Obama or Romney

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The Cabazon decision, that state gambling laws are regulatory and therefore can't be enforced under Public Law 280 by the State on tribal lands, forced Congress to act, but the action the States wanted was for Congress to use it's interstate commerce authority to amend the law requiring tribes to follow State gambling laws.

Reagan however, saw this as an opportunity to get tribes off the Federal dole, and took the non-conservative position that giving tribes a local monopoly over a recession proof industry was the right way to go.

Another analogy, since you don't like that one, is that it took a Democrat (Clinton) to overhaul the welfare program, when neither Reagan nor Bush could ever have even broached the subject.

We know what a second Obama term will mean: i-gaming will remain a state issue and in four years we might have a dozen states either offering i-poker or allowing their players on one of the hubs of a neighbor state via compact.

A concern about the Romney administration could possibly mean interstate i-gaming compacts would be blocked by his DOJ, but when he was Governor of MA he entered into gambling compacts himself, promising to not build casinos in exchange for revenue sharing with neighboring states.

The concerns about Adelson supporting Romney are also likely unfounded, as Adelson (and Wynn) oppose Obama because of his positions on China (Macau), not because of his support for online gaming.

IGRA does not grant tribes a local monopoly. In cases where there are local monopolies, those are established by the compacts that states and tribes agree to, not on the text of IGRA itself.

Casino gambling is not a recession proof economy. Look at Foxwoods.

In 1988, most of Reagan's brain cells were no longer functioning. Ask his son if you don't believe me. I doubt Reagan was the vision behind anything.

[fluffheadsr]

i'm not voting for either.. they both suck really really bad.

[jackaaron2012]

It's so funny that people even say to pick either candidate.

As if the candidates should dictate what we want.

We were supposed to change the minds of voters, and politicians would have campaigned in order to appease those voters. Instead, we created some narrowly focused group that tried to change politician's minds when those politicians were busy appeasing voters (who could give two craps about us).

Just lol.

[tangled]

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

Obama wants federal control over everything. Milk, banks, poker, health care and so on.

With Mittens there is hope for a state by state slog with a states' rights argument.

I think that Reid gets it attached in the lame duck session and Obama signs it along with all of the pardons that he makes on the way out the door like Clinton.

What happened to Obama being impeached or resigning?

And I guess you haven't heard but Obama's DOJ has opined that intrastate Ipoker is legal, so, obstensibly, Obama has already endorsed what you guess Romney will do.

And Romney is a social conservative, not a libertarian. Social conservatives care nothing about states' rights.

[Do it Right]

Under Obama's 'reign' online poker has seen the conclusion of an investigation that started during GW's time in office, but it's also seen some of the most promising developments in terms of US poker. Romney's potentially biggest supporter, on the other hand, is currently arguably the most influential anti-poker voice. And Romney has also gone on the record as staunchly opposing it.

I'm not really sure how this thread is 5 pages. It's Obama and not even close. Whether or not to vote based on online poker is another question, but the answer to this question is completely black and white.

[caseycjc]

Originally Posted by Cerveza69

On a more imnportant note: Do the Heat close it out tonight?

[PsYcOsNiPeR]

http://www.howourgovernmentworks.com/index.html

check it out, live updates of noteworthy political action. recently came online, well articulated and easy to understand. check out the blog for daily additions

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by PsYcOsNiPeR

http://www.howourgovernmentworks.com/index.html

check it out, live updates of noteworthy political action. recently came online, well articulated and easy to understand. check out the blog for daily additions

That's straight up a liberal blog and completely OT.

[buddyspal]

Obama would want to tax it to death. Romney would want to create jobs. I vote Romney

[Sol Eisenberg]

how much money do you make per year? i sure hope it is 250k or more otherwise your just shooting yourself in the foot voting for romney

[ScreaminAsian]

Originally Posted by buddyspal

Obama would want to tax it to death. Romney would want to create jobs. I vote Romney

you know what obama hates, right?

jobs.

what was the last name of the wealthy industrialist who changed the way people interacted with technology forever? and who also DIED (at a young age and under mysterious circumstances, mind you) directly under the watchful glare of the obama administration?

JOBS

and is it any coincidence when you simply look at the facts?

obama's hatred of jobs was and is so profound that he will stop at nothing until every last vestige of american jobs are removed from this "bloated capitalist culture". IN HIS OWN WORDS, obama proudly proclaimed, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the jobs." sound like anyone familiar?

WAKE UP, WHITE PEOPLE.
WAKE UP, WHITE PEOPLE.
WAKE UP, WHITE PEOPLE.

[JohnWilkes]

Gut shot with a 45 or bit by a rattler which is better?

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by buddyspal

Obama would want to tax it to death. Romney would want to create jobs. I vote Romney

Good read.

“No, I’m not (a supporter). Gaming has a social effect on a lot of people. I don’t want to increase access to gaming and feel that we have plenty of access to gaming right now through the various casinos and establishments that exist. In some states, there are lotteries that are used to fund their schools and budgets and so forth, and I don’t think online gambl … gaming would encourage or improve that setting.”

[sinmetal]

Ron Paul is the only one that would truly legalize it. Here is his stance on it

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...e-gaming-issue

Romney has come out against it and is backed by casinos that do not want it.

Here is romneys stance on it

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...t-web-gambling

[buddyspal]

I'll take the mormon, you keep the moron.