Obama or Romney

[LSUfan1]

Neither candidate cares about iPoker. There aren't enough votes at stake in this matter to make a dent in the election.

If Obama cared at all about us, he could/would have acted on our behalf by now. At least Romney comes right out and says he won't back us.

The bottom line is that sooner or later, the greed will get the best of them. It's simply too much money to not legalize and regulate at some point. Hopefully that point comes sooner rather than later.

[andyhop]

It is probably easier for Harry Reid to get poker legalised federally with Romney in power than with Obama in power with the way the system works.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by Do it Right

You got that right. In fact he's ALREADY addressed it:



The only thing we've gotten from Obama is his response to the petition which essentially stated it's up to the states to regulate it, but without a stance either way on federal level regulation.

Seriously, I just don't understand how people can convince themselves Romney is good for online gaming. It's ludicrous. Whatever, I'll invoke Godwin's Law. It's like a Jew voting for Hitler claiming: "Well yeah, I know he says he wants to exterminate Jews and all that but I really think he's actually all about racial equality and fairness! Heil mein Fairer!

Nobody thinks Romney is good for internet gaming, in fact, it's because we realize he is bad for internet gaming, that he not only wouldn't veto a ban on internet gaming simply because it included a carve out for internet poker, he is actually much more likely to pressure congress to pass such a bill.

Obama considers it a State issue, whether they want craps or roulette wheels on their intranet is completely up to them, which is great if your interest is internet gaming, but Italy and France have proven that intranets are not good for poker, which suffers even worse when other forms of gaming are introduced.

Ask Joe Barton how he feels about internet gaming, he's the sponsor of the ban many of us have been tweeting our congressmen to support, he hates gambling, but considers poker to be a peer to peer competition where skill will overcome luck in the long run, much like playing the stock market, and no one would suggest Joe Barton would be worse for the cause of internet poker than Obama.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by knircky

Our only opponents are basically Christians and lobbies. I can't see how Romney who has said he is against us, has a 100m sponsor that is against us and is a Mormon could ever help us. It would be against his money and anything he believes in.

I don't like Obama myself, but when it comes tompoker he is the logical choice.

If we were hoping for a logical outcome, that would be a valid argument, but what we are hoping for isn't even constitutional from a constructionist viewpoint, let alone logical.

Obama has taken a very logical and constitutional approach by handing internet gaming over to the States, where the founding fathers intended gambling to be, but our movement needs someone fervent enough in his/her moral beliefs to make this a federal issue.

An episode of SouthPark was a great illustration of why I believe Romney should be our preferred candidate; the Devil needed a brain-dead Kenny to be kept on life support in order for his attack on heaven to be successful, so he asked his lawyer "how are we going to do that?", "easy, the same way we always do, use the Republicans" his lawyer replied.

Our goal is to get one of the least logical, hypocritical bills to ever be debated through Congress, banning internet gambling while federally authorizing internet poker, "how are we going to do that?" easy, we use a Republican.

[Happy_Fish]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

If we were hoping for a logical outcome, that would be a valid argument, but what we are hoping for isn't even constitutional from a constructionist viewpoint, let alone logical.

Obama has taken a very logical and constitutional approach by handing internet gaming over to the States, where the founding fathers intended gambling to be, but our movement needs someone fervent enough in his/her moral beliefs to make this a federal issue.

An episode of SouthPark was a great illustration of why I believe Romney should be our preferred candidate; the Devil needed a brain-dead Kenny to be kept on life support in order for his attack on heaven to be successful, so he asked his lawyer "how are we going to do that?", "easy, the same way we always do, use the Republicans" his lawyer replied.

Our goal is to get one of the least logical, hypocritical bills to ever be debated through Congress, banning internet gambling while federally authorizing internet poker, "how are we going to do that?" easy, we use a Republican.

This would be fine, but the Bush administration already made it a federal issue. If Obama came out tomorrow and repealed UIGEA, saying that the states should decide, that would be one thing. But he's saying that the states are in charge, while leaving federal law on the books prohibiting it. At least from the DOJ perspective.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by Happy_Fish

This would be fine, but the Bush administration already made it a federal issue. If Obama came out tomorrow and repealed UIGEA, saying that the states should decide, that would be one thing. But he's saying that the states are in charge, while leaving federal law on the books prohibiting it. At least from the DOJ perspective.

The federal law (UIGEA) has a carve-out for State licensed intranet poker:

‘‘(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.—The term ‘unlawful
Internet gambling’ does not include placing, receiving, or
otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where—
‘‘(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or
otherwise made exclusively within a single State;
‘‘(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which
the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise
made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance
with the laws of such State, and the State law
or regulations include—
‘‘(I) age and location verification requirements
reasonably designed to block access to minors and
persons located out of such State; and
‘‘(II) appropriate data security standards to
prevent unauthorized access by any person whose
age and current location has not been verified
in accordance with such State’s law or regulations;
and
‘‘(iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision
of—
‘‘(I) the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978
(15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
‘‘(II) chapter 178 of title 28 (commonly known
as the ‘Professional and Amateur Sports Protection
Act’);
‘‘(III) the Gambling Devices Transportation
Act (15 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.); or
‘‘(IV) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)

State's can't say "Go ahead and gamble on offshore sites, but they are all free to do what NV has already begun doing (except for sports betting), so we don't need the federal government to do anything to get intranet poker, but if we want a unified interstate player pool this decade, we need a President willing to take Obama's gift of internet gambling back from the States.

