The worthless part of political conversation is that no one is willing to even consider changing their minds.

Here you decide to be offended by what is a pretty common American opinion on the current supreme court and their judicial activism wrt "speech" being equivalent to unrestrained spending to influence politics. Sure, you wrap yourself in the wonderful results you decided came from the first amendment. Sure, no rational person would be concerned about the impact of money in politics. Thus these dirty foreigners have offended all right thinking Americans. No, that's silly.

I'm confident enough in our political system that I'm not concerned about two Canadian dudes making reasonable (or even unreasonable) criticism potentially destroying it. Since America tends to be split 51/49 on every major issue, you're being silly in being so offended that you couldn't listen to their show because of 5 minutes that you disagree with out of over 3 hours. There isn't an American monolith backing this or any other court decision, and this isn't a clear example of the system working.

That said, all this stuff really belongs in the Politics Forum.

I agree, I shouldn't be so offended.

Yup. As long as it stays civil and is contained to this thread, it can stay here, but if Mike and Adam start spreading socialism in the rest of the threads, we'll have to come down hard.

I highly recommend it for people that didn't grow up with NFB. So much classic stuff on there, see: "Log Driver's Waltz", "Ryan".

except that we don't live in the USA and won't feed from the liquidity pool likely ever again so that isn't it.

Look, all political systems have serious flaws. It's not like were sitting back saying how great our system is vs the USA. There's a long list of things that don't make any sense here in Canada, but since that has f all to do with poker (for the time being) there's no point in talking about it.

IIRC, we were talking about the laughable hypocrisy in Adleson's position on online gaming. Surprised nobody cares enough about that to write long posts about it.

As an American Citizen, I take offense at some of my fellow Americans taking offense and getting their panties in a bunch over MJ and Adam's comments. Adleson is a hypocritical douche and our political system is not much better. Can we please return to our regularly scheduled programming?!?!?!

I think the problem I have with the attitude toward Sheldon is that he's allowed to have his point of view. For whatever reason he's opposed to online gaming. He wasn't able to stop it in his 'home state' so I'm not sure what chance he has to stop it anywhere else. Slow it down, sure. But its his money to spend as he wants.

A few things seem to stand out when I hear you talking about this. The first is that you don't seem to offer an alternative. What PACs should those who support online gaming work with? Where is the funding to get it legalized coming from? This seems to be more important to talk about every week than repeating the "We hate Sheldon" mantra.

The second is that you are opposed to what he does with his money. However, you seem to go there when you're in Vegas and drop some money. You have to decide that you're not going to support him and his projects if he's doing things that you so seriously disagree with. You won't affect his bottom line, but you'll know that you aren't contributing to his political funds in any way.

Finally, why discuss any of his events on the show? You've talked about it before, but why give his room and events any promotion at all? In this thread you've said that you're not journalists so saying that the results are news is fine, but irrelevant if you have that stance.

Damned socialists.

Ya, because we said he shouldn't be allowed to disagree with us.

Laughing at this viewpoint and thinking he's not allowed to have a viewpoint aren't the same thing so I have no idea why you would even say this.

I barely understand what a PAC is, which is why I won't be offering any alternatives anytime soon. Also, I don't care much about how election funding happens. All of this has nothing to do with understanding, and laughing at, the hypocrisy of Adleson's stance.

Assuming I (or Mike) go to the Venetian when we're in Vegas is grasping at straws. It's wrong, but I'd like to know why aren't we allowed to have an opinion on what SA does with his money?

Again with the qualifications to have an opinion.

Bah, you all really missed the point, didn't you? The entirety of my posts weren't about opinions but on factual errors in the show and mis-leading reporting...agreed if we were actually discussing the merits/detractors of the US political system it should be in Politics Forum.

Canguirino made a comment about chess not being solved, no one jumped on that as panties in a bunch over technical language and that they had the spirit of it right...The reporting on US politics for a sizeable chunk of this show was similarly flawed and the fact that you think I got upset b/c they critiqued America is laughable.

And that was the good part of the segment, your run through of his inconsistencies in professed stance over his maccau interests etc, but no where near as well as last weeks

The laughability of Adelson as a political actor is sorta undeniable and old news, I gather that's why no ones really up in arms over it.

Was replying to the guy above me, not you. That said, your factual certainty is based on your own claims of being an expert. Maybe in US politics you are truly expert, it isn't interesting to have it out in that. You realize that you're picking nits with two guys on an entertainment show? While repeatedly making claims that they in Vancouver were breaking US libel laws, they're completely wrongheaded?

I got this. (likely NSFW).

