Okay, so now that the GOP is more clear than Romney on where it stands, there needs to be a tradeoff from the Dems to the GOP for poker votes.

What is good enough for the GOP to have them give those poker votes?

The Dems say yes to.....a border fence?

More federal pursuit to shut down medical marijuana facilities?

Guns, abortions, gay rights, anything international is off the table.

What is there left to trade? Are there any somewhat important manufacturers that don't need a bailout....such as the automotive industry?

That could be the ticket. Poker is now a literal bargaining chip. So what do the Dems have to trade?

EDIOT: Got it. CONSCRIPTION!! Applied to all online names 29 years and younger!

I was not espousing a ''vision''I was stating facts.The sports leagues sell their tv rights on a cooperative basis otherwise they operate as independent franchises.If 20 top players decided to share and maximize their winnings through cooperation and soft play,they are cheating.If you're concerned that you're opponents are'nt winning their fair share you're either cheating or losing................a lot.The military can't be compared to or run like private business.

Pardon me for the derail but I want to set the record straight with Billy.

From Rush Limbaugh's site:
And that piece of zen is courtesy of Rush, as NOT in poker.

Gonna be a fun night, Mr. Rand of Aquinas hits the stage for more laffs.

Billy, you're a trooper. I enjoy the salvos.

Thank you.

If anyone thinks that Heller is going to roll in there as a freshman and actually support something that is directly opposed to the party platform then lol

how about permanently banning 95% of online betting games nationwide?

the problem is: we all know that's still not good enough for these people. and throwing in some more minor political concessions isn't gonna change the fact that the culture of the republican party is compromise=failure.

Also, as has already been stated online poker has become too big an issue now for compromise. If Kyl were to get a bill passed that completely and absolutely banned all online gaming, but provided a carve out for online poker, his legacy wouldn't be the man who stopped online gaming - it would be the man who legalized online poker. We have a handful of people like Barton who are willing to compromise and even support online poker but they don't represent their party. As a fun fact there are conservative PACs that are actually trying to get Barton out of office - he's not republican enough for them.

I'm not really seeing the fruits of compromise here. On the representative level the republican party has gone out of their way to make opposing online poker a plank in their party's platform. On the local level players are able to convince themselves they can vote for whoever they want and it won't matter which fragments us there as well. Is the whole party-neutral policy actually accomplishing anything or just watering everything down?

This may all be true right now, but it's only true at the moment because the GOP has been allowed to assume that online poker is already illegal (they point to BF as evidence of the applicability of the current laws) and the only reason anyone is able to continue playing online poker is because the Obama administration reversed it's opinion on the Wire Act as a green flag for the American Gaming Association to offer online poker to all fifty States.

Every one of those assumptions is a myth, yet rather than challenging their beliefs, we continue trying to sell them the idea that we are the ones who need a change in Federal law in order to play online poker.

Poker is not currently (Federally) illegal as the Weinstein decision indicates, and even if that decision is reversed it would likely not be reversed on grounds that would allow the IGBA to be applicable to internet poker.

Even before Obama reminded States that the Wire Act only applied to Sports betting, the DOJ didn't attempt to use it to prosecute poker, choosing rather to attempt to contrive offshore poker sites as intrastate gambling businesses rather than attempt to describe them as accepting bets on sporting events or contests.

Nothing in any of the Reid/Kyl or Barton legislation would authorize any form of gambling that isn't already authorized, those bills only call for the Federal government to handle the regulation because most States lack the experience and/or technology, but the States themselves would still be making the opt-in out decision of whether any poker is authorized to be played on the internet from their State.

Once Romney loses (and he will lose), the GOP illusion of a new Wire Act opinion prohibiting internet gambling will be destroyed, so in the lame duck session this issue (which the GOP feels is a priority) may finally be debated honestly, and when they realize that it isn't a choice between Federally regulated poker or no online gambling at all, but rather a choice between Federally regulated poker with State self determination or anything goes wild west bitcoins online gambling, there may still be an opportunity for compromise.


The reason the GOP 'went out of their way' to include online gambling in their plank is because it allowed them to take a shot at Obama, suggesting that it is Obama's reversal on the Wire Act alone that has opened the door to State licensed online gambling, and it's actually a fairly solid attack since even the liberal media (or poker media) 'fact checkers' are not pointing out it's fallacy.

