‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ potentially very bad for poker (players) in the US + STAY ON TOPIC!!
This makes Black Friday look like a children’s birthday party.
There’s no chance this passes right? It would
would derail the thread, obviously. I don't think there's any shortage of well thought out and valid criticisms in the public sphere if that's of interest to you. I do find it interesting that you think being a life-long politician is somehow a qualification. Also a sad and unfortunate fact that being a prosecutor is a political endeavor.
lol
The gambling tax implications will only have maybe 5% of poker players.If I walk into Parx or Borgata on an average given day and look around, less then 5% of people playing will suffer any consequence. Now if we are talking about the field in one of these high roller tournies at WSOP, that's a different story. Then there are big consequences on most of the playersWithout gett
All I read was if this is not happening to me is ok lol ... Btw no illegal migrant gets Medicaid unless for medical emergencies which represent 0.4% of the Medicaid budged.
seems like professional tournament poker or any form of online grinding will be untenable. Only reason live cash players might be ok is because they likely don't report correctly. Definitely sad, and another example of how our legislators are terrible. Still a godsend that we didn't elect a cackling ****** with no business running anything let along being POTUS. Anyone upset sh
Oh! look, you did the meme
Sorry I interrupted your dream of a tax-free $42K year grinding $1/$2. Carry on, king.
Bro these politicians bend us over at every angle in every way, enrich themselves through PAC contributions, donations etc etc.
And you’re attacking the common man just grinding it out.
Real boot licking activities.
Should absolutely 211 form every republican you know that gambles.
b
Thanks for killing poker DNegs, Brian Rast, Doug Polk, etc Good thing you fought to get those billionare tax breaks though, Im sure you're ready to take full advantage of them.
Not sure what Negreanu has to do with this. He’s been very critical of Democrats’ strategy, but he certainly never voted for Trump.
Not sure what Negreanu has to do with this. He’s been very critical of Democrats’ strategy, but he certainly never voted for Trump.
He hyped up anti-immigration and other right wing nonsense for the better part of a year leading up into the election, played the victim card when people called him out on it, then doubled and tripled down
Tbh as someone who has been vehemently anti-trump it gets me rock hard to see the ‘wait what’ ITT from trump supporters in this forum who this impacts, including but not limited to ***** *******
To non trump-supporters who this impacts, idk, that sucks, but we’re all ****ed together
Not sure what Negreanu has to do with this. He’s been very critical of Democrats’ strategy, but he certainly never voted for Trump.
Pretty sure he was pro Trump this election. He was anti Trump back in 2016. What he voted for I'm not sure, but IF he voted this election, was definitely Trump > Kamala
Tbh as someone who has been vehemently anti-trump it gets me rock hard to see the ‘wait what’ ITT from trump supporters in this forum who this impacts, including but not limited to ***** *******
To non trump-supporters who this impacts, idk, that sucks, but we’re all ****ed together
this isn't even a trump issue, if anyone thinks he gives two ****s about this provision one way or the other just lol.
Then you should know parliamentarian has been ignored/overruled previously. It is rare and is considered a major step to take but it has occurred. Last time I know it happened was 1975. But it normally doesn’t go that far. Just a serious threat to do so has lead to small shifts in parliamentarian positions. While a big deal, do you really think this administration, since VP pre
You are correct about the technical relationship between the Parliamentarian and the VP, but when it comes to the gambling tax, the question of whether Republicans/Trump are willing to push limits re the Parliamentarian is irrelevant. Republicans supported a bill that included an amendment related to gambling. The Parliamentarian did not advise against the inclusion of the amendment. The Republicans have no beef with the Parliamentarian on this amendment. They got what they wanted.
Who's the actual representative responsible for introducing this? Does anyone know or is it obscured by the committees and no one really knows. Should just make a campaign to finance his or her competitor in next election at this point nothing else will send a message
Who's the actual representative responsible for introducing this? Does anyone know or is it obscured by the committees and no one really knows. Should just make a campaign to finance his competitor in next election at this point nothing else will send a message
Apparently some chud named Crapo
