No, they are more likely to not vote. Wait, that's exactly what's happened.

Is Ron Paul still running?



(Welcome back, TE, too.)

Dr. Paul ended his presidential bid but is still running re-election to his current office.

Yes. I updated my guide, at http://theengineer.pokerplayersallia...t-poker-rights . The ratings are:

Obama/Biden: B-
McCain/Palin: D-
Barr/Root: A+
Baldwin/Castle: F

Here's a letter from Palin's gubernatorial campaign to Wayne McGregor, the Alaska State Director, regarding poker tournaments:

Other info is in the guide.

Thanks. I still keep an eye on what's going on here, of course, and I saw a question that begged an answer. You're all my friends, after all.

I stopped watching this forum when you slowed down to nothing. WB.

I had not seen that letter from Palin's office. Great find.

I live in Las Vegas, not his district in Texas. Can you vote for him?

And just for the sake of thoroughness, could you suggest a rating for Palin only, if god forbid.....

I gave her an F.

i don't get the "obama is best (lesser of two evils) for online poker" thinking.

i believe the democrats including obama would regulate online poker (given their sociliast nature and the associates costs of implementing such ideolagy and the increasing difficulty of raising funds to pay for the ever bloated govt) this way:

the democrats would want to tax the corporate profits of the companies offering online poker; they'll also introduce an excise tax on online pokering; they'll also want licensing fees from the online poker companies; the states definitely would want their cut too, which means more taxes

all that leads to increased rakes across all usa based online poker rooms. companies time and time again when given the chance will always pass down profit taxes to the consumers. do we really want higher rake?

so far i see no reason to want to change the status quo. rakes are very low (compared to their landbased counterparts), which is obviously good for us and for the fish because in turn their life lengthens.

also the likelihood that we will see a worthwhile influx of american fish (a necessary component to offset the higer rake in my scenario) if online poker were to be regulated is not as likely as people imagine it to be. more and more americans are cash strapped and as a result are spending less. take a look at the gaming establishments in las vegas. gaming is down. the same will be for online gaming. i'll keep my status quo.

I blasted some folks yesterday for continuing to harp on "Democrats want to take away our guns." Democrats haven't been forcing gun control laws as a major issue since the passage of the Brady bill, which had bipartisan support since the name BRADY was Pres Reagan's press secretary almost killed in the assassination attempt. Democrats realized it was a dead issue that was seriously hurting the party.

Fast forward to today's lambasting. The Democratic Party has not been in favor of "socialist type programs" since the mid-60s. Again, the Party leaders have realized that massive govt programs are not popular, and many don't work. If anyone was awake during the Clinton Administration, point to me this massive govt programs, including a national health care plan, which is desperately needed because the health care system in this country is totally busted.

These two things keep being replayed over and over by Conservatives because once upon a time, they played to the country's fears. Now, they are just empty rhetoric and sound as old-fashioned as Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.

Those who keep saying it don't realize how stupid it sounds. Old broken record stuff. Get some new material. Esp since the old Republican material of lower taxes (and record-breaking deficits), smaller govt (which is now much larger than ever and increased the most under Reagan and Bush II) and lot of other BS that either hasn't worked or can't work. The GOP is right on the verge of going where the Democrats went after the Johnson years, out in the wilderness.

The only thing the GOP is good at is winning elections. They ain't worth spit at running things. The country know it. Watch and see.

CJ

ps--and, oh, about that "welfare state" BS...

I don't disagree with any of the rest of your above post, as I think they are legit concerns. However, I think most people agree the chance of the status quo remaining for that much longer is low. The republican party and the RR aren't going to stop coming for us until we're finished or we've defeated them with some sort of favorable legislation.


The way I see it is that yes, we run an undetermined risk of being overtaxed/overraked in a regulated environment.

On the other hand, with the readopting of internet gambling prohibition into the republican platform and 4-8 more years of working time, I can't possibly see how internet poker will survive. We're teetering as it is, and McCain is bad enough for our chances to ever get postitive legislation through, but if he's elected and something happens to him we've got zero chance of getting anything through with Palin.

Do people not read anything before they throw out anti-democratic stuff?

Yes, Democrats (AND REPUBLICANS) would tax things.

Democrats will tax and regulate.

