Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Democrats and online poker,

Reply to Thread
  1. kvnstv kvnstv is offline

    Posts: 24
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 10:12am)

    Sorry non US-resident so dont really know much about your poilitcal situation. Would be gratefull if anyone could tell me the Democrats stance on online gaming and if they would likely take action to repeal recent changes in the law if they where to be voted into office. Thanks in advance and apolgies if this has been answerd elsewhere.
  2. supermoves supermoves is offline invented poker

    Posts: 6,840
    Joined: Feb 05

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 10:46am) in reply to kvnstv

    There really isnt a "democrat and republican" stance on this bill. It passed OVERWHELMINGLY in both houses. Both sides are voting for the ban.
    1
  3. kvnstv kvnstv is offline

    Posts: 24
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:03am) in reply to supermoves

    Oh, thats not good. Well good luck fighting the bill and thanks for a great article on heads up play supermoves.
    Thread Starter
  4. gofrank150 gofrank150 is offline

    Posts: 252
    Joined: Mar 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:12am) in reply to supermoves

    Both sides voted for it because it was attached to another larger bill that could not be voted against.

    In an earlier vote solely on internet gaming, pretty much all republicans were for the ban, and about 1/2 the dems were against - favoring a study of possibly legalizing and regulating it.

    I would say in general, the democratic stance would be way more in our favor.
  5. kvnstv kvnstv is offline

    Posts: 24
    Joined: Apr 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:18am) in reply to gofrank150

    Thanks for the replys gents, I would say the next move would be to try to get the democrats to confirm there stance and if its favourable throw your support behind them.
    Thread Starter
  6. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,248
    Joined: May 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:26am) in reply to kvnstv

    The Poker Players Alliance has a full breakdown of who did and did not vote for H.R. 4411, which is really the bill that started all of this off. This bill passed the House and was eventually tacked onto the Safe Port Act. The breakdown can be found here:
    http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/...4411_Votes.pdf

    The column labeled H.R. 4411 is how they voted on the original Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The scond column, labeled H.R. 5474, is whether or not they are a sponsor of a measure to study the effects of internet gaming.

    You'll see that it wasn't entirely along party lines, and that many Democrats did vote for it (H.R. 4411, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was passed over the summer).

    The Safe Port Act passed through the House 409-2 and the Senate 98-0 (by Unanimous Consent).
     
  7. Tread Tread is offline

    Vaduz
    Liechtenstein

    Posts: 6,929
    Joined: Jun 05

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:46am) in reply to Dan

    Dan, there is a problem with categorizing Democrats as being against online gambling just because they voted for this bill. Because of websites like this:

    http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Bill_Frist.htm

    No politician can risk having some one-liner on his/her record that says so-and-so "woted AGAINST the Safe Port Act" because then they look soft on terror. The truth of the matter is that Acts are made up of multiple bills and when someone like Frist pulls the bullshit like he did tacking the gambliing stuff onto something related to national security, he is blackmailing Congress members because if they don't vote for it they are committing polictical suicide.

    Unfortunately, Congress doesn't get line item veto privledge like the president does, so it's hard to know where most people really stand on this. But in this short attention-span world where everyone needs a reader's digest version of things, this act will be known as a national security act even though gambling has nothing to do with national security, and therefore you would have to expect that it get unanimously passed.

    Frist and the other members of Congress who set up this political blackmail should be run out of office and Congress has to find some way to prevent bullshit like this from happening in the future. It is unacceptable to me (and should be to everyone else as well) that acts contain unrelated bills and there is no way to separate them out when voting. Yes, I realize it's been like this since the beginning of time, but that doesn't make it right.
  8. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,248
    Joined: May 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:52am) in reply to Tread

    I understand. Many Democrats voted for H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was passed over the summer. This is the point I was trying to make.

    I understand that no one would vote against the Safe Port Act (though two Representatives did).
     
  9. Tread Tread is offline

    Vaduz
    Liechtenstein

    Posts: 6,929
    Joined: Jun 05

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 11:58am) in reply to Dan

    sorry, didn't mean to direct that specifically at you, I'm sure you understand, but I'm betting many others do not. Was just trying to take your comments to the next level.
  10. Rocket Surgeon Rocket Surgeon is offline & brain scientist

    United States

    Posts: 12,012
    Joined: Apr 05

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 12:05pm) in reply to Tread

    Tread,

    Democrat Republican Independent
    Aye 115 200 1
    Nay 76 17 0
    Absent 10 12 0

    That is for the actual gaming bill, HR4411. I do agree that this port security act was sleezy by the republicans, but, this is CLEARLY a non-partisian issue as far as you can see from the vote tally above. BOTH parties dropped the ball as far as I am concerned, the republican's just dropped it a little more then the dems.

    More details: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-363

    </TD></TR>
  11. Tread Tread is offline

    Vaduz
    Liechtenstein

    Posts: 6,929
    Joined: Jun 05

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 12:12pm) in reply to Rocket Surgeon

    Yes, completely agree on the house, but unfortunately we will never know what Senators really thought about this bill. It completley defeats the purpose of a bi-cameral legislative body.
  12. Besselheim Besselheim is offline

    Brunei Darussalam

    Posts: 164
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 1:08pm) in reply to Rocket Surgeon

    lol at the fact that its possible in the US to have a law on online gambling passed under the auspices of a port security bill. Hahaha that's like some kind of surrealist joke.
  13. EyeKnows EyeKnows is offline

    Posts: 6,643
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 5th, 2006 (10/5/2006 1:11pm) in reply to kvnstv

    There really is very little difference in the parties. Republicrats or Demopublicans are basically the same idiots but they say irrelevant things that seems to distinguish themselves from one another. When the REAL issues come up they all agree (look at the initial 'war' voting). The main and most important job of a politician is to get re-elected and no politician can really "color outside the lines" in any real way and expect to retain their job. And if they don't do anything really stupid, after they leave office they can become very well compensated lobbyists for the folks they were regulating/watch-dogging just a few years earlier. The amerikkkan government is all about the money. If something seems strange or illogical, look at the money issues surrounding the situation and the fog will lift quickly. In this case, it is so clear that a lot of money was going overseas untaxed and eventually that had to end. Companies outside of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> are not allowed to lobby (meaning spread money around to lawmakers to buy influence) so have no power. US companies will take over this market fairly quickly because there is too much money being 'lost' on so many levels, the more important loss being the HUGE amount of cash that lobbyists are not currently giving to the Republicrats/Demopublicans looking to preserve their jobs. Look for a merger/take-over/joint venture between like Harrah's and partypoker or other giants in the industry.
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads