@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial Issues7yrs ago

Should sports betting be legal?

In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may pass laws allowing sports betting. The ruling overturned the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act which was a federal law that banned states from “sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing or authorizing” sports gambling. The 1992 law exempted Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana which had sports betting systems or lotteries already in place. The suit brought before the Supreme Court was brought by New Jersey and supported by a group of 18 other states. In order to legalize gambling each stat…  

Read more

Answer Overview

Response rates from 4.5k America voters.

75%
Yes
25%
No
68%
Yes
23%
No
5%
Yes, but let each state decide
1%
No, this would compromise the integrity of sports
2%
Yes, as long as there are restrictions on how much money people can bet
1%
No, and I support a nationwide ban on any form of gambling

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 4.5k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 4.5k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @6TMSR47from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

It is not the right of the government to infringe on the rights of others, and this includes in the case of gambling.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Sports Betting” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7mos7MO

CFTC Moves to Ban Derivatives Betting on Elections and Sporting Events

In a significant regulatory shift, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has proposed a rule to ban derivatives contracts that allow betting on the outcomes of political elections, sporting events, and other real-world occurrences. This move, announced on Friday, marks a concerted effort by the CFTC to delineate the line between financial trading and gambling, aiming to safeguard the integrity of the financial markets. The proposed ban targets so-called 'event contracts,' which have gained popularity as speculative instruments on various platforms.The CFTC's proposal comes amid growing concerns over the potential for these contracts to undermine the traditional financial and commodities markets, blurring the lines between regulated financial activities and gambling. By taking a firm stance against the listing and clearing of these event contracts, the CFTC seeks to prevent the financialization of political and entertainment outcomes, which could pose risks to market stability and investor protection.The agency's decision to advance this rule reflects a broader regulatory scrutiny of speculative trading practices that may exploit the outcomes of non-financial events. CFTC Chair Rostin Behnam emphasized the importance of maintaining clear boundaries in the financial markets, stating that the proposed ban is crucial for protecting the integrity of the derivatives markets and ensuring they function efficiently and transparently.The proposal has sparked a debate among traders, betting platforms, and market analysts, with some arguing that it could stifle innovation and limit the diversity of financial products available to investors. Others, however, applaud the CFTC's move as a necessary step to prevent the commodification of political and social events, which could lead to speculative bubbles and market manipulation.As the CFTC prepares for a final vote on the proposed rule, the financial community is closely watching the outcome of this regulatory intervention. If implemented, the ban could reshape the landscape of derivatives trading in the United States, reinforcing the distinction between legitimate financial instruments and speculative bets on non-financial events.

▲  85 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Israel Sinks Syria's Navy

Israel said Tuesday that it had destroyed Syria’s navy in overnight airstrikes, as it continued to pound targets in Syria despite warnings that its operations there could ignite new conflict and jeopardize the transition of power to an interim government.Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that the Israeli military had “destroyed Syria’s navy overnight, and with great success.” His remarks appeared to confirm Israel’s responsibility for the destruction documented in the Syrian port city of Latakia, where photos showed the smoldering remains of ships sunk at their dock.Mr. Katz said that Israel’s military “has been operating in Syria in recent days to hit and destroy strategic capabilities that pose a threat to Israel,” although he did not indicate what new or immediate risk Syria’s navy presented to Israel, which has the most powerful military in the Middle East.Israeli warplanes have conducted hundreds of strikes in Syria since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad on Sunday, according to war monitors. Israel has characterized its operations as defensive, saying its military was striking suspected chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria to prevent them from falling “into the hands of extremists.”“From here, I warn the rebel leaders in Syria: Those who follow Assad’s path will end like Assad,” Mr. Katz said.As the Assad government fell to the rebels over the weekend, Israeli ground forces advanced beyond the demilitarized zone on the Israel-Syria border, marking their first overt entry into Syrian territory in more than 50 years. An Israeli military spokesman on Tuesday denied reports that the military was advancing on Damascus. The spokesman, Avichay Adraee, said the military was inside a buffer zone between Israel and Syria and at other points “in order to protect the Israeli border.”Earlier Tuesday, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, called on Israel to halt its “very troubling” military operations there, and said de-escalation was needed. “We are continuing to see Israeli movements and bombardments into Syrian territory. This needs to stop,” Mr. Pedersen told reporters in Geneva.

▲  1511 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

CEO Shooting Suspect Had Manifesto That Criticized Healthcare Companies

A man is being held for questioning in connection with last week’s killing of a health insurance executive in Midtown Manhattan, the police said.The man being questioned was identified as Luigi Mangione, 26, the police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, said at a news briefing. He was identified in a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pa., after an employee recognized him and called the authorities at about 9:15 a.m. on Monday.Mr. Mangione was carrying identification with his name on it, along with fake I.D., according to law enforcement officials.Mr. Mangione showed the police the same fake New Jersey identification that the man believed to be the gunman presented when he checked into a hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on Nov. 24, a senior law enforcement official saidWhen Mr. Mangione was approached in Altoona, he had a gun, a silencer and other false identification cards similar to those they believe the killer used in New York, according to one of the law enforcement officials and a person briefed on the investigation. The gun was described as possibly being a so-called ghost gun, assembled from parts purchased online.Mr. Mangione was also carrying a handwritten manifesto that criticized health care companies for putting profits above care, according to two law enforcement officials.Mr. Mangione is in custody on local charges, the official said, possibly related to presenting the fake identification to the police. He has not been arrested or charged in connection with the killing.New York police investigators are traveling to Altoona, in western Pennsylvania, about 280 miles from the city, according to one of the law enforcement officials.

▲  2011 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8hrs8H

Trump Slams Zelensky As "Foolish" Over Russian Missile Strike

President-elect Donald Trump went out of his way to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over his decision to fire missiles into Russia, characterizing it as a “foolish decision” and even “the most dangerous” geopolitical development in recent days.Trump has met with Zelensky twice since winning the 2024 election. After speaking with the war leader in Paris last week, Trump declared that “He wants to make peace.”“He thinks it’s time, and [Vladimir] Putin should think it’s time because he’s lost — when you lose 700,000 people, it’s time. It’s not going to end until there’s a peace,” he continued.In his “Person of the Year” interview with Time, however, Trump took a detour from a question about Iran to blast Zelensky.“Iran recently plotted to have you assassinated. What are the chances of going to war with Iran during your next term?” asked Trump’s interlocutor.“Anything can happen. Anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation,” replied Trump before turning his attention to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Elsewhere in the interview, Trump was asked if he would “commit to protecting Ukrainian sovereignty?”“I would like to see Ukraine—okay, ready? You have to go back a little bit further. It would have never happened if I were president. Would have never happened—” he answered.After being pressed about whether he would “abandon Ukraine,” Trump said, “I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon. You understand what that means, right?”

▲  208 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7hrs7H

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  179 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8hrs8H

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies