|
|
#61
10-05-2006, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know. [/ QUOTE ] I doubt it would have even made it to a vote. The internet gambling bill on its own doesn't merit any attention there. Assuming that a simple majority vote is used here, I think it would pass. 
|
|
#62
10-05-2006, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] are you still confused? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I'm still confused that you can't understand something this simple. Apparently you don't know what a "stand-alone bill" is. That's what David wanted to know, what the chances of the bill passing would be if it was a stand-alone bill. He said nothing about if such a bill reached the floor. And who cares anyway -- like I said, the bill likely would not have reached the floor and hence would have died by the end of the Congressional session. Do you have anything to add here? [/ QUOTE ] Did you read his original post? Here is an excerpt: While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. _____________________________ He said he thinks it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. What are the ways that a stand alone bill can pass without votes? please explain that to me as I am apparently confused.
|
|
#63
10-05-2006, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that this bill would have never been brought up for a vote, either tacked onto another bill or standing alone, if the Democrats had been in power. Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it . [/ QUOTE ] I snipped your excuses. Don't excuse poor representation. It's a bad habit. You deserve better from you party of choice.
|
|
#64
10-05-2006, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that this bill would have never been brought up for a vote, either tacked onto another bill or standing alone, if the Democrats had been in power. Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it . [/ QUOTE ] I snipped your excuses. Don't excuse poor representation. It's a bad habit. You deserve better from you party of choice. [/ QUOTE ] You're speaking very adamantly in this thread, but I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. Here's how I see it. Basically, three things could have happened: (1) The bill could have come up for a vote and passed. (2) The bill could have come up for a vote and failed. (3) The bill could have never come up for a vote. #2 was unlikely, so our best chance was #3, and it looked like there was a strong possibility this is what was going to happen -- well, up until it became apparent that Frist was determined to get the bill through, at which point it also became apparent that there was a lot of reason to worry. But our problem at this point seems huge to me. We're stuck with a law that basically has a lot of support in Congress, however indifferent much of that support may be. To get the law repealed, we actually need to get a repeal bill voted on, and as far as I know, no one in Congress is really pushing for this, and it seems to me that currently a repeal bill would have little chance of passing even if by some miracle such legislation did get drafted and did come up for a vote. But maybe a poker carve-out is possible, somehow? I don't know. Edit: And I guess our other hope -- maybe a better one -- is that in practice the law won't restrict online poker as much as its authors intended for it to.
|
|
#66
10-05-2006, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that this bill would have never been brought up for a vote, either tacked onto another bill or standing alone, if the Democrats had been in power. Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it . [/ QUOTE ] I snipped your excuses. Don't excuse poor representation. It's a bad habit. You deserve better from you party of choice. [/ QUOTE ] WTF are you talking about? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#67
10-05-2006, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that this bill would have never been brought up for a vote, either tacked onto another bill or standing alone, if the Democrats had been in power. Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it . [/ QUOTE ] I snipped your excuses. Don't excuse poor representation. It's a bad habit. You deserve better from you party of choice. [/ QUOTE ] But I don't want to be represented. I don't want my Representative or Senator to vote on a bill because if he doesn't I won't vote for him. I don't want him to vote for something based on his religious convictions, or according to a plank of his party line. I want him to vote for something because it makes sense, is reasonable, is good for America, and moves us forward. I want a politician with a brain. I don't think they exist any more.
|
|
#68
10-05-2006, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
If it stood alone, I think the fact that there is another bill in progress that will be evaluating the feasibility of regulating and taxing online gambling would have played against this bill.
|
|
#69
10-05-2006, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The bottom line is that this bill would have never been brought up for a vote, either tacked onto another bill or standing alone, if the Democrats had been in power. Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it . [/ QUOTE ] I snipped your excuses. Don't excuse poor representation. It's a bad habit. You deserve better from you party of choice. [/ QUOTE ] WTF are you talking about? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This. You said: Once it was brought up for a vote, even as a stand alone, most Democrats would have voted for it so they wouldn't have to go back home in an election year and defend themselves against accusations that they are pro-gambling. ______________ What I am saying is that according to you most democrats would have voted for it. And that voting for it is bad behavior (my assumption). You went on to provide 'an excuse' (so they wouldn't have to go back home in an election year and defend themselves against accusations that they are pro-gambling) to explain this 'bad behavior' (voting for the bill or a willingness or assumed intent to do so). By snipping the 'excuse' i was attempting to point out that it may be better to evaluate the williness or intent to vote for the bill without any follow up explanation that seems to imply a reasonable 'excuse'. poor widdle politician who would have to go home and defend himself for voting against protecting my freedoms. lets all feel sorry for him and maybe forgive him or at least be understanding of him.... no thank you.
|
|
#70
10-05-2006, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
This strikes me as a fruitless excercise. How 'bout instead we look at the probability of getting dealt pocket aces at the final table in the WSOP main event in 2007 and then flopping AAA?
Don't want to do that? Why not? Just as meaningless as your original question David. No offense, because I do enjoy your views on poker but the fact of the matter is this bill had as much chance of being voted on as a stand-alone as my hypothetical has of occuring.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
