White House View on Online Poker (May 18, 2012)

[Fouad]

Rich,

I hope you didn't take my post as a put down or anything because I feel you do a great job! I've always been sympathetic of the PPA's situation and really do want you to know how much I admire your resolve because its nothing short of exceptional.

I guess I was just kinda reading the thread and ran across Jack Frost's post and it struck home as to why I've been so inactive lately so I decided to comment on it. I dunno, maybe this helps to understand a lot of our mindsets and you can game plan more efficiently. I will certainly try my best to get back to doing my part.

Kevin

[MrSoloDolo17]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

The thread for that is at What should users do if they don't have their account email? (SEE OP!). The IP addresses for the two accounts do match, so getting you squared away shouldn't be too hard. Just post the issue on that thread (I'll reply with the IP search results) and follow the instructions in that thread OP.



It's certainly been a long, tough fight. I've been in it for six years day in and day out, which certainly wasn't my plan going in. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. I could downplay our real chances to prevent potential letdown, but I won't lie to everyone here. I've never done it and I won't start now. I provide the data and leave it to everyone make the decisions based on that.

Pocket aces are a preflop favorite over all other hands. That does not mean they always win. When they lose, it does not mean that they were not the preflop favorite.

Disaster preparedness officials run into the same problem. People are warned to leave their homes when a hurricane is on the way. When those houses don't get hit, some homeowners complain about having to leave.

Anyway, I've done a lot of posting here to remind everyone that this has always been a tough fight. I don't know how anyone could read my posts and think I believe this is easy or is a done deal.

If anything, I believe people's beliefs in passing legislation this year should be bolstered by what Rich is saying here. Rich is somebody who has been fighting this fight for a long time and clearly understands what it will take for us to win this battle. I would certainly think that he is more informed and in the know than most people and don't think it is fair to discredit his hours of hard work and selflessness that he has sacrificed for our cause simply because he is stating how very real our chances have become.

Thank you Rich and the PPA for all that you've done for us poker players. I know that I and many grinders alike sincerely appreciate your hard work and support for our community. I look forward to eventually winning this fight! The PPA is sending a clear message to the Capitol Hill: we are here to stay. We need every single ally we can get.

[SuperSwag]

So tilting how easy it is to ban something compared to how hard it is to legalize it in this country.

In regards to those whining about the 99% thing. It is the same with Marijuana, tons of americans do it and our government knows that but doesn't mean they are just going to go ahead and make it legal.

If obama won't step up for online poker I really don't know what it will take, and what if Mitt wins? that will make things harder won't it?

[TruFloridaGator]

Probably, although I think we can have enough ppa, grassroot, and bipartisan support to ensure romney signs if he is POTUS. Gotta keep showing people that we are strong and very few are against online poker.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by TruFloridaGator

Probably, although I think we can have enough ppa, grassroot, and bipartisan support to ensure romney signs if he is POTUS. Gotta keep showing people that we are strong and very few are against online poker.

Mitt winning would almost certainly be coupled with Reid losing his position in the Senate. Under those circumstances, nothing for him to sign. No federal online poker for 4 years.

[TruFloridaGator]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Mitt winning would almost certainly be coupled with Reid losing his position in the Senate. Under those circumstances, nothing for him to sign. No federal online poker for 4 years.

Dems are going to lose the senate most likely but its still probably a flip for POTUS. We nees to get this passed in lame duck regardless

[33hard6]

Originally Posted by TruFloridaGator

Dems are going to lose the senate most likely but its still probably a flip for POTUS. We nees to get this passed in lame duck regardless

This is such misinformation based on 1 persons pessimistic opinion:.. Here are some actual FACTS:
There have been nearly a dozen one term presidents who ran for second terms but were denied by voters, but only three one term presidents since World War II. The most recent one term president who lost his bid re-election was George H.W. Bush, a Republican who lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. There has been only 1 democratic president to lose his bid for a 2nd term since WWII and that was Jimmy Carter, who lost in a one of the biggest landslides in US history to Ronald Reagan by a margin of 489 Electoral college votes to Carter's 49. As far as your prediction about the Dem's "most likely losing the Senate" - That, too, is so far off base. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1006913.html -- Not to mention with Snow's unexpected resigning in Maine as we as 6 term senator Lugar losing - the Dem's can pick up 2 seats they werent even expected to challenge for.
So why dont you just say "Hey- I want to spread propaganda to try and get people to feel urgent and think we're going to "Most likely lose the senate and "flip" for the presidency (even though almost all polls have Obama ahead of Mitt and only 1 seating Dem POTUS since WWII has ever lost a bid for a 2nd term) and a lot of good is turning up for dem's in Senate challenges.. Because, hey- Your flawed opinion is basically fact.