Bolded needs to be a priority for poker and individual choice on many issues.

obg

Money always trumps family values. Once they start making money next year at the state level, you can forget about the federal government coming in and taking it away later on down the road. That would be a massive **** storm. Give me an example of a state that has casinos or a lottery and then lost it. So... the real question is as follows:

Is the Tea Party stupid enough to turn down banning casino games for a poker carve out? Are they stupid enough to get 90% and give up 10%? Does it have to be 100% or 0% for them?

My general feeling is that Yes! they are that stupid and will not take the deal. I hope I am wrong.

There's a possibility the fact checkers may open up a bit more after last night's Ryan speech.

He really blew it when he mentioned the closing of the plant in 2008 and Twitter exploded with the rebuttles.

Then it came out that the Romney camp said their campaign would not be controlled by fact checkers.

This morning, fact checkers have included corrections regarding Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit in addition to covering some ground that Christie and Portman brought up.

This opens it up for the fact checkers to control the campaign. The problem is they cannot be fact checkers if the subject is not brought up. It will take the GOP to mention anything involving a bet for the opposing side and the devil's advocate to set the record with fact checking.

So, using an example such as Heller, first he needs to bring it up. It is not in the interest of the Romney side for him to do that.

Someone rather influential in the GOP has to be pressed into bringing up the subject. The subject only appears to come up as a threat to children. It is buried in the guise of Family Values, and it is really buried when it comes to spoken rhetoric.

My viewpoint is that it needs to become a US Eastern issue, if not an East Coast issue. A guy (read: dupe) like Trump is just the person to unwittingly bring it out into the open.

Perhaps some concentrated effort is needed to make just the right guy talk?

Look eastward for that.

Sorry guys. I am a staunch poker advocate, but Obama and his policies are bankrupting this country. I will be voting for Mitt and believe that him winning (which Ii believe will happen) will have 0 impact on whether poker is regulated at the federal level.

I am not going to get into a debate with the next "X" amount of posters who flame me for saying I won't vote for Obama, but the answer to our problem has always required a multi-party engagement and is totally independent of who is President. If the Fed level fails, the state level is already happening. Nothing that happens during this election cycle is going to change the inevitability of a legal, regulated, IPoker business in the USA...there's too much money at stake for it not to happen and everyone knows that laws are passed based on the $$ not on right or left wing ideology.

LOL @ party platforms....they are for the extremists to get all frosty in the mouth (although I also concede that it being there pisses me off)

Why not vote for Paul (write in?) or G Johnson?

Because even though I would have preferred Ron Paul, I will not help Obama win by splitting the vote of people who believe in fiscal responsibility like myself. Sadly, my vote is irrelevant anyways because i live in ny.....so maybe i will throw my vote his way after all.

This is illogical.

If your vote is irrelevant, then do not vote. It is a waste of your time.

If it is relevant, then you have to maximize the use of it by voting for the person you think is most qualified.

Voting for Romney when you know he's not the most qualified candidate makes no common sense.

If ever there is a situation where a person is "wasting" their vote, it's when they vote for someone at the same time knowing they would rather vote for someone else.

I agree except it was the Obama DOJ that ruled the wire act only applied to sports betting. It was that ruling that really changed the game. That wouldn't have happened under a Repub admin.

But now that the ruling had happened, I agree it doesn't matter who is president really, except that Romney could veto a bill whereas Obama would not veto it.

Don't forget 1972, 1980 and 1984 when NY voted Republican, and Paul has absolutlely zero chance of winning.

antneye,

Yes! Romney must win! Hopefully they can pass Ryan's new tax code, under which, Romney's tax rate will go from 12-14% to 1-2%. Then Romney and others like him can create some jobs via his offshore holdings while all us suckers can continue paying a huge proportion of our salary in taxes.

Yes...but there's a snowballs chance in hell of mitt carrying ny in 2012...regardless I will ultimately vote for him most likely.

I wonder what it would take for the US to eliminate the electoral college and implement instant run off voting. Perhaps even with proportional representation. It sure would be interesting to see what would happen. I think so many people feel like antneye - but I wonder how many realize there is actually a solution!

that is a horrible definition of wasting a vote. what you describe is more like "selling out". And arguing against selling out and advocating using your vote to make a statement is a reasonable position, I'm not arguing against you on that.

but a better definition of a wasted vote is one that does not affect the margin of victory, ie any vote not on one of the top 2 vote getters (winner extends the margin, 2nd place closes the margin).

