Is Obama a friend or foe to online poker?

[ShadyJ]

Druff wrote this in the Merge ending p2p transfer thread:

I think this is their new way of fighting secret rakeback, as player-to-player transfers were the primary way this was accomplished.

I can't wait until online poker becomes legal in the US and this crappy network is crushed out of existence.

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back. Its only going to be a US player base anyways if it happens. The days of making a living off of online poker are over if you live in the US.

[DirtyB]

I can't wait until online poker becomes legal in the US and this crappy network is crushed out of existence.

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back.

[shortbuspoker]

So you mean your going to vote Republican and hope the Democrats win, and bring online poker back.

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

[DirtyB]

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

[Dan Druff]

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

[SixToedPete]

Who was the person in charge when the DOJ shut everyone down? What party had the POTUS, House, and Senate yet did not legalize online poker? Don't try to play this like a political issue that either party will support because neither has in a meaningful way.

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law.

Barry's statement is laughable.

Since he was appointed, AG Eric Holder has cherry picked the laws he wanted to pursue. He did this precisely because of his political agenda and beliefs. His selective prosecution and meddling has been glaringly obvious. A race-based lens pervades Holder's DOJ which consistently skews enforcement of the law.

Holder blocked the SC Voter ID law. He said it was racist.

He intervened on behalf of a Muslim school teacher who claimed the Illinois school district was guilty of religious bias.

He misused the FACE Act to shut down and silence Pro Life protestors.

He refused to aggressively prosecute the New Black Panther voter intimidation goons. He said race had nothing to do with his decision.

Ever heard about Fast and Furious?

I could go on and on. As the country's top law enforcement official Holder is supposed to be color blind. He's not. Race enters into too many of his decisions.

P.S. Obama destroyed online poker.

[shortbuspoker]

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

I won't go as far as STP and blame everything on Obama, but I will point out two things. Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally. Obama also managed to push his healthcare reform through solely on party lines so theoretically he could have done it for online poker had he so chosen.

[DirtyB]

Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally.

That's just not true. Under Obama, deportations are at an all time high.

http://www.ibtimes.com/under-obama-d...er-2011-781511

[shortbuspoker]

Obama has refused to enforce US federal law as it pertains to people who are here illegally.

That's just not true. Under Obama, deportations are at an all time high.

http://www.ibtimes.com/under-obama-d...er-2011-781511

This sounds a lot like he told Homeland Security to halt deportations until he could get congress to pass his DREAM act.

[TheXFactor]

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

Remember Obama's official position on marriage is that it should be between a man and a woman.
However, he said a few months ago he personally believes that gay people should have the right to marry.

Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid wants online poker/gambling legalized and has most of the democrats and a few republicans standing by to support it.

An opportunity to push it through Congress could happen some time during the next few years.

If elected Mitt Romney would veto any bill that has to do with online poker/gambling.

[ShadyJ]

The executive branch and the DOJ have to enforce the laws on the books. They don't get to pick and choose based on their feelings for each law. The Republican controlled Congress put the UIGEA on the books in 2006 and we're stuck with it.

Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership has been pushing for legalized poker. They can't get the votes to make it happen.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...-online-poker/

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-dials-...169493006.html

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

[ShadyJ]

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

Not necessarily, I really don't think that Obama gave a shit. Remember Obama played poker in college and he knows a few professional poker players.

He doesn't officially support online poker but I don't believe he would veto a bill to legalize it.

Remember Obama's official position on marriage is that it should be between a man and a woman.
However, he said a few months ago he personally believes that gay people should have the right to marry.

Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid wants online poker/gambling legalized and has most of the democrats and a few republicans standing by to support it.

An opportunity to push it through Congress could happen some time during the next few years.

If elected Mitt Romney would veto any bill that has to do with online poker/gambling.

Thats a fact and everyone in the world except Druff knows it.

[Dan Druff]

That's not exactly how it went down.

You are making it sound like the Republicans passed the UIGEA, and Obama's people were reluctantly stuck enforcing it.

In reality, the enforcement of the UIGEA was done by the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. That particular office has had an obsession with going after well-bankrolled criminal enterprises, busting them, and seizing their massive assets.

