Republican Party Determined to Prohibit Internet Gambling
Are We Going to Let Them Do It?
The Republican Party has made its intention very clear. They want to render internet gambling illegal, and whether we like it or not, their definition of gambling includes poker.
Earlier this week, when the Republican Party’s national platform was released, internet gambling was notably absent from it, which immediately garnered much praise from the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and poker media. But within hours, it was back in with harsh language:
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.
Nice flip-flop. With McCain hoping to head up the Republican Party and presumably pursuing the goals of the party, internet gambling – and thus, internet poker – will be on the hit list in the name of family values. It brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from the Democratic National Convention in Denver last week from Gov. Bill Richardson: “McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but it will be us who pays for his flip-flops.”
Think what you want about McCain v. Obama and Republicans v. Democrats. That is each person’s individual prerogative. But the Republican Party has made its goals quite clear. Not only did it remove the language and quietly replace it later in a seemingly planned intention to deceive, but the party sincerely plans to tell the American people what we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes. Poker is on the line here.
Stand up and make your voice heard.
Tell John McCain how you feel about his party’s platform.
Register to vote in the November 4th election.
ItsOverJonny says:
August 31st, 2008 at 1:31pm
As much as we would all like it to be so, Poker/Internet Gambling is NOT a major issue in this election. To think that the Reps strategically omitted this issue from their platform and then sneakily put it back in is just silly.
luckydogruss says:
August 31st, 2008 at 2:45pm
I read somewhere that the language was reinstated because one or more of the right-leaning groups that want to save the world and control our lives pitched a bitch about it being cut from the platform.
Since the platform committee’s mission was to trim the GOP’s 40,000-word document IN HALF to match the length of the Dems’ platform document, it speaks volumes that they chose to reinstate the verbiage of this “non-major issue.”
I’m not really sure I trust ANY of the candidates for POTUS and VP, but it’s a cinch that a GOP win dooms us to more losses of personal freedoms — of which online poker is just one.
DanM says:
August 31st, 2008 at 3:55pm
I’m not too big into horserace journalism come election time, but I gotta say, no matter what the polls say, I don’t think the Republicans stand a chance. (Now don’t go getting all giddy and big-headed, Dems, or you will suck, too!) Too bad, for McCain, too … because I really do believe he is a bit different than the rest of his party mates, but even if we believe that, I don’t think we are going to let the RNC anywhere near the country’s buttons.
My prediction: landslide
This is a worldwide issue. When I was in the Bahamas recently, they were selling T-shirts that said Bahama Obama! And while getting my Nevada license plates a few weeks ago, a security guard was telling me he’s voted Republican all his life, but not this time.
Doyle Brunson is saying the same thing.
Even stubborn anti-establishmentarians like myself are abandoning our Ron Pauls to get in on the Obama action. And call me a racist if you want, but I will be voting for him because he’s black. I mean not just because — the DNC convinced me he’s a quality leader/dude, too — but the 21st Century seems like a good time to put a stop to old conservative whiteys donking off all our chips by getting involved with pots we shouldn’t even be messing with.
Though I gotta say, Ms. Alaska’s kinda hot, no?
ItsOverJonny says:
August 31st, 2008 at 4:17pm
Dear Flaming Bleeding-Heart Liberal Dan:
Landslide? Doubtful. Don’t underestimate that HUGE portion of the voting public that you never encounter. Sadly, I’m afraid that the possibility of a black President will mobilize the Big Southern Dummy demographic to keep this closer than you think. I have family members that still use the “n” word in casual conversation. But at least they will substitute “colored” when in polite/mixed company.
And yes, we’ve got a VPILF in the race.
Sly Bri says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:27pm
You got articles here bitching about the Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet cheating scandals, the multi-accounting Brian Townsend, and you wonder why there are attempts to ban internet poker.
DanM says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:45pm
Well what do you expect us to do, Sly Bri? Just ignore them?
Truth is truth, man!
P.S. There are not attempts, actually, to ban internet poker. It already effectively has been banned, and the only aggressive political efforts out there are to unban it.
And yes, cheating, multi-account rules, superusering, collusion, etc. are all very real issues that the companies that stand to most benefit from an unban have to deal with.
DanM says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:49pm
We’ll see, IOJ. Maybe that’s what this election really is a test of.
Wanna make a wager on it? I was offering my semi-racist friend Kent $500 +3 points this weekend, but he wouldn’t take it. Not so sure I really want to put that much money on it, but he was tilting me with his inner white supremacist.
VPILF is an awesome term, btw. She looks kinda like the Beth Shak of Politics.
ItsOverJonny says:
September 1st, 2008 at 10:13pm
Whoa! Tap the brakes Dan. I don’t think I like being placed in the same category as your “semi-racist”/”white supremacist” friend. I simply referred to the the Redneck Dummy faction of my family (related by marriage only) to illustrate that you probably don’t encounter the full spectrum of the voting public in your sampling.
No thanks on the wager. I try not to bet when I don’t have an edge, and this is definitely one of those circumstances. But I think that this election season is going to be FASCINATING – unfortunately not because of the issues, but because of the personalities and subplots. It’s kinda like Survivor – you don’t care nearly as much about the actual group activities/challenges/flow of the game as you do about all of the catfights, backstabbing, and strategic subplots.
