Here we go....

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's probobly been posted, but when can we expect the senate to vote on this issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From the posts of the people that seem to know, it looks like this is the big question. One of the bigger hopes for the bills' opponents is to "kill the clock", and hope the Senate doesn't have time to vote. There's rumors that Senator Kyl is attempting to expedite the Senate process though.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean doesn't have time to vote?

i know nothing of the political process, so please deal with my ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris or Berge are the authorities on this, all my knowledge only comes from watching "Meet the Press". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Senate has to start from scratch, their bill has nothing to do with the House bill. That bill has to pass a committee and then go for a general vote. The committee is run by some committee chair who will have to balance this bill's priority against all of the other bills. If the bill has opposition, the opponents can do procedural things (call for lengthy debate, etc) to stall the process, and the committee chair knows this, he may consider it not worth the effort.

Then it has a general vote. I think the Senate only has a few more days in session this year, and next year both houses would have to start over from scratch. So if they can't get through the process quick, the bill's supporters are out of luck.

I hope that's correct.

[top6]

First, there is basically nothing you can do as far as money goes that would influence the current vote in the Senate. Just call your Senators and pray.

If it fails, then we have to look towards the next term. I am interested to see what position Harry Reid takes on this. I believe he will be against the bill, but the question is just how against it will he be.

If he is as against it as I hope he is, then you should literally just give your money to any Democratic Senate candidate. To make yourself feel better, you should find candidates in close races who opposed the bill. However, it doesn't really matter, because if Reid is elected majority leader (or even if he is still minority leader with a 50, 49 or 48 seat minority), then the odds of the bill passing the Senate will substantially lessen.

If the bill passes the Senate this time, though, I'd suggest focusing your time working on your B&M game, because internet poker will be dead within a few months.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe a ridiculous question but is there anybody I can give money to that will reliably use it to make sure this thing doesn't get passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

im sure thats already being done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope the major poker companies are spending tons in any way they can. However that doesn't mean I can't help too.

[/ QUOTE ]

true.

i would donate if i knew it would help. maybe we should organize a massive picket line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we ought to

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe a ridiculous question but is there anybody I can give money to that will reliably use it to make sure this thing doesn't get passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

im sure thats already being done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope the major poker companies are spending tons in any way they can. However that doesn't mean I can't help too.

[/ QUOTE ]

true.

i would donate if i knew it would help. maybe we should organize a massive picket line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we ought to

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe we ought to find a well respected 2+2 member that most people on this board respect to start accepting donations.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's probobly been posted, but when can we expect the senate to vote on this issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From the posts of the people that seem to know, it looks like this is the big question. One of the bigger hopes for the bills' opponents is to "kill the clock", and hope the Senate doesn't have time to vote. There's rumors that Senator Kyl is attempting to expedite the Senate process though.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean doesn't have time to vote?

i know nothing of the political process, so please deal with my ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris or Berge are the authorities on this, all my knowledge only comes from watching "Meet the Press". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Senate has to start from scratch, their bill has nothing to do with the House bill. That bill has to pass a committee and then go for a general vote. The committee is run by some committee chair who will have to balance this bill's priority against all of the other bills. If the bill has opposition, the opponents can do procedural things (call for lengthy debate, etc) to stall the process, and the committee chair knows this, he may consider it not worth the effort.

Then it has a general vote. I think the Senate only has a few more days in session this year, and next year both houses would have to start over from scratch. So if they can't get through the process quick, the bill's supporters are out of luck.

I hope that's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks man

[directscooter]

Dumb question from someone who does not know politics all that well...
Anyway to find out what way our Senator lean on this issue?
I have a feeling contacting my MA senators is not neccessary.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the one who said it would be struck down as unconstitutional. I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

But my personal opinion is that there is no way this thing will fly in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]Again, what are you basing this on? The types of arguments you are making now are the exact types of arguments that just got totally repudiated in the House. If the law passes, internet gambling as we know it is going away. Maybe in 10 years or something they would find a way to bring it back, but that is really a best case scenario. I don't see how anyone can seriously dispute this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what they're basing the legality on?

Because they say so? That's not good enough in a democratic society.

The only difference I see between live gambling and online gambling is in the regulation, but I am not arguing that.

In fact, I am for regulation to a point. Kids shouldn't be online, etc.

I am not saying they will or won't pass this bill. I am only saying that I haven't heard a solid legal arguement to completely ban online gambling for the long term.

Someone please give me one.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what they're basing the legality on?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's been a lot of high profile court cases over the last several years (Microsoft, etc), and it sure does seem to me like the law has very little to do with who wins these court cases. The judges seem to rule the way they feel like ruling. In this case, you basically have pro-gamblers versus anti-gamblers, so I consider the pro-gamblers to be the underdog, unless the judge has a Stars account.

I'm sure the legally experienced will disagree. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[top6]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me what they're basing the legality on?

Because they say so? That's not good enough in a democratic society.

The only I see difference between live gambling and online gambling is in the regulation, but I am not arguing that.

In fact, I am for regulation to a point. Kids shouldn't be online, etc.

I am not saying they will or won't pass this bill. I am only saying that I haven't heard a solid legal arguement to completely ban online gambling for the long term.

Someone please give me one.

[/ QUOTE ]That's what you're missing. They don't need a legal argument. They've decided that internet gambling is harmful, and they want to ban it. The Constitution doesn't prevent Congress from doing that, so they are going to do it. They don't need a reason. (Note, the internet can be regulated by the federal government, because every transaction over the internet generally is an interstate transaction. The federal government cannot ban gambling that all takes place in one state.) (Note there are exceptions to both those rules, but that's close enough.)

You may favor some regulation. Congress favors a ban. Congress is Congress and you are not, so they get to make the rules. The people do control who gets into Congress, however, so all you can do is work to put more people there who agree with you. Yes, it's a long, slow challenge, but people have overcome a lot, lot worse and dumber laws in this country (many that actually were unconstitutional).

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but people are tired of receiving automatic form replies from the Congressman.

Do you really think there is any politician in this country who is not already aware of the acceptance and popularity of inline gambling?

There's a commercial on TV every ten minutes.

If for some strange reason they honestly didn't have a clue yet, a million emails wouldn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is dead wrong. Most politicians will not defy the will of the people if they become convinced that the people are serious about it. It takes a very loud and persistent voice from the people to make it through the fog of beauracracy, but if you make them fear for their seats over the issue, they will sway.

We should indeed be striving to see to it that every Senator receives a million emails from constituents on this issue. If that happens, I guarantee that the bill will fail there.

As it is do you think any Senator has received even close to a million emails? I doubt it. I saw an article that referred to membership in PPA being something like 15,000.

We need to strive to build participation, not discourage it. I can't understand the negativity. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Benjamin