How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you miss where he said it is important to know IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's David's original statement:

[ 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 ]

You tell me where he asked if it is important to know IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?

He asked about the bill if it was stand-alone. I answered it. You need to learn how to read.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you miss where he said it is important to know IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's David's original statement:

[ 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 ]

You tell me where he asked if it is important to know IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?

He asked about the bill if it was stand-alone. I answered it. You need to learn how to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this:

I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone


are you still confused?

[BillJames]

[ 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?

[samoleus]

Yes David, my understanding is that it would have passed anyway. However, it was not considered enough of a priority that it would have made the floor. There are a lot of issues involving mass transit and other things that would have had a higher priority.

[KingOtter]

IMO, people are looking too much at the issue and trying to decide how or why senators of either party would vote on it based on the content of the bill.

But that's not my interpretation of how Washington works.

Generally Washington politicians don't give a whit about whether legislation is efficient, effective, necessary, or 'a good idea'.

They care if:
- it gets them money
- it gets them re-elected
- it sounds good ('I care because I protected American children from overseas mobsters')
- Lacking any of the above, their party says they should vote for it (or deals made with other voters)

I'm generalizing here. There are some Representatives/Senators with some pet projects that are good ideas that aren't getting any traction because they make too much sense, and don't have enough national visibility or require a brain to understand.

But overall agendas behind the agendas are what allows bills to be brought to the floors, voted on, and passed or failed. Bills can be brought the floor KNOWING they will fail, just so members can say, 'I voted to protect the children from xxxx'.

So tell me what national agenda is benefitted by allowing internet gaming (in any shape or form)? None, unless it was tied to something like national debt, tax relief, security, or the economy. To most Americans gambling is a regional concern, not a national concern.

This is a Republican issue because Republicans are about family values and family values do not include weekend retreats to Vegas to get the gambling groove on. This is something they can put in their campaign commercials. And they have 'protected' people with problems... compulsive gamblers and their families. This will help them get elected.

The opposite stance (internet gambling is fine, we should be able to do what we want with our money) requires a listener with well-developed reason, and skills of deduction. The average American voter doesn't have this, according to politicans. One idea proves this, and that is mandatory seatbelts. If politicans thought Americans could think and make decisions in their own best interest, seatbelts would never have been made mandatory.

Also you can see this evidenced that whenever something goes wrong, the first blame goes to the government. A national outcry goes out, 'Why didn't you protect us from that?', or 'Why didn't you do more?'. Whenever something is seen as a crisis, it is legislation people call for.

Another example, the recent slew of school shootings. Hotlines are being set up to let people phone warnings into schools of possible violence. The two most tragic shootings I know about, there was absolutely no warning. So why is this a good idea? But that doesn't matter, as long as government is 'doing something about it'. Even if the 'doing something about it' is ineffective.

So.. there... that's my confidence in my government. Pretty much I have none. And I'm talking about both parties. They all suck.

Edit: So I think it would have been defeated if it came to a vote. I don't know that it would have come to a vote, but I don't really know. That depends on many agendas.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Most of them don't care about this stuff and for the democrats this could have turn into an EASY issue about personal freedom and rights, government doesn't have the right to invade privacy, etc etc. and generally tap into alot of the middle of the road people who enjoy poker as a pasttime, younger voters who obviously are all into the trend of online poker/big tourneys, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Democrats only give lip service to opposing these things in order to get votes. When push comes to shove, they violate our personal freedoms and rights with abandon. Actions speak louder than words.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
It would have passed but a larger number of Democrats & Republicans would have voted against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
ONLY the republicans appeasing to LOONEY TUNE JESUS CAMP FUNDIES would try to pass it. Nobody else would really have a major agenda behind it; everyone elses counter strategy would be people's basic rights and privacy.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats are as quick to legislate morality and violate our basic rights and privacy in the name of "helping people" as the Republicans are in the name of sin. And if you were paying attention, you'd know that if all the Republicans in the House had been on vacation when the vote happen, the online gambling bill would have passed anyway. There were Democratic co-sponsors and a majority of Democrats voted in favor, so take off the rose colored glasses and take a look.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would have passed but a larger number of Democrats & Republicans would have voted against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed? The sentence doesn't even make sense anymore.

I suspect the bill would have passed on its own, if it came to a vote, but then I'm mainly basing that opinion on the House vote and also Berge's opinion that it would have passed (he knows a lot more about our current Senate than I do).

I also suspect more Democrats than Republicans would have voted against it. Throw philosophy out the window and say each Senator is equally likely to support or oppose the bill (for whatever reasons), and it's still the case that politicians sometimes vote along partisan lines, and the bill would have been Republican-sponsored legislation.

In any event, I agree with those who are saying that our best hope was for the bill not to have been enough of a priority to come up for a vote.

[Lawman007]

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 so they wouldn't have to go back home in an election year and defend themselves against accusations that they are pro-gambling.