I'm not suggesting Romney definitely would ban State intranet gambling while federally authorizing internet poker, and the risk of his DOJ blocking interstate compacts which Obama's likely wouldn't is certainly real, but we are drawing completely dead for Federal action under Obama, whereas we might have a couple of Federal outs in a Romney deck.

If you have no problem with the Obama plan, where lottery commissions will eventually pool their players, casinos with licenses in multiple States may someday be able to pool theirs and if tribes ever get licensed they likely will be able to form compacts, then yes, Obama is the logical choice.

But don't kid yourself, Obama will not be signing any bill he might consider detrimental to his State's lottery; remember that the OLC reversal on the Wire Act was in direct response to a question from his (Illinois) lottery commission, which immediately moved to begin selling lottery tickets and is drooling over the opportunity to become a 'worldwide hub' for i-poker.

Most people think Obama is on our side but it just isn't a priority, but State control actually is a priority for the machine that got him elected and whether or not he is on 'our side' depends on whether on not you would consider a gradual State-by-State roll-out of intranet poker a victory.

[pius36]

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

[ ] ScreaminAsian - bloody coup

[ ] ScreaminAsian - bloodless coup (just smotherings)

it's your choice

i saw the girl in your avitar in a porno on redtube

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by pius36

i saw the girl in your avitar in a porno on redtube

Nice! Romeny did her between prayer services.

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Nobody thinks Romney is good for internet gaming, in fact, it's because we realize he is bad for internet gaming, that he not only wouldn't veto a ban on internet gaming simply because it included a carve out for internet poker, he is actually much more likely to pressure congress to pass such a bill.

Obama considers it a State issue, whether they want craps or roulette wheels on their intranet is completely up to them, which is great if your interest is internet gaming, but Italy and France have proven that intranets are not good for poker, which suffers even worse when other forms of gaming are introduced.

Ask Joe Barton how he feels about internet gaming, he's the sponsor of the ban many of us have been tweeting our congressmen to support, he hates gambling, but considers poker to be a peer to peer competition where skill will overcome luck in the long run, much like playing the stock market, and no one would suggest Joe Barton would be worse for the cause of internet poker than Obama.

The context of the statements he made was in reference to online poker. He was the one who chose to lump it into online gaming. You can scream "... but but.. read between the lines!!!" and believe he's intentionally and subtly phrasing his responses out of some covert support of your cause, which is in direct contradiction of his party's official stance. But I'd again call that blind optimism and reference my oh so tasteful analogy in that case. Comparing Romney to Barton is similar. Ron Paul is also a republican, why not apply Paul's stances to Romney as well? Romney is his own person and has come strongly and directly out against online poker and online gaming. Obama has already stated he has no problem with the expansion of online gaming at the state level, at least. This is really one of the few times in politics where there really is no ambiguity.

[tamiller866]

Romney's only chance to become 'the President who stopped the expansion of internet gambling' is to support a ban that excludes poker, a game millions of Americans already play online but on offshore unregulated sites.

He doesn't have to like poker or support poker, in fact he can hate poker, but if he wants to put a stop to house banked gambling being not just available online, but advertised on TV with State authorization, he will work on a compromise, and that compromise would have to exclude poker to get through Harry Reid et al.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Romney's only chance to become 'the President who stopped the expansion of internet gambling' is to support a ban that excludes poker, a game millions of Americans already play online but on offshore unregulated sites.

He doesn't have to like poker or support poker, in fact he can hate poker, but if he wants to put a stop to house banked gambling being not just available online, but advertised on TV with State authorization, he will work on a compromise, and that compromise would have to exclude poker to get through Harry Reid et al.

Who prey tell is the "et al"?

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Who prey tell is the "et al"?

Basically the Democratic party, even if the Republicans win the Senate, if Obama isn't President, Reid will be the party leader and still control enough votes to filibuster a complete prohibition.

Plus there are at least twenty States in various stages of moving towards online gambing, whose Republican Senators would likely oppose a bill that completely shuts them out, in fact, it's questionable whether any Senator from a State like IL would even compromise on a bill that only excluded poker - especially if the bill gives preferential treatment to the commercial casino industry (NV/NJ).

Like I've said before, getting a Federal bill through that does anything more than authorize States to do what Obama was already going to allow them to do (make IHA type interstate compacts) is a huge long shot under any President, but under Obama it's no shot, so I believe Romney is the better choice (on this one issue).

On the other hand, maybe we are better off just accepting that state-by-state is better than the remote risk of a Romney administration blocking interstate i-gaming compacts, but other than DE/RI/?? we are probably years away from those being established anyway.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Basically the Democratic party, even if the Republicans win the Senate, if Obama isn't President, Reid will be the party leader and still control enough votes to filibuster a complete prohibition.

Who are these Democratic senators?

[tamiller866]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tates_Senators

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tates_Senators

I kind of assumed you wouldn't be able to name one who publicly supports Reid's position, and you confirmed that.