Jariso13 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 For everyone who is not a member of the PPA and is heading out to vote in the primary's today, here is clips from an email that the PPA sent out a few days ago giving the candidates stances on online poker: (Vote wisely)The Democratic Frontrunners:Hillary Clinton:The two-term senator from New York won the New Hampshire Democratic primary. She has recently expressed that she supports the industrys position: to study Internet gambling to see whether it can be fairly regulated so that individuals can safely participate in it and American businesses can compete in the international market (Las Vegas Sun, 01/18/08). When contacting the campaign, be sure to let them know you are an undecided voter and a proud poker player.Barack Obama:The senator is from Illinois and winner of the Iowa Democratic caucus. Obama has recently expressed that he worries that the Internet is "a Wild West of illegal activity", and supports a study of Internet gambling and supports regulation to address the worst abuses (Las Vegas Sun, 01/18/08). He is reputed to be a good player, and doesn't mind letting it be known that he enjoys playing poker for money. These stories are even on his own website. When contacting the campaign, be sure to let them know you are an undecided voter and a proud poker player. The Republican Frontrunners:John McCain:The New Hampshire Republican primary winner does not have a specific position on Internet poker, but does appear to have been influenced by his fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who is a vigorous opponent of our rights. McCain, however, has always been willing to consider both sides of an issue and may simply need to know how strongly PPA members feel about this issue. We encourage you to contact his campaign and ask whether he has a specific position, and of course, to let them know you are an undecided voter and a proud poker player.Mitt Romney:The former governor of Massachusetts has no formal position on internet poker. However, he - like Giuliani - has contorted his issue positions wildly in a bid to gain support from social conservatives. As part of that effort, Romney tapped Tom Coates, Vice President, Truth About Gambling, Iowa, to his "Faith and Values Steering Committee." Coates, in turn, is vigorously opposed to gaming of any sort. We urge you to contact the Romney campaign, and ask whether the candidate has a specific position. As always, be sure to tell them you're an undecided voter and a proud poker player.Mike Huckabee:Republican Iowa caucus winner and former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee does have a clear position OPPOSING Internet Poker. Mike Huckabee responded to the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling's questionnaire (the only candidate to respond, by the way). In it, he promised to veto any legislation repealing UIGEA or otherwise clearly legalizing online gaming.Here is the question he was asked, complete with its bias and inaccuracies:1) Last year, Congress voted overwhelming to criminalize most forms of Internet gambling. This year some members of Congress are promoting legislation to legalize Internet gambling. If such legislation passed, would you veto it? Huckabee answered "yes". That's about as clear as it gets. Ron Paul:In keeping with his Libertarian philosophy, Congressman Paul is a proud supporter of our cause. Rep. Paul has supported and sponsored pro-poker legislation, and has also made time to visit with PPA grassroots members, poker celebrities, and citizens lobbyists every time we have asked. His credentials on allowing adults the freedom to play poker are unblemished. Link to post Share on other sites
SlapStick 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 For everyone who is not a member of the PPA and is heading out to vote in the primary's today, here is clips from an email that the PPA sent out a few days ago giving the candidates stances on online poker: (Vote wisely)Members of the PPA arent voting? Im confused Link to post Share on other sites
terradawg 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Members of the PPA arent voting? Im confusedMeaning PPA members already know this stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country.This may be true, but I think this specific issue says something about the person. No matter what state the country is in, I still want a candidate who lets me make my own decisions on things such as this. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country.The same philosophy echoes through everything. Some candidates want the government to coerce certain behaviors they like through, ultimately, force. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The same philosophy echoes through everything. Some candidates want the government to coerce certain behaviors they like through, ultimately, force.That's kinda what I meant, lol. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's kinda what I meant, lol.I would've just QFTed you, but your post wasn't up yet when I was writing mine. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I would've just QFTed you, but your post wasn't up yet when I was writing mine.It's all good, by putting the two together, the point was better made. Link to post Share on other sites
Jariso13 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Members of the PPA arent voting? Im confusedPPA members got this email this week.this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country.I completely agree. But I also feel that voters should be informed about all issues that have an effect on them and being that this is a poker forum, theres not too many better places to post the candidate's stances on online poker. Link to post Share on other sites