[QUOTE]

5:08 MIKE: Money can't buy you happiness but it can buy you an anti-gambling bill
Editorial license, conveys your point and isn't really infering explicit quid pro quo

5:11 MIKE: Quite open and transparently, been used to finance anti gambling legislation
same as above, and better words than finance are "lobby for" "influence" etc etc...you cant really 'finance' a bill, at least in this sense

5:30 MIKE:...Lindsay Grahm, Sheldon is the number one financer to Lindsay Grahm's campaign for re-election, Sheldon held a big fundraiser at his house to raise money from all of his friends to, because you can only donate so much money yourself to a campaign
So we're obviously talking about individual donations to campaigns and fundraisers all limited by individual cap clearly and not any of the other non-direct methods through PACs etc

5:48 MIKE:...so what they do is gold these big thousand dollar a plate dinners and put donations under the names of those people...money's actually coming from you
They don't "put donations" under the names of those people, its notable that although those people may gain alot for their thousand dollars from adelson putting on a huge party/networking event, but it counts towards their caps (I believe?) and they have to go to the event obv

6:02 MIKE:...so its an embarrasment of a political system that this type of thing is so openly permitted and I'm not naive to enough to think that there isnt corruption...
And here is where it gets more problematic. This is an opinion/fair game, I guess, but is extremely misleading and wrong by most all accounts. The other parts of the US campaign finance system may be crazy...but capped individual donations and hosting fundraising parties has existed alot longer, and what you probably mean to be referencing is all of Adelson's contributions to getting Republican's elected by exterior means (PACs etc), but that is very notably not what you said

6:20 MIKE: People buying votes in other countries around the world...
Editorialized use of buying would normally be acceptable, but in context of what is being discussed, the donation system above, is a little out of line but acceptable

6:22 MIKE:...but this is quite simply a case of one of the wealthiest people in the world trying to purchase himself a law, and of course the most disgusting thing and ironic thing is he's using the profits he made from people gambling in his casino's...to prevent gambling online
+1

6:48 MIKE: and its so openly obvious, it truly is, this, you know I mean you talk about how bad the US government system is with the whole UIGEA and the DOJ and all of that and people make jokes, oh the land of the free, but this kind of stuff is far more disgusting
Ok fine, std editorializing

(below is slight paraphrase, tired of transcribing, but listen and tell me if i took it out of context if someone disagrees)
ADAM: Criticizes Adelson's inconsitencies, talks about Daily Show which does great Lindsay Graham bits

MIKE: And to be clear, Lindsay Graham has no record on anti-gambling

Adam: I don't think he sponsored a bill

Mike/Adam: Nothing serious, never been out there in congress vocally opposing pro-gambling legislation

8:20: MIKE: Now it's just so obvious that hes getting the money from SHeldon Adelson, Sheldon Adelson says 'I will do whatever you need to get elected, and this is what I need you to do' and its amazing how quickly and swiftly, when theres alot of money behind it that you cna get something to the front page
Misleading at best, although latter qualification makes it seem like your not implying explicit quid pro quo, which is what you said, so wtv, poorly said in any regard

Mike talks about UIGEA passage competently

9:29 MIKE: And Sheldon Adelson has more money himself than all of the lobbying agencies that are in favor of online gambling and willing to spend...but Sheldon has made a point of openly saying Im going to spend what it takes to make this happen and clearly he doesnt care about playing fair and doing things through the proper political channels, if I can buy a law I want I'm going to do it
Probably all true, although I doubt Adelson ever said 'buy a law'

Adam: If 2007 taught us anything its that anything can be put through the back-door, there's ways to...
True, although this happens all the time on both sides of the aisle for a variety of issues across the spectrum, dirty when it happens to your side, but will never convince anyone about anything really

10:56 MIKE: Unless you buy off the right person...thats the concern, does he find the right group of people, to buy off, to bribe, let's call it what it is, a bribe does he find the right series of people that have hte right power and the ability to do what bill frisk did to somehow backdoor and get what he wants
Et voila, and there is the icing on top of this misleading bit that never mentioned the actual way money gets to cantidates now and instead bashed the least concerning of all possible donation schemes. Bribe means something specific and this line is actually slanderous and if this were any other media source I guarantee you Adelson, schmuck that he is, would have already filed a suit for liable damages

[\QUOTE]

Sorry then, the defending I have had to do for a simple enough correction has my hackles up. And you can most certainly sue cross border, but no i have no idea how that would work, but if they were in the states it'd happen. I didn't even want to go where guy above you went, but wasn't about to pick a second fight since I apparently had to defend a correction

"expert", no, there's obv people who know alot more about US politics than me, but in the context of this forum I probably count as an 'expert'.

