Republican Insists Internet Poker Not Part Of ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Talks

Yea that's not tilting at all.

If there is one thing I have learned about politics in the last several years of following online poker legislation its this: Republicans win. They ****ing win.

Well, at least the Republicans are saving us from ourselves. Someone has to do it.

Fiscal cliff was never a good vehicle for I-poker. Boehner is going to have a hard time corralling Republicans and I wouldn't be surprised of Obama called Reid and told him not to mess up negotiations. Too bad there wasn't a nuclear arms treaty to negotiate so Kyl would have more leverage.

I thought that was the liberal Democrats' job?

Not when it's something that's morally reprehensible to God! (Just don't look for it in the bible.)

And ignore the fact that even God was a gambling, uh, man.

In regards to the opposition by Boehner, we just need to flood his office.

Did anybody really think the fiscal cliff negotiations had any chance of slipping Reid/Kyl in? It seems like they're splitting every hair on this one. I don't think there's much wiggle room to toss in extras.

yeah, Boner won't allow ipoker to be a part of the house bill. Kyl Heller and Barton said months ago the house is gonna pass a full prohibition bill and ipoker will be resolved in conference.

he can put together a full prohibition bill without poker in it, have everybody vote in it, then say he fought it in the conference committee but goddamnit, the fiscal cliff is too important to not resolve this year, even when the filthy democrats are jamming online gambling down our throats. this is all saving face.

As much as I want Reid/Kyl to pass, I really hope the house doesn't pass a full prohibition bill as part of a fiscal cliff package. Then including the poker carve-out becomes a bargaining chip in a massive negotiation, and if we run bad we end up with no online poker at all, not even state by state. That is what Kyl and the R's really want.

Don't sweat it, this isn't a done deal with people saving face. Gambling will just summarily ignored.

Can we push Congress over a cliff?

They just prevent the governing until someone gives them enough money.

Good news IMO.

We need a much better bill than can be made from that leaked draft.

Get a few states running THEN get a very good bill that is in our BEST interests.

Besides, I doubt Reid or Kyl can even get the votes in the Seante.

OBG

It is all posturing at this point. I wouldn't put $ .02 on anything anyone says, whether good or bad, being a firm commitment as to what they will actually do next week.

Skallagrim

This exactly, +1 I've been saying this all along. Once a few states have stepped up, then we can get a bill that gives consumer protection without the big payoff to Vegas.

Screw Reid and his bill, it stinks to high heaven and it will take away all the US facing sites immediately, leaving us high and dry waiting for Vegas to catch up and our respective states to go along.

Without Reid on board, it would be nearly impossible to even get a bill voted on. And if Reid is bypassed, we are just as likely to be looking at an outright ban as a better bill. Reid is the reason why Ipoker is given an exemption in R/K, because the ban side knows they can't get something through without Reid on board.

So yeah, screw Reid.

Wait wait let me get this straight...you think that after states overtake online poker then the feds will wake up and do something sweet and nice to make online poker easily playable across the country? Where can I buy these rose colored glasses at?

And lol at saying "screw you" to one of the handful of lawmakers that are actually pushing online poker legislation.

^I think he forgot the [SARCASM][/SARCASM] tags.

Reid/Kyl is/was a full prohibition bill, with a Constitutionally flawed opt-in carveout. While some cheerleaders may tell you differently, R/K was fools gold for poker players. Never was any good reason to take the Hobson's Choice that Kyl slipped into the R/K flawed structure.

By contrast, if R/K dies a lame duck death, 2013 will see poker in a huge negotiation and lobbying effort in the various states, but without a full federal prohibition in place.

Different terrain requires different tactics:

Some poker pundits in the forum are fond of quoting the Art of War, even though they failed to grasp the importance of terrain in dictating strategies or tactics. If, in 2013, State-level pro-gaming political powers in various States may seek to ditch the "poker only" tactic that has dominated the Federalist strategy, perhaps poker players should welcome those alliances. Fears of how "poker would get lost in a general push for casino gaming online" fail to understand that getting a small piece of a big pie structured for players' benefit would be generally easier when the lion's share of revenue lies in other, non-poker slices.

First let me say the Sen. Reid is not pushing online poker legislation. He is paying lip service to it. If you can't see that, you are blinded by rose colored glasses of your own.

Second, yes once a few states establish a trend, then an encompassing bill can be worked out that doesn't infringe on what is a traditional state issue.

Reid/Kyl is going to face court challenges immediately. Reid/Kyl overturns Delaware's recently passed bill, they will be the first state to line up at the Federal Courthouse.

Seven states sent lottery officials to lobby against this bill, because it prevents them from offering online lottery sales. They, too, will likely challenge this bill if it were to pass.

That state fight still has to happen, assuming your state is going to opt in to Reid's plan is foolish. States with small player pools have very little revenue to gain, as they only collect on instate players. This is not much of an incentive to win over legislatures in many states, who will be opposed to any form of internet gaming.

Fools gold, that is it exactly.

Yes, as am I.

FYI, after states begin the process, EARLY 2013, the Feds cannot reasonably stop it BUT they do have to deal with that lingering WTO case.

Since states (Delaware already) is cntracting with a Euro site to provide I-Poker but with no comingeling of players, for now, by allowing this (feds) we players get better games AND the WTO case, IN THEORY, goes away.

OBG

What bigger incentive regarding poker do you want to give them? A state lottery monopoly? A tax of 40% of proceeds just like the slot machines (in some states)?

Whether politicians against allowing "online gambling" might be more easily persuaded to allow just poker under a federal regulated system that provides revenue and protection at no cost, or persuaded to allow a slot machine in every home (plus some online poker, maybe) for bigger revenue, is a question that mostly answers itself.

Skallagrim

With all the gerrymandering, these ****ers are never going away.