Which out of country gambling destinations has the president told people to visit?

 

That isn't what it was saying and I think you know that. Wouldn't he be better off encouraging people that are going to vacation to do it in destination cities in his own country?

From the perspective of someone who has been on 2 "real" vacations in her entire life (8 years old, went to the Smokies with my family and when my kids were 10 & 11 we went to Jekyll Island), I absolutely have no problem with what Obama said.

 

When times are tough, you make choices. If times aren't tough for you, by all means, visit Vegas. If you are struggling to pay expenses, whatever they are, whether Obama mentions it or not, I would think it would be prudent NOT to go to Vegas.

 

There, I said it. Don't go to Vegas if you can't pay your bills. Count me among the many that are trying to destroy Vegas.

 

It was an EXAMPLE people, and EXAMPLE! Sheesh!

That isn't what it was saying and I think you know that. Wouldn't he be better off encouraging people that are going to vacation to do it in destination cities in his own country?

 

I'm unclear on what you are saying. What countries has he encouraged people to spend their vacation money in?

I'm unclear on what you are saying. What countries has he encouraged people to spend their vacation money in?

 

Again I'm not saying that. But there are other states and countries people can gamble in right? Why mention a city at all? Any city? Is Vegas not a vacation spot? Why not say not to blow many gambling and leave it there?

Again I'm not saying that. But there are other states and countries people can gamble in right? Why mention a city at all? Any city? Is Vegas not a vacation spot? Why not say not to blow many gambling and leave it there?

 

Ahhhhh...I understand your point now and do feel that it has some merit. However, with Las Vegas being the premier gambling destination, do you think that it really makes that much of a difference whether their specific city name is mentioned or not?

Obama needs to take his own advise and quit spending money the country doesn't have...

Ahhhhh...I understand your point now and do feel that it has some merit. However, with Las Vegas being the premier gambling destination, do you think that it really makes that much of a difference whether their specific city name is mentioned or not?

 

My bad, it was unclear. Yes. If a sitting president negatively talks about a tourist city I think it can and will hurt their tourism.

 

On a related note I think Vegas' biggest problems are that more and more states are allowing gambling. His words aren't nearly as bad as that, but if I'm an employee out there I'd rather him never mention my city or state unless its reminding people there is more to do in Vegas than in Lawrenceburg Indiana or a place like that.

While I agree that this is petty. What is the point of throwing Vegas under the bus a second time? Why not say gambling isn't a great idea on a tight budget and leave it at that? I know people who travel to Vegas and don't bet $1 the entire trip.

 

Like others have mentioned this probably barely hurts Vegas, but I'd be unhappy if I were an employee in that state. What's the difference to him if they go to Vegas for trips or if they go blow money on a shopping trip to NY? The shows in Vegas are just as good or better than NYC and in Vegas you could win as opposed to no possible way of winning when you buy purses and jewelry in NY. It's a vacation spot for entertainment purposes that really could use some help not a second mentioning by the President to stay away.

You bring up a good point, SSC. I am on the record saying this is being way overblown and the President was just trying to create an example.

 

To be fair to our fellow Nevadians (is this what they are called?), had Obama said, "If you do not have money, do not go to the Kentucky Derby", would we all have acted a little differently? The premise of the argument is the same, but we often react differently when you are talking about things a little closer to home.

You bring up a good point, SSC. I am on the record saying this is being way overblown and the President was just trying to create an example.

 

To be fair to our fellow Nevadians (is this what they are called?), had Obama said, "If you do not have money, do not go to the Kentucky Derby", would we all have acted a little differently? The premise of the argument is the same, but we often react differently when you are talking about things a little closer to home.

 

To be fair, the president didn't say don't go to Las Vegas. He said don't go and blow a bunch of money.

 

You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.

 

There is a significant difference.

^ You know what I mean. Just replace the word "Vegas" with "Kentucky Derby" and the tone of some would slightly change. Again, I have no problem with what he said and it is being overblown.

To be fair, the president didn't say don't go to Las Vegas. He said don't go and blow a bunch of money.

 

 

There is a significant difference.

 

Agreed. There is a significant difference, but if I was out of work and living in that state I'd rather him not mention it twice in a year negatively.

 

^ You know what I mean. Just replace the word "Vegas" with "Kentucky Derby" and the tone of some would slightly change. Again, I have no problem with what he said and it is being overblown.

 

Also agree. It isn't a big deal. He still should have said gambling IMO.

To be fair, the president didn't say don't go to Las Vegas. He said don't go and blow a bunch of money.

 

 

 

There is a significant difference.

 

The more significant distinction is that he's not telling or advising anyone to do anything. He's analogizing about the federal budget by relating it to personal financial advice that would be considered prudent to anyone: you don't gamble if you don't have enough money, you don't buy a boat if you don't have enough money, etc. and similarly the government shouldn't be spending money on frivolous things when it doesn't have enough money. He's not preaching to anyone, but relating an analogy about policy. That this has gotten as far as it has or to suggest that this somehow negatively affects Las Vegas is lunacy and, I think, is indicative of how miserable political discourse has become.

I missed the president's first Vegas remark, btw. Does anyone know what it was?

The more significant distinction is that he's not telling or advising anyone to do anything. He's analogizing about the federal budget by relating it to personal financial advice that would be considered prudent to anyone: you don't gamble if you don't have enough money, you don't buy a boat if you don't have enough money, etc. and similarly the government shouldn't be spending money on frivolous things when it doesn't have enough money. He's not preaching to anyone, but relating an analogy about policy. That this has gotten as far as it has or to suggest that this somehow negatively affects Las Vegas is lunacy and, I think, is indicative of how miserable political discourse has become.

 

:thumb:

I missed the president's first Vegas remark, btw. Does anyone know what it was?

 

I could be way off base, but I actually think it was that businesses didn't need to have big money trips out there for conferences and meetings. If I remember correctly he was probably right about that too. I still think it's a bad idea and I wouldn't be happy if I lived there and work was slow. If I were the mayor I would react the exact way he did. Is it petty? Yes.