Republican National Committee:

Source

Update: It's official. See page 32 of http://www.gop.com/wp-content/upload...OPPlatform.pdf.

That is literally one of the most blatantly obvious designed-to-look-good to those who spend their entire lives trying to protect children from seeing boobs and also vote for whoever looks more like Jesus...and not real, middle-eastern Jesus but blond hair blue eyes WASP Jesus, while also not offending republicans with some level of disposable income and also the anti-government parts of the republican base, by refusing to ever say the word POKER...so that way Dean Heller gets on here and says "no, that's about online blackjack and online sports betting"...but then Coburn goes to his church in Oklahoma and tells some middle aged woman whose 15 year old son who stole mommy's checkbook and put some money on pokerstars that he's going to fight for her!!!

Just saying...

Good, that falls right in line with Joe Barton's position, now if they really want to get this accomplished, all they need to do is vote for Barton's bill (which strengthens the UIGEA but excludes i-poker because, as Judge Weinstein concurred, poker doesn't fit the traditional definition of gambling).

Toxoplasmosis




but yea.......slam dunk, I hope.

F the republicans and neve vote for them from a pokr prospective.

The same people who are behind that platform aren't gonna care about judge Weinstein's articulate, intellectually sound, and correct ruling. All they see is a society where junior can be exposed to sin by playing a $10 sit and go. They do know many adult lives would improve with an enjoyable online poker environment, but that means NOTHING. Even if you do your best to reason with them, its a waste of time. We are after all talking about deeply religious people.

All that matters is that their world view does not carry the day.

Most of those same people read the WSJ and worship the $ that this emerging 'industry' is projected to take in, and don't want to see that $ continue drifting overseas.

Sure there are the fanatics that would also support bringing back alcohol prohibition (just as there are 'save just one child' liberals), but at the end of the day if our goal is to have free market poker rather than State ran monopoly poker, it will take support from both sides of the aisle.

I hate Amurica.

The entire paragraph:

Making the Internet Family-Friendly

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department's decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting. The Internet must be made safe for children. We call on service providers to exercise due care to ensure that the Internet cannot become a safe haven for predators while respecting First Amendment rights. We congratulate the social networking sites that bar known sex offenders from participation. We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking. Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

I found this on another site:

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told BuzzFeed: “You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I feel very happy about it. I feel pretty optimistic about the outcome here.”

I don't see where this is the " The official Republican National Convention stance on internet gambling." from your source." emphasis on OFFICIAL.

EDIT: further research at OP's source site shows that this was supposedly a mistakenly released "Draft" document, and the comments are questioning that even this description may be wrong.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...118.html?hp=l4


Not saying you're wrong...just hoping.

Yes, the un-offical partial draft, put out as a fund raiser it looks like and not complete.

Typical.

obg

Nonetheless, it is from GOP.com

If I were voting based on one topic (poker), it would be a no-brainer to vote democrat. The problem that I have is that in my view this country has gone further in the wrong direction under this president.

The democrats had complete control of the House and Senate for the first half of Obama's time, and I don't see where they did anything that has made a real difference. If they cared about poker, we would be playing free of any issues right now. The holier than thou conservatives are obviously not going to be our allies in the search for freedom regarding poker though.

I will more than likely vote a straight republican ticket (with the exception of that idiot Akin), because in my opinion, the republicans present a better chance of this country heading in the right direction financially. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to vote for another 4 years of this.

The last election was anyone but Bush, and this one will be anyone but Obama. Vote democrat if you will, but I will not be joining that party.

I would far prefer voting for a large group of Libertarians, but I don't see that working out too well just yet, so the R's will have it this time.

I get that I am an anomaly here at 2+2, but that's just my 2 cents worth, politically. Enjoy!

PUHLEEZE vote Libertarian: talk about a do-ream act.

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia - those are the only seven things the GOP cares about. There will be no effort from them regarding poker.

Nevada is where 2+2 got it wrong. But give it credit, it is nowhere as wrong as the leak from GOP.com

If you're going to answer my post, at least actually read it. I said the GOP doesn't care about poker. I also said I will NOT vote based solely on poker. I get that poker is a livelihood for some, and I understand them voting based on poker. I love this game, and hope it returns quickly, but there are far bigger fish to fry IMO.

I also never asked anyone to agree, but rather gave my 2 cents. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative.

Do you guys think the Republican party could actually make things better for Americans if put in charge? We just got out of a 10 year war led by them where they did nothing but shovel money overseas for meaningless pursuits. The Democrats have had 4 years to do what? Wave a magic wand and make everything better overnight, and somehow get the full cooperation of Republicans that basically want to say no to their every attempt?

The Republican party we have today is destructive to our society.

This is just plain denial. I understand you don't want your party controlled by these fanatics, but your wish, and reality, are at odds at this time in our history. These kind of fanatics are not few in number. They would have given Santorum the nomination if he had not descended into complete idiocy during the Michigan primary. And if they were really few in number, they would not have gotten this plank through.

Maybe, hopefully, the money interests will win out, but that does not mean fanatics, in both parties, are few. They are many.

The wingnuts are the ones that show up to vote in primaries, they might have given Howard Dean the Democratic nomination if he hadn't suffered a nervous breakdown on national TV.

Then somewhere along the way the party bosses 'inform' them it's more about beating the other side than it is nominating someone that actually believe in the extreme rhetoric, and puppets like Al Gore and Mitt Romney end up getting nominated.

All the while the same law firms/corporations run the country regardless of who you vote for (or if you bother doing it at all), so if it wasn't for poker I'd have no preference at all, let alone a party affiliation.

This is why I laugh when people say Dean Heller will get us 10 pro-poker votes, keep reaching...

As ******ed of a false greedy fairy tale as voting for romney when making under $250k.

Manchurian candidate vs. Scumbag who openly wants to bleed dry anyone who isn't rich. Scumbag gets votes from future victims, welcome to America.

If I am going to answer your post, I will take this into account. So far, this is the first post from you I have answered...account taken.

The post you are quoting was a plea, as in puhlee not an answer.

If just half of the Republicans voted Libertarian in the upcoming election, it would be a great day for the nation.

The thing is Obama didn't want to use the majority to get bills thru congress and on his desk. He wanted both sides to work together to pass legislation.

.

I am amazed how the 1% spends enough money to get 50% of the people to vote for them.

I'm guessin you're pretty easy to bluff.After taking office and meeting with Republicans for the first time Obama made abundantly clear he was'nt interested in any Republican input.When Sen.McCain tried bring up a few points Obama tersely stated''I won the election John''