Republicans will GET ONLINE POKER BANNED. There will be no status quo. Period. They will ban it. There will be no online poker. There will be no taxes, because we won't make any money.

besides harping to the media and the ignorant masses about slaying the online gaming dragon with ineffective legislation (uiega) that does absolutely nothing our oppnent say it does because it only re-states the obvious--that the wire act is, um, a law that still is in effect--i just don't see what else they can do to touch internet poker.

i see 3 problems for them.

1-there is no fed law against online poker, and the chances of such ever getting enough support in congress to actually write and pass a bill attempted to do such is very slim in the near future. i think the public outcry would be significant. i think even the dimwitted, ignorant and naive can see that there is absolutely no legitimate reason to outlaw internet poker.

2-support problems for such legislation aside, there are also legal issues with such ban attempt. namely, constitutional. the courts allowed the wire act because there was a substantive and legitimate concern about organize crime and the source of their proceeds. what legitimate and documented and convincing concern is there for banning internet poker? none.

3-there are also technical issues. it's a practical nightmare to try to block specific internet access and activity associated with (which they will be) revolving internet addresses or sources. it's both time consuming and expensive, not to mention egregiously intrusive. the govt telling internet providers to snoop and filter internet traffic, good luck with that govt. in convincing the public, the courts, the lawyers and the states that this is ok.

imo all of the above 3 point act as major obstacles for anyone attempting to ban online poker. i'm just not worried.

1) Why is there no chance? It is in the platform of the Republican party. They will definitely have some power trying to get it done

2) lol, constitutional like that matters to them. Have you ever even listened to a Congressional meeting? There are definitely concerns, even if they are made up. Listen to the Republicans speak next time. Some things said are: "It is well known that terrorists are laundering money over these sites to help fun TERRORRRIIISSSMMM" and "1 in 3 college students who play online poker have attempted suicide"

It doesn't matter if they are true, Republicans are making people think they are in Congress.

3) You don't think a group with 10x as much power as us(FoF) with the Republican party in the palm of their hands has no chance of figuring out how to stop us?


Why are you being hard headed? It is in their platform to stop us. Literally. Not half-way. It says banning online gambling is one of their goals if they get the presidency. It's not maybe/kinda if it is Constitutional. They are going to do their best, and they obviously think it is possible, or they wouldn't have it in their platform. They don't have "stop world hunger" in their platform. But they do have ban internet gambling.


You need to stop telling people "nah its OK, they will prob keep the status quo blah blah" because people are going to believe you. They might not be able to get things changed, but they will be trying their best.

Listen, here is the deal:

Under Democrats, the chance of getting poker banned are 0%. The chance of keeping the status quo or better and getting regulation where we have more fish, more sites to play at, and places like Google and Yahoo jumping in and absolutely lowering the rake compared to what we have now. Really, you don't think Google, who is known for things like this, cannot put rake lower? It likely will. The chances of this situation is 100% for the Dems. We either stay where we are now, and maybe we get regulation, but the DoJ backs off and we get to keep playing.


Under Republicans, the chances of us getting banned are >0%. Since it is an actual part of their platform, it is likely >50%.

But regardless, which do you want? No chance of poker being banned, a good chance of things getting better by going with Dems, or a chance of poker being banned, and a small chance that things stay the same with the Reps? Even if they can't get it banned, they will revamp efforts of the DoJ. They will keep shutting down money processors. They will keep putting pressure on the sites. Nothing good will come of it, period.

u act like republicans are a monarchy and mccain will be the monarch. there are legislative hurdles such a ban has to go thru before becoming law--briefly, to house committee, then house floor, then senate committee, then senate floor, then house/senate committee, then president has to sign. all along the way there are competing interests and difference of opinions and philosophies. while the chance of a ban passing as law is certainly not zero, i believe anyone that says it' very likely with a republican prez in the near future (8 years) it's vastly overstating it's chances of passing.

the constitution may not matter in your hypothetical monarchy, but it does to the courts in our country. the courts are objective and their decisions are irrespective of the opinion or wishes of the legislative body (in theory of course).

u still haven't address the technical difficulties the ban will encounter if it were to pass as a law and pass constitutional muster. u really think it's feasible technically and economically for internet providers to start sniffing for online poker activity in a sea of internet activty and then start filtering such activity repeatedly? plz think about this before answering.

I will ask a simple question so that we can end this argument:

Who has a better chance of banning internet gambling? If it could possibly happen, which party would it be that would be doing it?

Which party is likely to fight for us to get to be able to legally play poker? If this were to happen, which party would be the one doing it?

