this is such a brutal logic fail. standard, of course, but still brutal.

1. online poker is a significant issue for poker pros and other individuals who derive income from the existence of online poker, and there are obviously many such individuals on these forums.

2. a candidate's stance on online poker is important because it's indicative of his approach to politics in general. there's no non-terrible logic that can be put forth to support the illegality of online poker. if a candidate supports such, a reasonable person has to ask himself, "why?" since there's no good answer, a reasonable person then has to ask himself, "what is the nature of the process by which this candidate goes about making policy decisions?" the end won't be pretty.

no, it's not. not even close. doesn't make any sense. if you believe that, then you don't understand what libertarianism means.

you guys are the reason for existence of the uigea, black friday, sopa, etc. etc. i'm sure you guys don't support these specific pieces of legislation, but your approach is inherent to the fact that it was possible for them to have been brought about. and it's pretty sad.

mason, i, too would be interested in seeing you expand on this. it was a fairly baffling statement to me.

Mason is apparently AWOL or something

Why would we even ask Mason about this 7 months after he made that statement, and of what relevance is it to the forums?

twoplustwo was supporting Gary Johnson early on in the primary when the nomination was still up in the air and the field was large. Gary failed to get the nomination, so the ads were pulled. But the thing is, Gary got the Libertarian Party nomination .... so maybe those ads should go back up???


That's what I'm supportive of imo.

I mean ASPoker's question about Ron Paul's foreign policy. I don't see why we're dredging that back up, nor why Mason would even debate i there.

mason posted a statement. a follow-up question was posed to him. he either didn't see it or chose to ignore it. either way, i'm simply curious about what's in his head.

the statement is associated with the gary johnson ad. since the gary johnson ad was on the forums (and could potentially return), it's obviously relevant to the forums. since the statement is associated with an ad that's relevant to the forums, the statement is peripherally relevant to the forums.

a pm is the best way to get mason to participate in a thread. no promises he'll post, but at least you'll know he's aware.

I'm content with that the desperacy among poker fans clearly came up in the process when Gary was involved. Guess he still is pro poker, but even he may have other issues to look at.

PMed

That Florida election was the biggest scam imo. Still blows my mind how all that went down.

Yeah. I think it just wasn't dared to have one more recount. Wasn't it all about some couple of hundred votes? What if they had come to different results every recount? Having only Florida to have a new voting? No way, imagine the campaigns, Forida alone electing president! A new election all over USA? Hmm...quite a process.

But OK, they essentially had the same amount of votes. You needed something a little better than a coin flip to get the decisison who would get into the Oval Office. The person that happened to have more votes in the two counts in Florida won, he was the more probable winner. I guesstimate W was the real winner with a probability of circa 80-90%.

*** Gary Johnson "get into the debates" money bomb***


Gary Johnson is having a money bomb to raise money to try to get into the presidential debates.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/






It would be cool to see twoplustwo put a Gary Johnson ad back up to support this. Do you think Barack Obama or Mitt Romney are going to talk about our right to play online poker on the national debate stage? Hell no. You know Gary Johnson is the only one that would be saying that.

Except the fundraiser doesn't actually relate to him being in a debate. It's a fundraising gimmick, no more, no less.

Some truth to that statement but fundraising = media buys = higher recognition = higher polling.

I know you got the pull on Mason's leg PP.

I thought I was his flunky.

Leg pullin flunky!

Will he?

He used to include our issue specifically under "Issues"....right at the top of that menu. The very day you and exchanged posts on the campaign's current stand on our position, it disappeared. I can't help but think that was the answer to our question. It's still on his site, at http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/coalitions/poker, but now visitors to his site have to go through Internet & Technology and read through a lengthy list of issues before finding ours.

The campaign still has not responded to my emails on behalf of PPA and the poker community, so make of that what you will.

Did Mason and Johnson have a falling out or something that people are not aware of? Is that why his ads were taken down?

Or did Mason only support him for the GOP nomination? Does Mason not see any value in Gary Johnson getting into the presidential debates as the LP nominee?

As an aside ...

The PPA cannot speak on behalf of the United States community of poker players, it can only speak on behalf of itself. Saying the PPA speaks for the poker community creates a false assumption that everyone in the poker community supports the PPAs goals and ideals, and this is false.


I figure something's gotta be up. Why did Mason pull the ads and why is the Johnson camp not responding to your inquiries? It's odd.

I can't really imagine Mason withdrawing support for some reason ... unless there's something he thinks is going to come out about Johnson. Something negative. But what concern is that, really? He never had a legit shot at the GOP nomination, and he doesn't have a legit shot at the presidency as the LP nominee. Nobody's out there digging up dirt on Gary Johnson.

idk maybe Mason figured he was small potatoes or something since he did so poorly in the GOP race.

It would be nice to hear from him on this issue ...

And ofc I guess there's a chance he thought it was bad for business to have the ads. Idk

I would guess that the reverse is most likely true and that GJ has decided that the poker issue is tainted enough to draw back from.

Let's face it the last year or so there have been pretty much no good news stories associated with online poker. As the Full Tilt debacle has unfolded, other poker rooms have gone south with player funds and previously respected pros have been shown to be indebted busto degens; the whole subject is one that I can understand a politician wanting to stay well away from.

Sounds to me like Gary Johnson had a falling out with the very few people who backed him during his GOP run, and he gave all that up to do his third party run.