This is the first Pokercast I've downloaded from outside the Americas. Saving it for the long ass flight home from India on Monday.

So you believe your political system is healthy and functioning as the citizens of your country regardless of ideology would like it to?

If you don't think its possible that a multi-billionaire with no scruples thinking only of his own greed could potentially buy himself a law under the current system, I don't know what to say.

Adam...your avatar says it all.

MJ...no system is perfect AND no system is better. What do you mean by 'no scruples'? Billionaires shoved Obamacare up our backside and now can't pay for it! No scruples because no don't agree with his opinion? He got his money illegally? Or cheated people like Full Tilt?

Wait, Yanks calling people who disagree with their government socialists/communists actually happens? I thought that was an insane stereotype.

Buddy! You will get torched here if you can't see your own holes. Stop, please.

The man thinks that gambling that makes him filthy rich is OK, but gambling that may potentially reduce his ability to get more filthy rich is demonic. His morals are directly connected to his bank account = no scruples.

That side of the argument at the start of the show is fine/correct, although the commentary on the US system at the start was pretty horribly flawed (and possibly legally slanderous where mike called standard personal donations bribes and explicit quid pro quo). Most of the money flowing into campaigns comes through political action committees not through personal donations which are capped at 5k. Citizens United famously and some other judicial precedents are what allow for unlimited donations to PACs which can do whatever they want so long as they aren't literally in communication/coordinating with a campaign.

There is plenty of corruption in the states, google bob McDonnell, the recent California state sting of state senators & co, my home state/city of NY recently, NJ 'bridge gate' etc etc. Yes Adelson is scummy and obscenely wealthy and uses that to his full advantage, but in talking about the US system you should take more journalistic responsibility.

As an aside to whatever that weird ranting about us/Canada/socialism before anyone spouts off espousing completely laissez-faire capitalism and impuning Canada's policies (which are hardly socialist lol) should go read Smith's more pertinent work, Theory of Moral sentiments, and then go get a primer on transcendental morality and social contract theory (the epitome of capitalist ideals in one framing), otherwise hush.

Wait, we're journalists now?

I just wanted to say what a great couple of podcasts Adam and MJ have produced recently, but I seem to have stumbled into the Politard Forum. Can someone point me to the Pokercast Forum?

I know you're not, but you guys produce a news type podcast, usually you guys are shaky on us politics and this time were out and out wrong at several points. I enjoy the other parts of show obv otherwise I wouldn't still be sticking around lol.

And sure banks, it's here, and they were great shows, esp galfond episode, what's with the hate for trying to be correct/accurately talk about something? Or just continue not thinking things through.

And how exactly did you manage to forget Billy Talent when naming great bands from Canada? :P

Where were they wrong?

The rest if the world understands PACs are loopholes.

Disagreeing with your characterization of semantic arguments doesn't make them wrong.

ya, although I don't doubt we got something about the American political system wrong, some direct quotes and corrections would be nice

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us...ions.html?_r=0

In his written opinion, Justice Breyer said Wednesday’s decision would allow “a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.”

Calling what Sheldon Adelson bribery is, incorrect, scummy probably, but technically speaking he has followed the law and there is no quid pro quo of services for money, saying otherwise explcitly is, imo a pretty serious transgression for a media outlet of any sort (which, you are, even if only loosely).

In the ~5 minutes surrounding this, I will go back and re-listen, there was an implication that the system whereby someone puts on a fundraising event for a cantidate is merely a way to skirt personal contributions. There are many ways to skirt contribution limitations, this, however, isn't one of them, esp maxed out at 5k a pop this avenue is not the way BIG money gets into campaigns. Plus, there is the additional fact that for this type of donation you need the person going to the fundraiser to want to support the cantidate and pay that much money themselves...even if they get alot of benefits from the fundraiser (nice dinner, networking, etc etc) it's not like Adelson could write a check if they didn't show up, even if he does match their donations by investing in the event.

You guys called the above process a great many negative things, and that's pretty much unfounded, or at the very least the smallest possible thing in the story to get mad at and this type of campaigning has existed for ages in the US, it's the new PAC related precedents and anonymous super-PAC 501(c)-4s that are funnelling the huge amount of money and yet they weren't mentioned at all (which, in light of the rant you gave about the relatively innoccuous campaign method above was egregious).

Ill re-listen, but as far as someone who knows US politics as their field this segment, over all the others I've heard you do on the US was so mis-leading as to warrant a comment...your commentary is usually pretty biased from the poker only point of view but I don't mind that so much, it's interesting to listen to and occasionally revelatory as I miss some of those arguments for legislation etc...this show was tangibly misleading/wrong, in at least the two ways listed above (which was ~5 minutes of air time, or at least it felt like it).