And finally,

After answering these, which is the safe and smart party for poker players to vote for?

anyone else care to chime in on how u think the govt will be able to enforce a ban given the technical problems it would encounter (imo making a ban practically unfeasible).

They will never be able to completely ban it.

They will, however, make it harder and harder for fish to deposit. For recreational players to play. For sites to operate, for them to get cash out. To deposit funds from poker into your bank account.

Do you care to answer my questions now? You are on here being a schmuck for the Republican party when you known damn well the answers to my questions and damn well that no poker player that is voting with their main issue being on poker should be voting Republican.

You know the smart option, and the only option when you are voting as a poker player first and foremost, is to vote Democrat. So why are you trying to stand on the side of Republicans*?

* The same Republicans who have Ban Internet Gambling in their platform goals. The same ones who just voted 29 against and 4 for on the last bill to help repeal the UIGEA. Those Republicans.

I agree that Democrats are better for online poker than Republicans. However, when I compare Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin the difference is less than most believe.

First, Obama-Biden have not shown the support for online gambling and online poker that Democrats like Rep. Franks. In addition, any legalization and regulation be Democrats carries some risk of over taxation and over regulation. Further, I doubt that such legislation could make it through even a Democrat controlled Senate without much stronger support than Obama-Biden are likely to give. However, IMO an Obama-Biden administration is likely to ignore online gambling and stop the DOJ campaign against it. This will encourage new ewallets or old ones to reenter the US market; ditto for gaming and poker sites.

I agree that McCain-Palin are more likely to oppose online gambling and continue the DOJ campaign against it. However, thanks to the PPA and Democrat control of Congress, they have zero chance of any additional anti-online gambling legislation. Also, continuing the DOJ campaign against online gambling and/or finalizing regulations under the UIGEA might give the PPA, and other organizations, the standing and motive to litigate the legality of online poker in federal court and perhaps improving the status quo by favorable court decisions. Furthermore, despite the nomination of Gov. Palin to the Vice-Presidency, IMO Sen. McCain is no friend to the RRR or FOF. I doubt that he has forgotten or forgiven the tactics that they used in the 2000 South Carolina primary election that propeled Pres. George W. Bush to the Republican nomination for President in 2000 over Sen. McCain. IMO, if elected President, Sen. McCain will put Gov. Palin on the sidelines where most Vice-Presidents exist (where she can raise her children and not do much, except when needed in the Senate) and will ignore the RRR and online gambling which is what Sen. Obama is likely to do. I sincerely doubt that Sen. McCain would ever veto a pro-online gambling bill, especially if it is part of broader legislation, which is the only way that I believe it could ever make it out of the Senate.

My grades would be: McCain-Palin C- and Obama-Biden C+; mostly because of the possibility of Sen. McCain passing away while serving as President.

^
this

When the casual player finds too many hurdles to jump to be able to play, they will go away.

michael

"Technical problems" mean nothing...Look at the situation we have now compared to pre-UIGEA and the Regs are not even finalized much less implemented...It does not matter the effect on "us" will be the same!!!!! How many will be willing to commit a Federal Criminal Act and jump through the hoops in order to play some poker????? Few casual and recreational player will take the chance nor jump through the hoops...

See the dozen or so cash out and deposit threads in the "ZOO" , limited options for us(ie sites left because of UIGEA and very few are entering) , increasingly bank are closing accounts because of DEPOSITS(not even believed to be covered by the UIGEA)...

I think what it boils down to is your view on the "status Quo"????? My opinion is the "Status Quo" suks and is extremely unstable and will only change for the worse under a Rep Pres and a DOJ controlled by a Rep Pres..

well said.

i agree, this answer is total bull****. Someone has a letter from mc cain?

Voting for McCain would keep status-quo. Democrats are expected to keep their majority in both houses of Congress, so a new bill would not make it to McCain or Palin's desk. On the other hand if Obama is elected, the Democrats will be able to do whatever they want provided they have a majority. Good, bad, or indifferent I cannot say. But for anyone who says that electing McCain/Palin will get online poker banned, it's just plain false.

Palin will have control of the DoJ to an extent. So would FoF if the Reps get in.

To say that it will keep the status quo is just plain false. They will work hard to continue banning our ways of getting money online and will continue to put pressure on sites and money processors.

I don't see why people are campaigning for Reps on a poker site when it is pretty freakin obvious who to vote for if you are voting on poker.