|
|
#41
10-05-2006, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I want to know your source for this claim. I'm very skeptical. [/ QUOTE ] The 9/29 Washington Post: "Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), whose home-state casinos are split over the Internet gambling measure, briefly weighed scuttling the bill over the provision before agreeing to go along, aides said." Washington Post Article [/ QUOTE ] "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." Otto von Bismarck 
|
|
#42
10-05-2006, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
I completely agree. That's why we need to let our elected leaders know that we are pissed off by this back door move and that a least a carve out for poker be made. I am a registered Republican and I have talked to friends (who do not necessarily play poker) but who are contributers to the Republican party to write/call and voice their opinion re: a ban on internet gaming. The Republican party needs to be aware that there are republicans that do not want online gaming banned.
|
|
#43
10-05-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
If this bill came to a vote by itself, it would pass easily, say 80 - 20. There would be four groups voting for the bill: [/ QUOTE ] No, wrong. This is a cup-is-half-empty analyzation. There are also plenty of reasons and groups that would have it vote for the other side. 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. This is the same thing like the gay ammendments thing (can't remember the exact issue) that was going on earlier in the year that on the outside looked as if it would pass easily, but in fact hit a brick wall. It is ALL political propaganda republican SPIN MACHINE that feeds you these facades.
|
|
#44
10-05-2006, 02:34 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 ] Important why? Because it would justify not taking any action prior to the Senate vote, since the provision's passage was inevitable? Nice rabbit hunting.
|
|
#45
10-05-2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If this bill came to a vote by itself, it would pass easily, say 80 - 20. There would be four groups voting for the bill: [/ QUOTE ] No, wrong. This is a cup-is-half-empty analyzation. There are also plenty of reasons and groups that would have it vote for the other side. 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. This is the same thing like the gay ammendments thing (can't remember the exact issue) that was going on earlier in the year that on the outside looked as if it would pass easily, but in fact hit a brick wall. It is ALL political propaganda republican SPIN MACHINE that feeds you these facades. [/ QUOTE ] How do you account then that similar bills have come up to a vote in the House and Senate in recent years and been approved by wide margins? I'm fairly certain that anyone who doesn't think this would pass if it came to a vote is deluding themselves over how important online poker really is and how willing people would be to take a stand against a ban.
|
|
#47
10-05-2006, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So it makes no difference to you/us if all senators are for prohibiting internet gambling, some are and some are not, or a few are or most are? It makes no difference to us which senators support bans on internet gambling and which senators are against it? [/ QUOTE ] bkholdem, His perspective accounts for the fact that there are two steps: (1) Get it to the floor in a given form (2) Vote (Step 1) is done by only the most determined, and when done right, as by Frist, it makes Step 2 a nonissue. This is why pork passes that would normally be voted down 93-7. As far as the OP, I think I see what he's getting at, and I think it's a given that the direct approach, a tidal wave of popularity, won't work. [/ QUOTE ] And my perspective is to know the hearts and minds and intentions of those that have postions of power over us so that we can use that information to our advantage the best we can.
|
|
#48
10-05-2006, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] Important why? Because it would justify not taking any action prior to the Senate vote, since the provision's passage was inevitable? Nice rabbit hunting. [/ QUOTE ] No. It is like asking to see an uncalled hand after a river bet. Impolite at the table but quite appropriate when you pay the salary of the person whose hand it is, as if you are bankrolling them.
|
|
#50
10-05-2006, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] No, it is very unlikely that it would have passed easily, because if it stood on its own it never would have reached the floor. Several Senators of BOTH parties apparently had holds on the legislation that would have prevented it moving on its own. The fact that the legislation did not reach the floor in stand-alone form by 9/29, the last legislative day before the lame duck session after the elections, leads one to believe that the holds were still in place. In any case, Sen. Reid was considering filibustering the entire Port Security bill because of the gaming provision before deciding against this strategy (probably wisely from a political perspective). If he was thinking about taking this step, it seems clear that if the measure was standing on its own he would have set-up a filibuster. I have little doubt that the majority of Senators, consisting of both parties (though a higher % of Republicans) would vote for the gaming provision on its own. But the important question is not whether the bill would have recieved a majority of votes in a vaccum, but whether the bill in stand-alone form would have reached the floor for a vote at all. And the answer to that appears to be no. [/ QUOTE ] Did you miss where he said it is important to know IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
