<p>Great article Adanthar!</p>
<p>I am 100% with you here.</p>

<p>hang on, what are we getting for the 1st time in 70 years?</p>
<p>i must had misunderstood, i thought you said dems in control of both houses and president, which also happens during clinton.</p>
<p>i truly hate one party having so much power, gridlock is so much better.</p>
<p>also if mccain become pres, why cant the dems attack the repeal to something the pres will need to sign.</p>
<p>the pres doesnt matter imo.</p>
<p>is there any proof that barak will vote for poker? a lot of dems are against legalization for one reason or another. i know hilary was publicly against it, maybe good thing she lost.</p>
<p>just because you expect obama to be in favor of poker doesnt make it true, how did he vote (i havent looked)?</p>
<p>he has voted for some interesting things, that you wouldnt think he has supported by listening to him talk. he is a good ole boy too.</p>
<p>i personally decided not to vote as we dont have a real choice and my vote doesnt count anyways, the system is broken bad. </p>

<p>Obama has said before that gambling hurts the lower class. And el oh el at basing your decision for a candidate due to online poker. That said, I keep up with you on 2+2 a lot, and highly respect your articles.</p>

<p>Also, Adanthar...Doyle posted this on his blog on Oct. 13th...</p>
<p>" I still haven’t made up my mind who to vote for but I’m tempted to vote for McCain. "</p>

<p>an additonal 3% on the amount OVER 250k... (not the entire amount) will be taxed at a 39% rate instead of the current 35%.  I am willing to pay an additional 3k on every 100k OVER 250k if it means getting this type of adminstration out of office....and if McCain gets elected things will VERY similar to the way the Bush runs the country.  </p>

<p>"For example, we recently lost a House committee vote for a repeal on a largely party line, Democrats for/GOP against 32-32 tie vote."</p>
<p>Soooo, it was a dead tie and yet it was largely on party line?</p>
<p>Anyhow, not my point, I respect Andanthar as he has worked hard to protect the integrity of online poker. </p>
<p>That aside, I personally think it completely irresponsible to vote for a candidate based solely on what it means for online poker as our country is facing much more important issues.</p>
<p>Pocket Fives is comprised of poker players, not all of them Democrats, many of them conservative business men who feel Obama as a President is going to further hurt business and by proxy families in America.</p>
<p>This response thread is certainly not the place for a debate, but it would seem more fitting to have a pocket fives owner make their own recommendation as a company as opposed to starting to allow one sided articles that are completely biased.</p>
<p>You try to make the flawed argument that Democrats are so protective of our rights, yet the PPA's head lobbyist is former Republican Alphonse D'AMato. </p>
<p>Many of us have serious concerns that other rights will be infringed under an Obama presidency. </p>
<p>The work of the PPA and D'Amato is responsible for the Republican Party removing anti internet gambling language from their platform in August. </p>
<p>Overall I just think that this article would be better served as a personal opinion thread in OT as opposed to what it is, an article that appears to be an endorsement from Pocket Fives. </p>

<p>There is no reason to believe that McCain would be against the repeal. He has on his staff many proponents of online gaming. He simply has not made any statements for or against. The fact that he's a Republican makes zero difference. He has a track record of reaching accross the isle and working with the Dems to reach agreable solutions, so much so that many Republicans have considered him a trator. I'll take a devided government every time. Too much power given to one side is dangerous.</p>

<p>There are so many issues more important than online gaming.  I love internet poker, but ultimately this will not factor into my decision making.   A nation governed by Barack Obama scares me to death and I am from Illinois.    His attempts to appear "centrist" during this campaign are so far from the truth.  There will be the most massive shift of wealth in the history of this country if he is elected.   Americans are already the most charitable people in the world,   but we don't need the government confiscating the  money of people who have worked and sacrificed to earn it and giving it to those who have not.    Also, his callous disregard for the life of the unborn is horrifying.  </p>

<p>Doesn't matter who will win the election, it will depend on the constituents in congress and the senate to push forward legislation to legalize online gambling.  Depending on what party takes control of the houses will determine what legislation will be passed or even considered. There are thousands of bills that never even see the floor of either houses.</p>
<p>I for one am a libertarian and would love to vote for someone like Dr. Ron Paul or Bob. Barr however I know my vote would not count in todays elections.</p>
<p>Looking at both fiscal policies and the past policies of the last 6 presidents, whenever a democrat was in office, the deficit was reduced and even spending was reduced contrary to what most people think of the spend and tax democrats. This goes all the way back to Johnson. <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm">www.cedarcomm.com/.../usdebt.htm</a></p>
<p>Taking in consideration of both individuals, McCain will be added close 5 trillion more debt to our country while Obama will be adding close to 3 trillion. This is no question a scary thought but if I had to choose a candidate that will ensure our economy will be in a better shape, I am choosing Obama. </p>
<p>PS - This is coming from a person who works in the defense/energy industry where McCain and the republicans will continue our successful progress in nuclear and self reliant energy.</p>

<p>To address some arguments,</p>
<p>"i must had misunderstood, i thought you said dems in control of both houses and president, which also happens during clinton."</p>
<p>Yes, but this year, the Democrats will have a larger majority, both in numbers and in momentum (particularly in the Senate), than in Clinton's 1992-94 Congress. To find a time when the country was this set on one party, you would have to go back to 1933.</p>
<p>You try to make the flawed argument that Democrats are so protective of our rights, yet the PPA's head lobbyist is former Republican Alphonse D'AMato.</p>
<p>"Many of us have serious concerns that other rights will be infringed under an Obama presidency.</p>
<p>The work of the PPA and D'Amato is responsible for the Republican Party removing anti internet gambling language from their platform in August."</p>
<p>I respect Al D'Amato going back to when he was my state's Senator and wish him nothing but the best of luck in his lobbying effort whether McCain or Obama is elected. That said, the GOP promptly reinserted that plank into their platform; the removal lasted all of 3 hours. With many of the Republican moderates of the 1980's and '90's no longer in office, and the balance of power of the party swinging right, hoping for the GOP to ignore online poker and let the bill pass untouched is unrealistic.</p>
<p>With that said, as I mentioned in the article, I'm not a one issue voter and agree that voting solely on poker is wrong. There are a lot of more important things than that to consider. But poker is my job, and when I vote, I do have to think about how my vote affects my livelihood - in my case, perhaps very directly. I cannot promise or guarantee myself that an Obama administration will reverse UIGEA, but I'm confident he will not work against that effort, while I *am* certain that a McCain administration will definitely do its best to block it. That is far more important to me directly than whether, if I happen to make over $250K next year (which is partly dependent on UIGEA regs, mind you), the extra money is taxed at an additional 3.3%.</p>