[RollWave]

A democratic senator isn't exactly an unbiased source in whether or not dems will hold the senate. Of course he's gonna say they will hold. His word is worthless.

Your facts about how often presidents lose elections during history has little bearing on whether or not this president loses. You sound like you want to claim that since a very small percentage of sitting presidents lose that this president has a low percentage of losing. It doesn't work that way.

[tamiller866]

Only one Democratic POTUS since WWII (Clinton) was ever re-elected for a full second term (Truman didn't run, Kennedy killed, LBJ didn't run, Carter lost), so I guess it really is a 'flip'.

[PokerXanadu]

Thread has gone off topic. Please take Politics discussion to Politics.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by 33hard6

This is such misinformation based on 1 persons pessimistic opinion:.. Here are some actual FACTS:
There have been nearly a dozen one term presidents who ran for second terms but were denied by voters, but only three one term presidents since World War II. The most recent one term president who lost his bid re-election was George H.W. Bush, a Republican who lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. There has been only 1 democratic president to lose his bid for a 2nd term since WWII and that was Jimmy Carter, who lost in a one of the biggest landslides in US history to Ronald Reagan by a margin of 489 Electoral college votes to Carter's 49. As far as your prediction about the Dem's "most likely losing the Senate" - That, too, is so far off base. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1006913.html -- Not to mention with Snow's unexpected resigning in Maine as we as 6 term senator Lugar losing - the Dem's can pick up 2 seats they werent even expected to challenge for.
So why dont you just say "Hey- I want to spread propaganda to try and get people to feel urgent and think we're going to "Most likely lose the senate and "flip" for the presidency (even though almost all polls have Obama ahead of Mitt and only 1 seating Dem POTUS since WWII has ever lost a bid for a 2nd term) and a lot of good is turning up for dem's in Senate challenges.. Because, hey- Your flawed opinion is basically fact.

Welcome to 2+2, and congrats on your first post. As you're new, I guess you're not aware that we have a forum for political discussion: Politics. We request that all political discussion go there.

Also, while other forums may welcome the aggressive tone you chose to use here, we really do not.

Again, welcome. As you learn the rules and customs of 2+2 PL, I'm sure you'll become a good contributor.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by MrSoloDolo17

If anything, I believe people's beliefs in passing legislation this year should be bolstered by what Rich is saying here. Rich is somebody who has been fighting this fight for a long time and clearly understands what it will take for us to win this battle. I would certainly think that he is more informed and in the know than most people and don't think it is fair to discredit his hours of hard work and selflessness that he has sacrificed for our cause simply because he is stating how very real our chances have become.

Thank you Rich and the PPA for all that you've done for us poker players. I know that I and many grinders alike sincerely appreciate your hard work and support for our community. I look forward to eventually winning this fight! The PPA is sending a clear message to the Capitol Hill: we are here to stay. We need every single ally we can get.

Thanks!

[tangled]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Mitt winning would almost certainly be coupled with Reid losing his position in the Senate. Under those circumstances, nothing for him to sign. No federal online poker for 4 years.

I agree mostly. Politics is very partisan now, so coattails are important. If Romney wins the popular vote, the chances are Republican Senate candidates will also do well. That combined with that there are more Dem seats up for grabs, and the VP tiebreaker, the odds are if Romney wins, the Senate flips.

But even if Reid remains as Senate leader, Kyl will be gone. Reid as majority leader can block negative Ipoker legislation, but he needs bipartisan help to push pro-Ipoker legislation through. We need Kyl too (assuming he is willing to deal).

Originally Posted by TruFloridaGator

Dems are going to lose the senate most likely but its still probably a flip for POTUS. We nees to get this passed in lame duck regardless

Again, I agree mostly, the LDS is a perfect-storm opportunity for us: Kyl still there, Reid as majority leader, and an impetus to get a big budget deal through to block the automatic budget cuts and the automatic removal of the Bush tax cuts.

IMO the problem is, if Obama loses, the chances of a big bill getting through to which Ipoker can be attached, evaporates because of the hyper partisanship that does exist. The Republican narrative on Obama is that he is failure, someone who is not up to the job. Republicans want badly for history to cast him as another Jimmy Carter. I don't see any way they give him a big legislative success as he leaves office.

[SuperSwag]

What has Romney's response to online poker/gambling been so far?

Sometimes he tends to lean towards the other side, like when he was governer in Mass. So there is definitly hope even if he wins. It will also depend on how much he runs things or those behind the scenes run everything. Romney def a better choice for winning the fight than say, Newt.

[LetsGambool]

He's on the record during this campaign as against Federal action to regulate online poker, FWIW (maybe little in this case)