertarian Party has a legitimate chance to cross the five percent threshold and earn the opportunity to make a significant impact on America. You can add your little vote to a major candidate without really changing the tens of thousands of votes he will probably lose or win by in a state that may not even have enough electoral votes to make a difference in the final outcome. Or you can add yourself to the growing percentage of voters who want something real, something honest, something different, literally helping your tax dollars go towards making that happen.

Tell me again which one’s a wasted vote.

 

[Charade You Are]

you realise you just proved my point right. in economics terms, voting carries such a small return in EV that it is outweighed by the time sacrificed to vote.

No.

hence people ie you derive utility from a feeling of pride in performing a civic duty and believing your vote matters.

It does matter.

 

[duggs]

based on what, im not going to rehash the equations shown elsewhere which show conditions needing to hold to make your vote change the outcome

 

[hackmeplz]

yeah duggs is right. If you disagree, explain (using math) why it matters.

 

[Charade You Are]

I'm not interested in having a +-EV discussion on why voting matters. I thought I was pretty clear in the previous 2 posts on my position.

 

[duggs]

cliffs: voting matters because you believe it does.

 

[fletchdad]

I'm not interested in having a +-EV discussion on why voting matters. I thought I was pretty clear in the previous 2 posts on my position.

You were clear. Some people don't/wont /cant see beyond their own close minded attitude.

I know a lot of people who cant be bothered to try to make a difference, through laziness, apathy, desire for anarchy w/e. And laziness is so easy to justify..... Stay at home and dont partake in a democratic process that was fought hard to achieve and then explain your reasoning that "it makes no difference" and keep on convincing yourself that you are right. But keep it to yourself, really. You (plural) seem to want to convince as many people as you can to take a passive no action course. Shameful.

 

[duggs]

get off your soap box, it doesnt change why people vote, they vote because they derive utility from it. I vote, but equally I realise that my vote is in the scheme of things irrelevant.