Yes it's entertainment, but its also news, and there is the integrity to report the facts correctly regardless. Maybe that's too idealistic

How bout that Lon McCeachern story?

Hey guys. Made my flight back to Australia after busting out of the APPT Seoul somewhat more bearable. Thanks and keep up the good work

Sent from my SM-T210 using 2+2 Forums

Boy, the only time I got so worked up about a Pokercast is when they said that Elway was the greatest quarterback ever.

Let's pump the brakes here and not throw the baby out with the bathwater (how many cliches can I cram into one sentence?).

Mike and Adam are great guys and great hosts of a weekly poker show. They talk about a lot of topics, some of which are not related to poker (and Adelson most definitely is). That's what makes the show so great (imho). Of course, their views on various topics are going to rub some people the wrong way. That's the way of the world. Live with it or not, your choice.

And if anyone is listening to the Pokercast in order to be educated on the US political system, I pity thee. Sure, there may have been some exaggeration in the discussion of Adelson. But who the heck has not gone overboard a little bit when discussing something very important to them. I think the gist is that Adelson is a conniving hypocritical dickwad who is trying to use his money and influence to get anti-online poker legislation passed. Let's let the commentary on the US political system be the proverbial water off a duck's back.

Go Mike & Adam!

If anyone comes close to the quality of that story in the next few years, I'd be amazed. You need a pro division or everyone else will be too intimidated to try. Agree that their never considering to walk to the arena was typical and funny. Lon is King of Story Time.

They did considered walking, he said: "it started to rain and no one wanted to walk"

If you were commenting under the assumption that the US liquidity will never be available again then my specific objection to the comments was unfounded.

True, Adelson's hypocrisy is quite clear and it is a specific human hypocrisy that is probably borne in great part out of our capitalistic economic/political system. In the end, Adelson is a 80 year old college drop out whose Dad drove a taxi and Mom ran a knitting shop. Our system does tend to build these types of folks who end up being incredibly hypocritical just so they can make every last dime.

I guess it is likely that Americans are more used to seeing this kind of capitalistic unreasonable hypocrisy up close so it is less striking to us. I understand how much, much more reasonable Canadians faced with an Adelson's actions would be more outraged by them than we are. I honestly wish that our US people were as reasonable and thoughtful as the Canadian people are, we would have a much better country.

Understanding where you guys were coming from, your thoughts make more sense to me. I think some of the rhetoric was clearly not aimed at Adelson, but I get it. Remember, anyone would have the freedom to use the same system in the same way on the other side of the issue. But I was wrong to jump to such a hard conclusion that you were being disingenuous, I apologize for that.

I wouldn't give up on internet poker in the US, the one thing that matters more than money is votes. And it may take awhile but if the voters want internet poker, it will happen. We didn't want a President Gingrich and we don't have one.

In a clear case of massive schadenfreude, I think the work you guys do on Black Friday and all the various fallouts is some of the best commentary I have ever heard on any medium. So ya, I am probably the hypocrite for being so offended by something I enjoy listening to so much.

^ In a broader sense, it includes us Canadians because we are part of America.

And I'd snap switch Harper for Obama.

To the guy or guys who are offended by criticism of the US political system, I say, open your eyes.

The consensus view is that Congress is dysfunctional and that money completely dominates the political system in various ways. You can't have a functioning democracy in a "one dollar, one vote" system. The more influence money has on the political process, the less of a democracy it is.

The current US political system is bought and paid for by corporations and/or extremely wealthy individuals to an extent not seen in US history. This is the consensus view of people who are paying attention to what is going on.

So please, just step off.

Almost time for the next episode (or not, with The Masters and all), but I still want to chime in.

I'll start by expressing my enjoyment of the Sam Grafton interview and storytime with Lon McEachern (I haven't finished the Shahade interview).

Highlights: 1) thinking to myself "hey, Grafton's landlord sounds like Joan Rivers" only to have you mention that during POTW; 2) the Shackleton reference.

I wanted to ignore the political stuff because even though I think there was some exaggeration and misinformation, FFS it's a Pokercast.

So I'll leave it at this: ultimately, money buys results if people let it. Here's an example of a successful candidate whose opponent outspent her $2.1M to her $55K. Seriously. Who spends $2M in a school board election? The people did not let him and the PAC contributors buy the election. I'm not naive enough to believe that she could have prevailed if $200M were spent against her, but she was still at a clear disadvantage.