And of course it makes sense for people to vote for someone that they don't think is the best candidate, you have to if you want to express preferences amongst lower choices. If the candidates with a chance to win are your 4th and 5th choices, then common sense shows that voting for your 4th choice is preferable to voting for your 1st choice since it makes it less likely that your last choice would win.

ie, you arent trying to win (most preferred candidate winning), you're trying not to lose (least preferred candidate winning).

This is the entire basis of the 2 party system, that is a band of people coming together to get some candidate that is nobody's individual favorite, but combined, they all prefer him to the other guy (whereas the individual favorites might not all preferable to the other guy).

Please tell me this is a level of some sort. Did you miss this in the OP?:

A President's administration could effect such a reversal at the drop of a hat independent of the Congress.

It never ceases to amaze me when people believe the fiction that there's any difference between the two major parties. Especially when it comes to fiscal policy.

Rand Paul Says Paul Ryan's Budget Is 'Too Tepid' On Eve Of Paul's Convention Speech [huffingtonpost.com]

TAMPA, Fla. -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on the eve of his address to the Republican National Convention, lived up to his maverick reputation, calling out the budget put forward by Mitt Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

"It's too tepid," Paul told HuffPost, pointing out that Ryan's plan does not balance the budget for 28 years.

...

(emphasis added)

I understand the nobility of it, but I don't think the USA is a good place for it to happen. Run off voting would lead to massive splintering and multiparty elections tend to lead to mini-parties ganging up on the other....resulting in a two party system without the name, leaving kingmakers to call the shots.

Run off voting should remain in the respective parties. It helps keep election money, as well as the Roves and Carvilles effectively contained. Where it appears it could help the likes of Ron Paul, he would be even more buried in the process. Debates would be out the window.

Look to Japan for an example of multiparty systems: they are only hopeful to keep a PM for longer than a year, more people give a damn about complaining than actually voting, the most important issues get voted upon at midnight once the ballgames are over...

They battle the election money problem by only allowing two weeks for campaigning, and banning television campaigning save for what the news is able to report upon along with a 30 second spot close to election day in the care of NHK (Japan's version of PBS,) where one must stare at the camera and smiling ain't aloud.
Politicians tend to quit the game when they tire of keeping their mouths shut.

How is this relevant?

Japan has been trying to figure out how to unleash casinos on the islands for at least two decades. Of course, the citizenry is not against it because Japan has far more pachinko (now slot) machines than any other place in the world....not to mention tremendous interest in lotteries, horse racing, bicycle racing, boat racing....even the kids can arguably gamble for double down chocolate covered bananas at the local fair playing roshambo.

However, because of the multiparty situation that grew via runoffs, there is no organization necessary for proper longterm organization with regards to casino regulation because the national government can change so quickly.

Instead of casino revenue to battle the weakened infrastructure from the tsunami catastrophe and the shut down of the nuclear plants, Japan raised the national sales tax to 10% in a midnight session. There was hardly any opposition from the public: it was easy compared to allowing them to have a say with regards to casinos.

Quite to the contrary, eliminating the electoral college and implementing instant run off elections could lead to stricter control on issues such as alcohol sales.

I mean, the fact that no beer is for sale at the Republican convention is more likely the result of the efforts of a few rather than general consensus.

I think the point was that if you are 100% certain that Mitt will not carry NY, then vote for Paul if that is your choice as it will not matter and at least you: exercised your right, made your vote for who you really wanted, and potentially the numbers showing what other candidates got votes will show some that they are not 100% supported. <-Yeah, I know that last one is a pipe dream.

I don't really tune in to the conventions since they are just big pep rallies, but I do flip through every once in awhile just to see who is talking.

Something I found that would be hilarious if not such a sad statement to the hypocrisy is that just about every time I switched over there, the current speaker was going on about how they, their family, their dad, or their mother fully represented the American Dream. How? By "taking a risk," "putting it on the line," "betting it all on this business," "we thought he was crazy to take our savings and take this risk," "he decided the risk was worth it to provide for his family..."