about 17 minutes into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...=uQ2g3BYL18Q#!

Ron Paul is clearly on our side. Its great to hear him say so, but the real question is why are more electable candidates still afraid to do the same?

Aas a man of liberty, we have a good chance he'll repeal UIGEA. He's talked about internet gambling and specifically the UIGEA:

Sheldon Adelson (owner of Venetian and Pallazo, strongly opposes online poker) has given 10 million to a Newt Gingrich super pac.

Ron Paul is expected to do well in the caucus states in February, possibly even win a few. I am doing all I can to help him out, if this is an important enough issue for you guys try to atleast vote. If you live in Maine, the republican caucus in 2008 only had about 5400 voters. Your vote will mean a lot in this state, especially if you bring some friends along.

Maine cacaus information: http://www.mainegop.com/2012/01/main...s-information/

Also, Nevada caucus this Saturday!

I dont get why Romney and Santorum would pick this week to come out against online gaming when they're going to be in NEVADA of all places

This boggles my mind too. It's so depressing.

It's easy, it limits competition

Why is it depressing? I would think it shifts votes away from them towards other candidates who are pro-online poker. Being good, yes?

Nevada won't matter in the long run. They can claim "I was consistent even before a state that was pro-gambling, I was anti-gambling." It gives them validation (something Romney badly needs) while they lose almost nothing.

But Romney might go for the bill to ban gambling while legalizing poker, he just mentioned online gaming in general right?

If any of you guys care to spread this you can copy and paste the below text (pocketfives, cardrunners forums, zynga poker, etc.):

Ron Paul supports online poker, other 3 candidates against ... be sure to vote in the Nevada caucus on Saturday the 4th in which Ron Paul is expected to do very well (this will give him momentum in states like Maine and Washington where he has a high chance of winning in February).

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

Romney 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/ral...ion-deals-sev/

He has donated 10 million to a Newt Gingrich super pac. Adelson and Gingrich have had a relationship 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...&v=uQ2g3BYL18Q

upvote this on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...from_gambling/

Look at the statement from Poker Player's Alliance on Paul from 2008:

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. (http://theppa.org/headlines/2008/01/...ords-on-poker/)

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'd love to see Paul get nominated. But he hasn't won any primaries yet so I'm not holding my breath.

This.