Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Doyle Brunson seems to be confused

Doyle Brunson, in his blog, February 16, 2008:

During this poker cash game lull, I am on this race for President like stupid is
on Britney Spears. I have come to the conclusion that poker players have to
support Obama. We can’t possibly let McCain be our President because he supports
most of George W. Bush’s views.

Doyle Brunson, in his blog, September 12, 2008:

It’s hard to believe, but McCain has taken the lead in the presidential race.
They rolled the dice when they chose Governor Palin to run for Vice President
and they threw a seven because she really turned things around for the
Republicans. It’s hard not to be in McCain’s camp after listening to his life
story. He really is an American hero.

Doyle Brunson, when asked who he will be voting for in the presidential election, during red-carpet interview at the Hard Rock Poker Lounge Grand Opening, September 13, 2008, as shown on Wicked Chops Poker:
I'm undecided, but probably McCain.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

So who are you supporting, Rakewell?

I'm a McCain guy but I'll happily acknowledge neither candidate is good about the legality of online poker (or even poker in general outside of Vegas and AC).

Rakewell said...

It's an incredibly easy decision for me. On the Libertarian ticket, Bob Barr is a member of the NRA board of directors, and the VP candidate, Wayne Root, is a professional gambler. So not only do they match me well in general political philosophy, but in two specific areas in which I am passionate about the issues, 2nd amendment rights and the liberty to play poker unimpeded by do-gooders, they run circles around the other candidates.

Unknown said...

Don't underestimate the decision, supporting Bob Barr in Nevada is a far harder choice than, say, supporting Bob Barr in California or Utah.

I'm of the opinion that on a general freedoms platform the Democrats are above the Republicans but below the Libertarians.

So in your case I would think you might take into account which path you think would be of most benefit to you over the long run:

Democratic, because they at least claim to want government oversight or even reduced domestic spying, didn't try to set up big brother databases, etc. Oppose military tribunals for citizens and non-citizens alike, etc. Are a 4th amendment supporter at least as much as a 2nd amendment supporter.

Republican, because you think pump-action shotguns and fully-automatic rifles count under the 2nd amendment too. Think the 2nd amendment is more important than the 4th. Believe that reducing taxes will kill the government through massive debt and think that this time around republicans won't be nationalizing more industries.

Libertarian, because even though you know Barr doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected or even getting federal money next time around, you think that a 2-3% of vote showing will cause the main party candidates to front like they care about civil liberties more to try and siphon off those votes next time.

But note this - if you don't buy that a few percentage points of libertarian will sway the policies of the major parties it makes more sense to vote for whichever major party you consider to be the lesser evil. Given how dispassionately you view your poker decisions, it amazes me that you think your political decision is obvious.

Full disclosure: I'm not a libertarian, nor a single issue voter. Even though I live in California (not battleground, which is good for 3rd party votes) and acknowledge the libertarian party is superior on big brother/gambling issues, I agree with left-leaning philosphies on a lot of other issues that would horrify libertarians. For instance, I think an amendment to the consititution creating an environment provision for federal regulation (an envirionmental commerce clause basically) would be a good idea.

Unknown said...

On another note, since you seem to know a lot more about NRA-paying-attention-people. Do NRA type people really think most Democrats want to ban all rifles, shotguns, & pistols?

Or is constitutionalism really the issue, and is it just that other abused amendments don't have lobbying groups?

*note: this is kind of getting well away from the topic of your post, no offense taken if you choose to block the comment