That's the way the office was operating when Bush appointees were in charge, resulting in, among other things, the Neteller bust and the pressuring of Anurag Dikshit to pay a gigantic fine.

When Obama took office, he cleaned house, and everyone at that office was fired. He replaced them with his own people. They did not have to operate the same way. They did not have to go after poker with the same fervor, or even really focus on poker at all. They did, because like the Bush appointees before them, that office continued the procedure of going after high-dollar targets. They later upped their game even further by going after the sites themselves, rather than just their payment processors.

Bottom line: If Obama disagreed with the UIGEA, he could have appointed someone who wouldn't have wanted to go after online poker. He didn't disagree with UIGEA, which is why he appointed people very similar to those that were already in place under Bush.

And just in case there's any doubt, when the PPA sent the White House a petition this year, the response clearly stated that Obama does NOT support federal legalization of online poker.

I am not saying that Romney would be a friend of online poker (he wouldn't), but Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter over the past 4 years, and that position opposes it.

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

[Kuntmissioner]

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

It can be clearer if we link the Whitehouse's response: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...t-online-poker

[Dan Druff]

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

It can be clearer if we link the Whitehouse's response: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...t-online-poker

The rapid and anonymous nature of the internet distinguishes online games from onsite games, such as those in casinos, and creates distinct challenges. For example, there are many means of technologically circumventing restrictions on online gambling that can allow individuals from countries where gambling is illegal -- or even minors -- to play using real currency. Online games also have greater potential for fraud because gambling websites are much cheaper and easier to establish than on-site locations, and like telemarketing scams, can appear and disappear overnight. Finally, online gambling can be used in money laundering schemes because of the volume, speed, anonymity, and international reach made possible by internet transactions. The Administration will continue to examine this issue and is open to solutions that would help guard against the use of online gambling sites as tools for conducting illegal activities or preying on unsuspecting individuals to the extent that online gambling is permitted.

That doesn't seem like an Administration looking to legalize online poker.

It looks like they have stated every reason not to.

[ftpjesus]

What actually happened whether you choose to believe it or not is Republicans added uigea to a bill last minute after the bill was agreed on by both parties. They knew the Dems didnt care enough to not go through with it over online gambling. The fact is that all anti gambling is from Republicans. Theres a big difference between not supporting something, and going out of your way to shut something down. You keep clinging to the Obama isnt for online poker, and your grabbing at straws. If online poker was legal right now tyhe Dems would never try to shut it down, and the repubs would. Its just a fact. Just come out and say I dont agree with Repubs stance on online gambling, but I agree with alot of other things and thats why I vote Repub. We could respect that, but by saying Obama isnt for online poker is just semantics and were not all dumb we know this.

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

[DirtyB]

How is it just semantics?

The PPA wrote the White House a letter with an attached petition to legalize online poker, and the White House responded that they were against it.

Can't get much clearer than that.

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

[shortbuspoker]

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

In that sense the Dems could have also sneaked internet poker into the healthcare bill as a rider in some ridiculous fashion. That is assuming that they do in fact want regulated gaming and all of the tax revenue that it would bring in.

[Dan Druff]

Another note to Shady J.. Republicans may have snuck in UIGEA but lets remember who SHUT DOWN POKER it was that asshat gun running AG Eric Holder and his DOJ through his little minion Preet Bahara. If you think Obama didnt give the green light to the ops that resulted in Black Friday your kidding yourself.

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

This wasn't about enforcing laws. It was about confiscating assets and levying big fines from what appeared to be rich "criminal" organizations.

Obama's White House came out with a statement against federally legalized online poker, so I don't see the point of continuing a debate as to whether or not Obama is a friend to the poker player.

[Anal_Hershiser]

Yeah. How dare the Department of Justice officials do what they swore an oath to do. It's like they're some kind of agency that enforces all of the laws that Congress passes, even ones that you don't like. What bastards. They should really check in with you so they know which laws to enforce.

This wasn't about enforcing laws. It was about confiscating assets and levying big fines from what appeared to be rich "criminal" organizations.

Obama's White House came out with a statement against federally legalized online poker, so I don't see the point of continuing a debate as to whether or not Obama is a friend to the poker player.

You're actually trying to convince Barry that Lord Obama may have made even one mistake? Good luck with that.