John McCain's gambling problem

[Popeye]

Time this week has an article about what the two candidates' gambling habits say about their political (and, potentially, governing) styles. While Obama is an exceedingly low-stakes poker player who sizes up his odds methodically and rarely loses money, it turns out McCain is a high-stakes craps player:

In the past decade, [McCain] has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. "Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. "He never, ever plays on the house," says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

I don't know about you, but what does this tendency to enjoy high stakes gambling say about McCain? Lets hope this style, should he be elected, doesn't translate into his governing style. I notice, as well, that though they refuse to file a joint income tax return, McCain sure doesn't mind gambling with his mommy's money.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1819898,00.html

 

[Cookie Parker]

Time this week has an article about what the two candidates' gambling habits say about their political (and, potentially, governing) styles. While Obama is an exceedingly low-stakes poker player who sizes up his odds methodically and rarely loses money, it turns out McCain is a high-stakes craps player:



I don't know about you, but what does this tendency to enjoy high stakes gambling say about McCain? Lets hope this style, should he be elected, doesn't translate into his governing style. I notice, as well, that though they refuse to file a joint income tax return, McCain sure doesn't mind gambling with his mommy's money.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1819898,00.html

I'd say it's a personality trait we can't afford to elect, myself.

 

[Libsmasher]

Another stupid, crude attempt by our resident slurmeister. There are gambling casinos all over the country nowadays, maybe 95% of the adult population has gambled at some point.

Look for the "McCain molested children" thread, coming soon.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

how about it says nothing at all?

Just a thought

next you going to tell me that what game you gamble on will effect how they lead the nation...Blackjack players are better at Security Issues then Texas Hold um players or some bull.

 

[Andy]

The backroom poker player, on the other hand, is more cautious and self-absorbed. Card games may be social, but they are played in solitude. No need for drama. The quiet card counter is king, and only a novice banks on luck. In this game, a good bluff trumps blind faith, and the studied observer beats the showman.

So Obama is another self absorbed, liar that believe he can out-think everyone. We need another arrogant president like we need a hole in the head. Liars and self-absorbed idiots are clearly disqualified from being worthy of office.

How about this, I am, amazingly, with Pocket on this. Poker habits are completely irrelevant and unimportant to a discussion on who is best to be president.

If there is point to be made, it's this: McCain is at least gambling with his own money. I would rather have that, than Obama gamble with my tax money on some dumb government project to implement some crazy alternative fuel scheme. Or gamble with soldiers lives with a risky premature pull out of Iraq, or gamble with an Iran with nuclear weapons, or gamble with our economy with some lame kyoto protocol.

If his own money, is all McCain gambles, then we have a winner.

 

[PLC1]

It's about as relevant as the junk emails alledging Obama is anything short of the AntiChrist.

Garbage.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

​

So Obama is another self absorbed, liar that believe he can out-think everyone. We need another arrogant president like we need a hole in the head. Liars and self-absorbed idiots are clearly disqualified from being worthy of office.

How about this, I am, amazingly, with Pocket on this. Poker habits are completely irrelevant and unimportant to a discussion on who is best to be president.

If there is point to be made, it's this: McCain is at least gambling with his own money. I would rather have that, than Obama gamble with my tax money on some dumb government project to implement some crazy alternative fuel scheme. Or gamble with soldiers lives with a risky premature pull out of Iraq, or gamble with an Iran with nuclear weapons, or gamble with our economy with some lame kyoto protocol.

If his own money, is all McCain gambles, then we have a winner.

Funny that you think McCain somehow is not Gambling ( not a term I would use normaly for this) your tax money but Obama is...Iraq was a Huge Roll of the Dice with no only your Tax Money but also Troops lives....and its one that Most Americans today will say did not pay off....

Unless you think McCain will put all our Taxs in a huge savings account or something....its all gambles realy.

 

[Andy]

Funny that you think McCain somehow is not Gambling ( not a term I would use normaly for this) your tax money but Obama is...Iraq was a Huge Roll of the Dice with no only your Tax Money but also Troops lives....and its one that Most Americans today will say did not pay off....

Unless you think McCain will put all our Taxs in a huge savings account or something....its all gambles realy.

There is a major difference. If you have cancer, and you are guaranteed to die if you do nothing, then the 'gamble' of having surgery is required.

Going into Iraq was required. It had to be done. We either did it before Saddam became an imminent threat, or after. He supported terrorist, either had, or was trying to get a working relationship with Al Qaeda, was developing WMDs, and attempting to gain nuclear weapons. It was either now or later, and better now than after a dirty bomb went off in a subway.

What I'm worried about is Obama rolling the dice on hindering our national energy policy in some gambled hope of an alternative energy popping into existence to save us.

I'm worried he'll play soft with our enemies like Iran, rolling the dice that they will not create dirty bombs and pass them off to terrorist groups.

Those are at least two major things I do not think McCain will gamble on.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. All tax money (other than military) is pretty much a gamble, and a bad one. This is why I support all tax cuts. The less money those idiots have to gamble with, the better.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is a major difference. If you have cancer, and you are guaranteed to die if you do nothing, then the 'gamble' of having surgery is required.

Going into Iraq was required. It had to be done. We either did it before Saddam became an imminent threat, or after. He supported terrorist, either had, or was trying to get a working relationship with Al Qaeda, was developing WMDs, and attempting to gain nuclear weapons. It was either now or later, and better now than after a dirty bomb went off in a subway.

What I'm worried about is Obama rolling the dice on hindering our national energy policy in some gambled hope of an alternative energy popping into existence to save us.

I'm worried he'll play soft with our enemies like Iran, rolling the dice that they will not create dirty bombs and pass them off to terrorist groups.

Those are at least two major things I do not think McCain will gamble on.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. All tax money (other than military) is pretty much a gamble, and a bad one. This is why I support all tax cuts. The less money those idiots have to gamble with, the better.

Iraq was never something we had to do, it was a option. I dont care if you think it was the right one or not, but it was never something we had to do. Yes American would still be here today and 20 years from now without ever attacking Iraq.

 

[Andy]

Iraq was never something we had to do, it was a option. I dont care if you think it was the right one or not, but it was never something we had to do. Yes American would still be here today and 20 years from now without ever attacking Iraq.

With a few smoking cities, and some amazing well armed and funded terrorist... but yeah.

If you think about it, we didn't have to go after Bin Ladin either, by that logic.

 

[PLC1]

With a few smoking cities, and some amazing well armed and funded terrorist... but yeah.

If you think about it, we didn't have to go after Bin Ladin either, by that logic.

Except for a few small facts, here and there:

Iraq did not attack the United States.

Iraq did not have the military capability of attacking the United States.

Iraq was never a threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda, which did attack the United States, was not a part of Iraq, nor was it operating in Iraq until after the invasion.

No smoking cities, at least here in the US.

And did we go after Bin Laden?