Ron Paul supports online poker, other 3 candidates against, we need to spread this ...

K

Krtek

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
242
and parlay it into votes in Nevada.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/16665444/romney

Quote:
Romney also said he doesn't support legalizing online gaming. He's says he's against it because of the social costs and people's addictive gambling habits.

At 8:15 of the following interview Santorum says:

"Gaming is not something that is beneficial .... vices on the internet that tend to grow exponentially ... it would be dangerous for our country to have that type of access"

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2012/jan/31/6265/

Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Venetian and Palazzo, opposes online poker strongly. Adelson to oppose online poker legalization, deals severe blow to chances: http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2011/dec/06/adelson-oppose-online-poker-legalization-deals-sev/ As we know, he has donated 10 million, or more to a Newt Gingrich super pac. Adelson and Gingrich have had a relationship with each other since the 1990's.

Lastly, Ron Paul interview at 17 minute mark Ron explains his support for online gaming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uQ2g3BYL18Q
 
I think a video dedicated to this issue would be very useful. Online poker is definitely a down to earth, easy to understand, introduction to legalization of freedom that speaks to a ton of people.
 
I made a few threads on 2+2 poker forums. It gets a lot of traffic.

Pocketfives, zynga poker, where else could this be spread effectively? Leggopoker, cardrunners, bluefire poker, other training sites (not sure if they allow non paying members to post on all these forums).
 
Jesus I love this man. Idiot Neocon: "Can you beat Romney?" Paul: "Possibly" Idiot Neocon: "How do you beat him?" Paul: "Get more votes." LMAO! :D Full Tilt NL and PLO cash games payed my rent, cell phone bill, for my groceries and for fun/bar tabs my first 2 years in college before, my mom was happy haha, until the DOJ swooped in and froze all American accounts, effectively stealing 3k from me that I'm not likely to ever see again unless a miracle happens with all the bs involved. :(
 
VCU for Ron Paul said:
Jesus I love this man. Idiot Neocon: "Can you beat Romney?" Paul: "Possibly" Idiot Neocon: "How do you beat him?" Paul: "Get more votes." LMAO! :D Full Tilt NL and PLO cash games payed my rent, cell phone bill, for my groceries and for fun/bar tabs my first 2 years in college before, my mom was happy haha, until the DOJ swooped in and froze all American accounts, effectively stealing 3k from me that I'm not likely to ever see again unless a miracle happens with all the bs involved. :(
Click to expand...

Ya, it sucks I lost 35k when it happened.
 
Last edited:
Krtek said:
edited, don't want to hijack thread topic too much
Click to expand...

Yeah good idea Krtek, I was about to respond and was thinking the same thing then you took the words out of my mouth, haha. Is Paul heavily endorsed on 2+2 do you know Krtek? I'd assume so, if not, I'm on it.
 
VCU for Ron Paul said:
Yeah good idea Krtek, I was about to respond and was thinking the same thing then you took the words out of my mouth, haha. Is Paul heavily endorsed on 2+2 do you know Krtek? I'd assume so, if not, I'm on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure. I would think since they are generally younger internet people and they pay attention to politics for legislation purposes that they would be more behind him then the general population.
 
definitely some knowledgeable people on 2+2, like this guy that has over 2000 posts:

The real question is why people continue to try to call Ron Paul unelectable.

He's scoring incredibly well amongst the demographic that led to a clear Obama victory - the young / independent voters. Interestingly many people were also stating matter-of-fact that Obama was also an 'unelectable' candidate.

A very interesting article on this exact topic: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ntial-election

Newt Gingritch is somebody that's unelectable. He has basically 0 appeal to independents and young voters, and once again - those will be the people deciding this election. Even Romney has the same problem to a lesser degree. In Iowa the only age group he won was 65+. But given that 30% of the Iowa caucus goers were 65+, that was enough to ensure a victory for him. His base is dying and he has minimal appeal to the demographics that will decide who is the next PotUS. Ron Paul has a base that is rapidly growing and scores incredibly well amongst the people that will decide who the next PotUS is. Yet he's the unelectable one? Don't eat everything you're fed.
 
I don't know if this would do any good in Nevada. Nevada and their casinos are obviously adamantly opposed to online gambling...for the very reason that it detracts gamblers from making the visit to Vegas.

But this is another issue about personal liberty and choices...about small government staying out of one's decisions good or bad. Ron is always on the right side of liberty. It is sad that he gets attacked for it.
 
Last edited:
Should we tweet the big name pro poker players who have twitter accounts this information, and see if a couple will promote it?

Most pros, even those who played in Vegas, spent a lot of time playing online.
 
Ron's support for legal online poker is why I voted for him last time in 2008. It's a great issue for Ron to highlight as the UIEGA affected a ton of people who are probably apolitical, but it's certainly important enough for us to vote for people who support us on the issue.
 
I played a few poker tournaments (was on the WPT travel channel once) maybe this is an issue I can campaign on here in Florida since my opponents are all for telling people what is "moral" and what they should not do and take the liberty to forbid them.

I wonder how much money Ron gets from Poker Players?
 
I am not a gambler but see no reason why folks cannot do this. If someone has the skillz and a bit of luck they can parlay a small pot into a fortune. They will spend that into the economy. Those no good at it will lose their pot and that is what is called tough luck. They will learn or they will stop due to lack of funds. Is the issue here really that they have a hard time tracking poker winnings to tax them?

Rev9
 
Revolution9 said:
I am not a gambler but see no reason why folks cannot do this. If someone has the skillz and a bit of luck they can parlay a small pot into a fortune. They will spend that into the economy. Those no good at it will lose their pot and that is what is called tough luck. They will learn or they will stop due to lack of funds. Is the issue here really that they have a hard time tracking poker winnings to tax them?

Rev9
Click to expand...

Probably. The government also likes to have a monopoly on gambling.
 
The reason online was banned was due to the federal government getting none of the cut.

It's always entertaining to hear some neocon preach about the values of free market economics and how we should be able to do what we want with our money yet support banning online poker. Poker is basically the free market rolled into a card game. Hedge funds,venture capital and stocks are cool but somehow a game based on logic,good judgement and value isn't. It's infuriating and frankly insulting.

The casinos are very shortsighted in their opposition to legal online gambling. Very few gamblers will use online exclusively for their action. Occasionally it's good to play with real people, real cards in a casino. Back in the heyday of online poker, casinos were packed with people. There were waiting lists to get into games as the pool of players grew exponentionally. Once the ban really started to take hold, much of the action in Tunica dried up(sure the economy hurt, but less access to online action also played a role into this). The bottom line for the casinos is that a bigger pool of players who have more gaming options is far better than having a monopoly with substantially fewer players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top