Annoyed.

PPA doesn't moderate any non-sponsored forums here (PPA technically moderates Fight for Poker Rights (PPA), though I choose to mod it as impartially as I'd mod any other forum).

I personally moderate other forums here on 2+2, but I don't moderate them on behalf of PPA. Rather, I moderate on behalf of Mason and 2+2 ownership.

No, you haven't. Your issues were caused by your failure to comply with 2+2 T&Cs.

The only "bias" you experienced was in your favor. As a long-time poster, you received multiple extra chances. It was that same "bias" that got me to request the pink name you wanted, in fact.

Yes, it's bad to self-weight the possible outcomes. Poker is tough enough by itself. Adding the baggage of online casino gaming and online sports betting would pretty much doom any legislation we'd seek to move.

For the apporpriate strategy here, I recommend you check out Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

What, exactly, was I wrong about?

This doesn't really make sense, without further clarification, for obvious reasons.

I hope you would be interested in expanding.

Why does it not make sense to you? It makes sense to me.

Because his foreign policy is roughly the same as Gary Johnson's.
Because the shotcallers of 2+2 have reputations for being libertarian.

Mason,

Please clarify whether or not this is true.

Specifically, I know I deleted my post (because I screwed it up the first time, because I didn't check the right box) and I made sure it was right the 2nd time.

I'd like to know whether or not you put my post back up, seeing that I am 100% sure that I deleted it.


Please clarify

He obv isn't going to be the GOP nominee, but he's won the Libertarian party nomination and is still running for president ...

This country is pretty much a two party system. Voting outside of either party is pretty much just wasting a vote. It sucks it is that way but we need to face reality we have two choices Obama or Romney.

Just because voting outside of the two-party system is "wasting a vote" doesn't mean you should vote within the two-party system.

We also have the choice to not cast a vote if we feel the candidates on the ballot will not represent us as they should. If you don't support any candidate on the ballot yet still vote you are accepting the political circus we live under, and nothing will change.

Gary Johnson isn't going to get into the debates unless he gets all the support he can.

lol gary johnson

lol you

he was on the daily show with jon stewart last night. Thought he did well. I wish when he mentioned that both romney and barack are the same and stewart challenged him on that, that GJ would have pushed back. Go Gary Johnson and RP!

its means we should get rid of the party system

he's got my vote!

I understand what you guys are saying, but voting Gary Johnson will accomplish nothing. You are better off voting for the lesser of the two bad choices you decide.

There is no way I mean no way anyone will win this election other then Obama or Romney. Unless you are ready to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to Gary Johnson's add campaign.

lol "two party system"

thinking theres a signficant different b/w obama and romney is ridiculous in my own opinion. They are both owned by big corporations whether it is the banks, big pharma or big educational institutions, doesnt really matter, its a banana republic either way. I dont think Gary johnson or RP have a chance in hell of winning 2012 election. But if one of them got 10% of the vote as a 3rd party candidiate, I think that could build some momentum into 2016, which could build momentum in 2020, etc until one day it does actually mean something. Id say telling people to not vote for them because they dont win, misses the entire point of them running

I'm not going to spend decades voting for hopeless candidates so that some day in the future, the two-party system is overthrown. The differences between Republicans and Democrats (including the two in question) are significant enough to matter to me today.

I also don't think you need to build up to a third-party candidate, you just need a strong option to emerge with money and support. Ross Perot went into the '92 debates leading in the polls against both candidates, but his debates were a little lol and he lost support (still taking 19% of the popular vote). And Ross Perot wasn't exactly what I'd call a particularly strong option.

If an independent or quasi-independent thinks they're presidential material, let them prove it by exercising their influence and gathering enough support to be taken seriously by the masses. Becoming a viable candidate is Job #1. If you want to lead the country, you start by leading people to the polls.

The differences between Obama and Romney are significant? If so, they are certainly very very very few.

Kinda like the differences between Bush and Obama. Meet the new boss, same as the old one.

isn't that just the nature of the job?

false