An Interesting Conversation

[ArtieFish]

So I was taking the train back from NY yesterday and I ended up sitting across from this guy who, after some BS convo, was a Political Science Major and was helping on the Obama Campaign. Anyways, we got around some to talking about online poker because I said that's the only thing I'm really involved in concering law, yadayada. The conversation that came from that was very interesting and I will try to sum it up, but basically I wanted to share what I heard first hand with you guys. Maybe we can get something out of this that will help our cause. The way he put it, things are not in our favor obviously, but he was being very unbiased:

He said that gambling in general was always a touchy subject for an politician (we all know that already) and that, though we may be able to play the freedom card in our arguement, most people will shoot it down. The majority of players who support the total legalization of online poker are winning players. Most people do not have sympathy for said players for many reaons:
1) Due to jealousy. People see poker players as living a leisurely life without much stress/commitment/responsibility. This is all obviously BS, but that is what the majority sees.
2)Not many people know personally of people who have made money but seem to always know that crazy story of someone losing everything they had online.
3)There are never stories of people turning their lives around by finding online poker and picking their life up financially. Opera would most likely not invite any of these people on her show even if there were (This kind of pertains to the above)
4)Most people do not care about freedoms that don't really effect them.
5)Gambling in general is seen as immmoral (obvious one)even if it is bringing in more revenue if taxed.

So not only is our freedom card pretty beat up, but is also being matched up against the "children" and "addict" card, both big concerns that come up when any form of gambling, even if it's not truly gambling, is mentioned. With all the said, he ended the conversation saying that any politician will gladly bring all this up saying "we don't need more boken homes and broken people in our nation" or something to that effect. Applause would surely come from this and his potnetial voters will probably go up, sadly.

Anyway you guys probably have realized all this, but it was pretty cool to get the outlook from someone who is neither against nor for it and was taking it from a strictly political view, something we need to cope with when pushing what we want.

So how do we deal with this? We need something more than just freedom, but I just can't see what it is. International law? Aren't booze/cigs just as bad, so why not just tax it?

I'm not really totatlly educated on all of the readings about the bill and this problem, but I am truly interested on the thoughts of all here on the unbiased political view.

[T3485]

The distinction between live play and online play is that one is taxable and one is not. Politics has little to do with morals, though that won't stop politicans presenting it as such.

[Skallagrim]

The US voting population consistently breaks down like this:

Vast majority does not give a damn about gambling one way or another (as long as you dont build a casino next to their house/neighborhood).

A sizable group believes in personal freedom or just plain likes to gamble.

Another sizable group believes gambling is dangerous (nanny staters) or sinful (FoF types) and should be stopped.

Its all about getting that vast majority to either go with you or to not care when a politician pulls a fast one to get the support of one of the sizable groups (thats how the UIGEA got passed - and thats most likely how it will get reversed, if it does).

Your conversation partner is simply too influenced by the success of the religious right in recent years; they are not the majority however, and their power is fading fast thanks to all the things their republican panderers have messed up over the last 6-7 years.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

This is why, AND I revile the man, Sen. Kyl is correct, go to court and WIN if we want poker as a skill game and legal. The UIGEA does not prevent skill gaming.

Wexlers bill is really not needed as it is already a given that skill is exempt.

obg

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


2)Not many people know personally of people who have made money but seem to always know that crazy story of someone losing everything they had online.
3)There are never stories of people turning their lives around by finding online poker and picking their life up financially. Opera would most likely not invite any of these people on her show even if there were (This kind of pertains to the above)

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the % of poker players that are lifetime losers, it's really the winners that are the "crazy stories", don't you think? I'm certain that there are ten people that have encountered serious financial problems from online gambling for every one that has "turned their life around by finding online poker".

Also "Opera"? Really?

[Grasshopp3r]

Politics is all about framing the issue. Instead of presenting online poker as a revenue source for Antigua, we need to present it as a way to suck revenue from the rest of the world into the US. That is an argument that trumps all of the above. Who in the US cares about the negative impacts on the foreigners?

[oldbookguy]

Granted, there are many lifetime losers.

However, there are many winners as well.

I am one and just in my 2 blocks in my neighborhood there are 2 others and I know personally they are lifetime winners as well.

Stories abound each way. The question of lifetime losers is was it a life changing loss or simply dropping a few bucks per week having some fun playing poker instead of the local lottery, a major concern of states since they are losing THEIR cut (99.99% lifetime losers).

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Also "Opera"? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this thread usung Opera...does that count? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[JPFisher55]

An interesting story and why I believe that favorable legislation will only come out of WTO sanctions affecting powerful industries like music and movie that donate heavily to Democrats.
Of course, litigation could confirm or grant us the right to play online poker in our own homes.
The worst and most dangerous part of your conversation is how little people value their freedoms.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The worst and most dangerous part of your conversation is how little people value their freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

No such inference is intended. In-fact, both my neighbors (neither posts here) do use links I e-mail and are active letter writers and both, as I am for now, are paying members of the PPA.

Notice my avatar, WV, we value freedoms here above most all else.

obg