milestodavid 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The same philosophy echoes through everything. Some candidates want the government to coerce certain behaviors they like through, ultimately, force.I tend to disagree with the coercion-force argument, but anyone voting on their view of poker legislation needs to look at a couple of the overriding issues that have come to center stage in this election. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I tend to disagree with the coercion-force argument, but anyone voting on their view of poker legislation needs to look at a couple of the overriding issues that have come to center stage in this election.What issues are you thinking of? Link to post Share on other sites
milestodavid 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 What issues are you thinking of?Misread your initial post, my bad. I read "candidates" not "some candidates", too much CNN Political Ticker lately. Anyway, healthcare can be used as an example. I can sum it up in two simple sentences. Hillary Clinton believe in mandates and hasn't been specific about what penalties will be placed upon people (coercion-force). Barack Obama stresses affordable healthcare and has been specific in saying people want healthcare, they just can't afford it. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country.Very true. However...all other things being equal..this could be a deciding factor. It's more than just Internet Poker IMO... it's free trade and allowing the people of the Country to decide. I understand why they do not want people using CREDIT cards because as it is in the US..when inidividuals make poor financial decisions...they tend to run to the Government for help and expect to be bailed out. (ARM's right now... all the people crying because they make their mortgage payments on the rediculous ARM's they signed that looked soooo good 3 years ago).So...IN MY OPINION... a vote for anyone SOLEY based on internet gambling may not be the most forethought vote...but it could be a deciding factor if all or most of other issues are equal.My picks:Hillary for Dem because she has NO chance of becomming President. (I really hope I don't see this statement posted again later this year proving me wrong...lol)McCain for Rep: Hands down winner if he goes against Hillary. Link to post Share on other sites
Jariso13 1 Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Very true. However...all other things being equal..this could be a deciding factor. It's more than just Internet Poker IMO... it's free trade and allowing the people of the Country to decide. I understand why they do not want people using CREDIT cards because as it is in the US..when inidividuals make poor financial decisions...they tend to run to the Government for help and expect to be bailed out. (ARM's right now... all the people crying because they make their mortgage payments on the rediculous ARM's they signed that looked soooo good 3 years ago).So...IN MY OPINION... a vote for anyone SOLEY based on internet gambling may not be the most forethought vote...but it could be a deciding factor if all or most of other issues are equal.My picks:Hillary for Dem because she has NO chance of becomming President. (I really hope I don't see this statement posted again later this year proving me wrong...lol)McCain for Rep: Hands down winner if he goes against Hillary.Unless you are an online poker professional (which I am not)...Then this issue may be of some importance to you Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 My picks:Hillary for Dem because she has NO chance of becomming President. (I really hope I don't see this statement posted again later this year proving me wrong...lol)McCain for Rep: Hands down winner if he goes against Hillary.Quoting for using this against you at a later date.Though I'm an Obama guy. I still don't think ANY rep has a chance. Link to post Share on other sites
dabetka 0 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 this may sound ridiculous on a poker forum, but considering the state of our country (economy, foreign policy, etc.), i think voting based on a candidate's view of poker is not the best approach. there are much bigger issues facing our country.Yep, There are many things that should be deciding factors when electing a president. Although poker might be important/fun for us, issues such as 1. the war 2. immigration 3. economy 4. taxation 5. health care and many others are way above poker on the totem poll of voting importance....atleast it should be. I don't think our founding fathers were extremely worried about the local poker game when inventing our constitution. GO ROMNEY! Link to post Share on other sites
Vtlaxer09 4 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 sigh... anyone voting for a candidate based solely on his position on internet poker is absolutely retarded imho.As a "devout" online player... even I can say that a candidate who has an "internet gaming is a bad thing" stance is still someone I could vote for. Lets face it.. this industry absolutely destroys many many people who fall into extreme debt (especially young people with access to mommy's credit card).I obviously want internet gambling (poker) to be legalized but I think it should have somewhat strict regulation.But first lets get out of the hole we're in economy wise. kthxbye Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now