And the correct pronunciation is Vee-PILF
(©2008 ItsOverJonny.com, bitches!)
DanM says:
September 1st, 2008 at 10:32pm
No no, not calling you racist or Klanny in any way … just acknowledging what you are saying, that for as “progressive” as some/most of us seem to be, we are still all only a degree or two separated from people who still subscribe to some way-way outdated points of view. I’m still confident, however, that those folks are in the extreme minority.
I wonder if the Democrats will make it a point that Gov. Palin’s daughter might have been better off playing online poker.
ItsOverJonny says:
September 1st, 2008 at 10:51pm
“…extreme minority…”
Sadly, I think this is where you are mistaken. Coming from major metropolitan areas, we have a slanted view of the make-up of the overall public and their tendencies. By the same token, most people we know would think I was crazy if I told them that the U.S. population is only 13% Black/African American.
I heard that Obama’s camp is “hands-off” on the preggo teenager thing, but surely there will be some sort of spin, given that preventing unwanted pregnancy is a major slat in his platform. It’s about time someone talked about it.
Pokerpolitics says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:54am
LOL! A bunch of socialist supporters I see.
The mere notion that one should base their vote on poker legislation is beyond stupid. But go ahead, vote for a closet marxist who is an economic illiterate. Now go read dailykos and read the egalitarian b.s. and convince yourself that rich people are evil. Good day.
Vote libertarian.
DanM says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:55am
Say what you must PP … but do a search for my name plus libertarian (or just click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBxolI9cUo ) and you’ll see i’ve paid my libertarian dues.
and hardly a fan of socialism (though i am curious to see how it works in Scandinavia, as they all seem pretty happy there), this will be my very first time to ever vote for a Democrat for president. (and because i think there are lots of people like me, it’s why i am predicting a landslide and am willing to put money on it.)
you are right, it probably is pretty small-minded to vote on just a single issue, but hey, i’d like to be one of those evil rich people some day, so i gotta look out for number one, yo? and hey, since it’s all fucked up anyhow (poker lesson: beware of fuckit mode), i figure we might as well knock through a few aging glass ceilings while we’re at it, since their existence probably has something to do with why things are a littled fugked up.
Pokerpolitics says:
September 6th, 2008 at 3:07pm
Socialism works well in Scandanavia? Really. Would that be why socialist countries all over the world including Scandanavia are slashing corporate taxes? Yet Obumble wants to raise what already are the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world. He’s not gonna have anyone left to tax after this insanity plays itself out.
Our economy has experienced more growth in the past 8 years than any in the industrialized world yet so many people say things are fed up and are embracing this proven failure of a system this Saul Alinsky worshiper espouses.
Nice to see libertarian believers out their but it would be even better if your vote would represent their beliefs. As much as two trillion in new government spending is not libertarian ideology.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8382
DanM says:
September 6th, 2008 at 6:55pm
Dude, I never said Socialism works anywhere … I just said that I would like to visit one region of the world that potentially challenges my belligerently capitalistic views.
***Our economy has experienced more growth in the past 8 years than any in the industrialized world yet***
I think you are confusing us here with Iraq.
No offense, but you are sounding like someone who plays poker exclusively by the Sklansky book, and is baffled by other players who sometimes raise in middle position with 4-7 offsuit. Sometimes you gotta play by feel, man!
My Libertarian leanings are still there, man … but I also learned (firsthand) how ineffective the actual party is. You have no idea how discouraging it was to put my heart, soul, and entire net worth at the time into an election only to get the same percentage of the vote as candidates who simply put their names on the ballot. Believe it or not, more stuff actually gets done in the middle of the spectrum. So for me to spend any efforts espousing the greatness of a Libertarian ballot would have as much impact as, well, debating politics on Pokerati.
With all that said, I probably shouldn’t tell you I am currently watching USA vs. Cuba (we’re up 1-0) and really wishing I could be in Havana right now.
DanM says:
September 6th, 2008 at 7:30pm
BTW, since we are talking about ineffective politics and political blogging — and since you seem to be a little Bushy on your views of the economy — here’s an article I wrote back in 2000, suggesting that GWB was big on strongly pushing policies that sounded great to voters but didn’t add up mathematically (or Constitutionally) … and the results were violence spinning out of control when we couldn’t afford (in Texas) to pay for what he built, international treaties be damned.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040412214755/www.danm.us/writing/prison.html
So you can see I am clearly smrt about these things.
So PP, I’m not trying to mock you (too much) here … as a libertarian soul (note the lowercase L) I never thought I would be espousing more regulation of ANYTHING. But I have learned through my traipses through the poker world that some things DO need (or at least benefit from) regulation.
Believe me, I am not looking for socialized poker … but in the absence of an international governing body akin to FIFA, there’s too much money, too much potential for cheating, and too many tens of millions of people who enjoy the game to not want some sort of legally enforceable framework in play.
Even Ron Paul co-sponsored the Skill Game Protection Act, after all.