Sorry to be coming off as such a downer guys, I want to re-iterate I love the pokercast! The econ/phil/reporter in me just couldnt sit on my hands for this one, esp after reading the stupid dialogue that happened earlier in this thread (even if it was a level, in which case, WP)

They didn't talk about PACs on-air in that portion of the segment, they were talking about individual campaign finance law regarding fund-raisers, that wasn't a semantic error, and neither was "bribery", that is actually a liablous claim.

And yeah that was a pretty dirty/ridiculous decision

You know...

I doubt Mike was limiting his thoughts the way you do.

I think Mike mentioned $1000 a plate dinners as a shorthand for the myriad of dubious channels for political fundraising. [I believe he was suggesting that the source of the money to purchase such tickets is practically untraceable.]

It has been mentioned that Adelson was able to direct millions of dollars toward the Gingrich campaign. The myriad of dubious channels would, I assume, include any method by which the control and will of one person can raise those funds.

In fact Mike later mentioned a number and that total includes money sent to Super-PACs. So he was definitely talking about them, even if you can't hear it.


Like I said, outside of the US PACs are seen as loopholes, it is purely some place to put money to direct toward political aims. In any sane society that would be seen as a campaign contribution. Any semantic definition you want to put on that no one on this side of the line of sanity gives a **** about.

Those quotes in previous posts are from Supreme Court judges who are questioning allowing one person to direct funds to a single campaign, or to one side of an election, through direct contribution AND through PACs [“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,”] presumably because they are considering at what dollar amount bought political influence is bribery.

Yes, obv, agree with most all of that, aside from the this side of sanity part, think you heard this more correct argument you're proposing b/c you want to too some extent, i just take things too literally I guess.

That said I shouldn't have to be generous with definitions etc when the words being used do actually refer to specific concepts and legal implications, on the topic of bribery especially w/o their being actual, proven, quid pro quo its slanderous to make that accusation...and I don't like Adelson so it's not like I have a horse to come out and defend his horrible argument, moral values and logical incoherence, but there are many arguments and presentations to reach a conclusion.

This was the version I expect from a slightly tipsy guy at a bar in Canada, which is a fun conversation, but it's not presentable to an audience, part of whom derives all of their information on the subject from these podcasts as I'm sure some of the European contingent do.

EDIT: Also, I'm kinda tired of dragging this through the mud, I'm not trying to be insulting, but that was a misleadingly editorialized piece at best and warranted a correction, besides, this is a poker news/entertainment podcast, there is some onus to present the facts in a correct fashion that doesn't require such liberal interpretation and background knowledge to reach the right conclusion. Once again, I love the show and what you guys do generally, been listening since the switch from ante up and never have complaints aside from the occasional fumble over US politics/procedure.

Bah, can't believe I wasted my 1000th post on this well at least it was in Pokercast forum

LOUD NOISES

Please don't say things like "Computers have solved chess". In particular when you have a WGM on later in the show... she would have set you straight.

Oh ffs you know what I meant right? Computers can hang with the best chess players in the world and they can't in most disciplines of poker.

No, this is the BS that's floating around in the media ever since Kasparov blew that match against Deep Blue. I just expect more accuracy from you guys who know a thing or two about game theory. Solving a game has a quite specific meaning. Checkers is solved. Chess is not, even though computer are better than human chess players by now.

I respect you guys tremendously as you do an excellent job on the Pokercast and I listen every week. And I usually find you to be fair minded. But respectfully as one who has lived under it for 43 years, I take offense to the casual use of terms and tone like: "seems legit", "embarrassment of a political system", "how bad a government system", "bribes" and the various other terms you used in describing the American system.

It seems incredibly disingenuous to on one hand desire the liquidity that America can provide and on the other hand so rudely bash the system that allowed Americans to create the wealth which could again provide that liquidity.

The US Supreme Court has deemed political contributions to be speech. Free Speech is constitutionally protected and unlimited here because we believe strongly that our society benefits from the increased knowledge and information that is generated by it, and because the government can not be trusted to decide upon what speech is “good” and what is “bad”. Free speech is integral to how our economy and political system works.

Without free speech there is not 238 years of wealth creation in America. And quite frankly there is probably no America. The system is not always pretty to look and it may take longer than you guys might want but if the American CITIZENS want internet poker back, we will have internet poker back.

Bash Adelson all you want, but bashing our system in such a disrespectful way is bashing the very political system that created the liquidity pool you want to be fed from again. And from my perspective, that is acting in the same disingenuous manner as Adelson.

Unfortunately, that sort of attitude has turned me off from the Pokercast. I probably won't leave forever but I may just take a break. In any event, you guys to do a great job and have brought me many hours of enjoyment nonetheless. A sincere thank you for that.