What will happen next?

[Mark Collins]

[ QUOTE ]

And aren't democrats huge underdogs to win the next elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually they are very sizable favorites. Look at Tradesports.

[William]

First of all, I want to apologize If I am going to say something stupid, I don't follow US politics that much, but I just saw a program in television a few hours ago where they said that Hillary Clinton will be a candidate for the next elections. They also said that her major adversary among democrats would be some black guy.

My reasoning is that how easy is for either a woman or a black guy going to be to be elected president in a country where all past presidents have been white males?

My question is absolutely not sexist/racist related, onlyt that if what I heard on TV is correct, it is unlikely that the democrats will succed on their first attemp with those candidates.

Does any of this makes sense?

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
Would a democrat govt be better for online gambling? I think there were a few threads about this in October last year.
And aren't democrats huge underdogs to win the next elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats are probably better than Republicans for the future. And certainly we would have been better of if Frist wasn't in power when he was, but ultimately this is an inertia thing. Bill Frist cared enough to stop it. Sure the democrats might have let online gambling continue, but now that its stopped, that doesn't mean theyre gonna go out of their way to legalize it.

Most people don't care about poker. Its non issue. Nobody can win on an "im gonna legalize poker" platform. Online gambling may be legalized, but it will only happen when the online casinos strike a deal with politicians to share the money with the government.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I want to apologize If I am going to say something stupid, I don't follow US politics that much, but I just saw a program in television a few hours ago where they said that Hillary Clinton will be a candidate for the next elections. They also said that her major adversary among democrats would be some black guy.

My reasoning is that how easy is for either a woman or a black guy going to be to be elected president in a country where all past presidents have been white males?

My question is absolutely not sexist/racist related, onlyt that if what I heard on TV is correct, it is unlikely that the democrats will succed on their first attemp with those candidates.

Does any of this makes sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it makes sense, but these concerns have already been factored into the line.

[barryc83]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a democrat govt be better for online gambling? I think there were a few threads about this in October last year.
And aren't democrats huge underdogs to win the next elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats are probably better than Republicans for the future. And certainly we would have been better of if Frist wasn't in power when he was, but ultimately this is an inertia thing. Bill Frist cared enough to stop it. Sure the democrats might have let online gambling continue, but now that its stopped, that doesn't mean theyre gonna go out of their way to legalize it.

Most people don't care about poker. Its non issue. Nobody can win on an "im gonna legalize poker" platform. Online gambling may be legalized, but it will only happen when the online casinos strike a deal with politicians to share the money with the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! You are correct sir.

[William]

I totally agree with the sites paying taxes issue, wich takes us to the next problem.
The existing sites owners are now so rich that they may not bother going thru a long discussion with the govt (Party owners and others allready took a lot home selling most of their shares) and they might find it easier and safer to just target the European market and eventually close shop when things get bad there as well.

That would leave us hoping for new sites to arise in an atmosphere of insecurity and high risk.
If I was an investor/wealthy guy/company, I wouldn't be shouting "let's open an online poker site and ignore the US regulations" as things are right now.

Also, I am not sure how interested existing online sites are in paying taxes. I don't know about US casinos, but in Europe, as far as I know, casinos pay 75-95% in taxes.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And aren't democrats huge underdogs to win the next elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually they are very sizable favorites. Look at Tradesports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Mark Collins, we miss you in the Chiefs secondary. You weren't flashy but dependable.

[Annorax]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I want to apologize If I am going to say something stupid, I don't follow US politics that much, but I just saw a program in television a few hours ago where they said that Hillary Clinton will be a candidate for the next elections. They also said that her major adversary among democrats would be some black guy.

My reasoning is that how easy is for either a woman or a black guy going to be to be elected president in a country where all past presidents have been white males?

My question is absolutely not sexist/racist related, onlyt that if what I heard on TV is correct, it is unlikely that the democrats will succed on their first attemp with those candidates.

Does any of this makes sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The prevalence of racists and sexists in some of the southern states will likely hamstring, if not completely destroy, any chances of a Democratic ticket winning if that ticket doesn't contain a white male Presidential candidate. I'd predict a Tom Vilsack/Hilary Clinton ticket, but I doubt Hilary is the type of feminist to accept second place. Maybe Vilsack/Obama?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Online gambling may be legalized, but it will only happen when the online casinos strike a deal with politicians to share the money with the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the rest of your post, but given what I know, the online casinos and poker rooms would gladly offer the US federal government a share of the money (ie., would gladly submit to US federal government taxation and oversight) for un-threatened and 'legitimate' access to the US market. I believe TruePoker's CEO has claimed that very thing more than a few times on this forum.

Even if the off-shore online gaming interests with US facing operations (current or former) like Stars, FT, 888.com, Pinnacle, etc. refused to capitulate to the demands of federal regulators, there are undoubtedly numerous American interests (think American B&M casino interests like Harrah's and MGM) who would happily submit to the federal government's demands for taxation/regulation if it meant internet gaming were decriminalized and the stigma of illegality were removed from the industry.

In other words, I'm not quite sure that the federal government's only interest here is in taxing and regulating. That goal could have easily been achieved now, had it been the end they're after.

[William]

The goal is to not encourage gambling, period, which in itself is the right thing to do.
We are here a poker/gambling community and we see things from another point of view, but there must be no doubt that the world would be a better place without so many gambling sites tempting fishes all the time.