Poker Players for Obama

Credit for this post goes to latefordinner of the 2+2 forums


It is becoming clear that Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. It has also been talked about many times on here that Obama openly talk about enjoying playing poker for money, and that while he has not come down in favor of legalizing online poker, he likely represents our best shot. Certainly, he does not seem opposed to it if he can be convinced it is in his political best interests.

I was going to make an online fundraising page specifically targeting the poker player vote this evening, when I saw that one had already been made. Their current target is $1000, I think 2+2 alone can easily raise 10x that.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outre...n/pokerplayers

Please keep the Democrats are evil OMG posts to the politics forum. If you don't wish to donate, or don't wish to donate until it is known for sure whether Obama has the nomination, that is fine. However, money talks louder than words in DC, and I urge you, if you are serious about wanting to see online poker made explicitly legal in the next two years, to ante up a few big blinds from the normal stakes you play and make it explicit that the reason you are giving money to Obama's campaign is because you want to see him legalize online poker.

Once there is a substantial amount donated through this page, we have something tangible to point to when urging legalization in the future. Otherwise, we simply have an issue that let's face it, 95% of politicians could give a rat's bum about.

If you think Obama is the most poker-friendly candidate out there, I urge you to make that support known through a channel that will make it visible. This is that channel.

Note I am not affiliated with the page, nor do I know who made it, but I do know that when donations start showing up there it will be clear why they are there.

Also this one

Poker Players Alliance: Fight for Poker

never forget a nice blue state, washington made online poker a fellony...........

True, but at least they clarified the law to state that if you're playing recreationally it's an admissable defense.

I agree that with all the candidates running for president combined, there certainly is not much to vote for. But when people start voting for the president of the U.S.A. just because he likes poker; it becomes easier to understand why this country is in such a mess.

Oh bullshit, the blues pushed a law through for the "the good of the children" and now are covering ass. I can see this "umm yes your honor, i was playing every day recreationaly and won x tourneys for 75,000 bucks". Lest we forget uber blue germany has outlawed online poker, sweden is looking at it too. If you want to say "i like X, cause he is cute, close to my age group and has a cool presence" then thats ok, but to even suggest they are going to do anything for poker is delusional.

Is it dillusional that a lobby group can keep automatic guns legal for someone to own? Is it dillusional that a lobby group can continue to manuacture a product that kills more people than any other product? (tobacco). If you don't think that money talks in Washington, then you are the one who is dillusional.

AMEN!!!

Keep them legal? I believe the Constitution does that. And tobacco does not kill anyone, people putting tobacco in their mouth's kills them. It's a choice, they know the consequences, so why should we ban it? Let's ban people hitting themselves with hammers too, or do you support people getting hurt?

I'm not telling anybody to vote a particular way, or solely voting for Obama because there is a chance poker can be fully legalized. I was going to vote for Obama regardless, this is just another reason for me to pick him to be our next leader. If you do not support Obama, that is the reason I posted the link to the PPA. I'm just trying to spread some good word for us poker players, not political propaganda

You must forgive me Zach, I am Canadian after all, eh. And no fighting until after our team (lAG) crushes the competition this weekend.

ya right, me i dont vote for ANYBODY who dont have gray hair. period.

Then just the link to PPA should have been promoted, and not as an afterthought. The first OP should not even be here. That ALSO belongs in a political forum.

Might be different if any candidate had a specific fund earmarked for legalizing online poker. NONE does, end of story.

Why does everybody feel the need to flame? Like I said, just stating a cause to help us, nothing more

Errr Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate to meet with the PPA and the only candidate to vote against the UIGEA (to my best knowledge). Obama specifically refused to meet with the PPA. He is a politician like the rest of them and from a poker players perspective I can't find any reason to support him (I struggle to find any reason to support him period though, we need more than HOPE at this juncture in America).

I realize there is a lot of support for Obama and I can respect that, but "poker Players for Obama" is a misnomer at a minimum.

Speaking for myself, my comment was not a 'flame'. Forums allow for discussion, including opinions that do not always fall on the same side of the fence. The OP did seem to indicate a 'cause'.

Making the statment that Obama is the 'clear candidate' is a political statement and my comments are not directed at ANY side, one way or the other, except to note that it was a political statement with poker added for flavoring.

I agree wholeheartedly with supporting the PPA. It has one cause, one function and one reality. They support poker. Worthiness of any political candidate because of any single issue will always draw varying opinions.

Forums provide a platform for alternating opinions. They aren't an area to reserve space to request only positive input or to leave questionable comments or points of view unchallenged.

GL on the tables. That's where I'll be. ...

You could look at comments from all candidates regarding poker - several play and would support EFFECTIVE legislation. If you're concerned with getting legislation passed, maybe you should look to see who has been most active - the charleton (Obama) has done nothing, whereas Clinton and McCain have produced more quality legislation per year than many of their colleagues. Obama has done nothing but polish his rhetoric and pick out campaign fonts.