HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hhuang@m4-035-12.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Clinton
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:00:13 GMT

  This is from Tom Ferguson's article "Democrats Deal for Dollars" on page 476
in 4/13's The Nation, if anything, an anti-Republican periodical.
  "Running out of money, by contrast, was one problem that Clinton never had to
face...This practically guarantees what is in any case obvious from a close
study of the campaign's policy pronouncements: that, for all its election-year
posturing about "change," a Clinton Administration would not depart radically
from the Bush team's policies, particularly in regard to the critical
questionsof international trade and finance.  At most, there would be more
investment in"human capital" and some small programs targeting investment in
civilian technology.  A Clinton Administration is also likely to strike a
different tone on race relations even as it declines to spend money on cities.
It would also nominate different kinds of judges to all levels of the federal
bench, and take a slightly softer line than the Bush Administration on the
Israeli settlements issue.
  What a Clinton Administration almost certainly will not do, however, is put
forward a sweeping health insurance reform.  If anything is clear from the FEC
roster of contributors, it is that the Arkansas Governor's lack of clarity
about his plans for medical insurance is strategic.  The lists are full of
donations from various parts of the medical-industrial complex, whose interest
in blocking major reform is all too apparent.  Trial lawyers are also abundant,
suggesting that a Clinton Administration will not soon be tampering with the
fabulously costly laws on liability or otherwise attempting to regulate
expensive lawsuits (a cause the Bush Administration is now taking up, both to
strike a populist pose and to satisfy its insurance constituency)."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:775 talk.politics.misc:17881
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:58:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: (none)

In article <1992Mar31.175315.2396@rice.edu> iltiss@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Steven Patrick Iltis) writes:
>...
>Another good point: theoretically, a candidate could win the election with
>far less than 50% of the vote. [I calcualted the figure several years ago, and
>if I remember correctly, a candidate could win with 30-35% of the popular 
>votes.]  This is, of course, a very extreme case. I did the calculation simply
>by figuring that just over 50% of the voters in the smallest states voted for 
>the winner, and added up enough states to win in the electoral college. If 
>there's interest, I could calculate it and give and exact figure.

Does that make any difference?
NOBODY EVER received a MAJORITY vote for President!
Not even George Washington, who got a unanimous vote from the electoral
college, but less than half the population actually voted.

Presidential winners only received a majority (or plurality) of the VOTES CAST 
in an election, but usually a majority of the people stayed home.  These are 
protests, NOT abstentions.  Many of the stay-at-homes are really voting for
"none of the above".  (I, for one, wish they'd be less lazy about it, and at
least do a write-in!)

Even in "landslides" (like Reagan's in 1984 or Nixon's in 1972), the winner
got votes from only about 25% of the population.

>Boycott Microsoft
OK, I'll bite: Why?  
(Or was this just another case of random .sig noise disease.)

BAM  /|\Master of the Tripods of Haephestus./|\    -/s/-  Bruce A. Martin
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
# include discaimers.h     /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS          /***** CALL 800-682-1776  *****/
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Summary: Honest infromation, rather than regulation
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:41:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45756
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr14.200409.18348@nevada.edu> mlcole@nevada.edu (Michael L. Cole) writes:
>when i go to a resaurant, i *EXPECT* the food i order to be healthy.  i don't
>really like playing russian roulette with my stomach.

Define "healthy."  Whatever "standard" you impose, some will become sick by
food meeting the standard, and others can tolerate twice the contamination.
Even just-washed hands have germs on them.  

			.....................

>i personally feel that "regulations" are necessary to protect innocent 
>consumers from the fraud that would otherwise run rampant without them in 
>place.

We do not need so many regulations, but we need ONE law:  If relevant 
information is withheld, the withholder is liable.  One bad place here
is that of medicinal chemicals; the regulatory body has probably killed
more people than all of the misused drugs.

>i will also agree that many regulations need revising to insure consumer safety
>but at a minimum interference to the business that is being regulated.  

This is not so.  We do not need a go/no go system, but an information system.
There are some places where interactions require regulation, such as bumper
heights, but making things idiot-proof means that only an idiot can get the
proper use from them.

>the only disinterested 3rd party i know of that could be relied upon and held
>accountable for regulating an industry is the local, state and federal 
>governments. 

The evidence is otherwise.  The best regulation available on products is
the UL label, which is a private group.  _Consumer's Reports_, while highly
inadequate, still gives far more information than can be obtained from
government agencies.  The housing industry knows how to build good homes,
at least somewhat cheaper than the present, and their has been a little
sense put into the building codes.  Only a government would do something
as stupid as setting regulations on the "efficiency" of cars without 
regard to their intended uses.

We could greatly reduce tha automobile death rate if vehicles were limited
to 10 miles per hour.  But then someone in a rural region would have to
slaughter his own meat, and it may still spoil.  It is necessary to 
consider risks against benefits, and in most cases, the individual needs
to get the information to do it.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle)
Subject: Re: Vote for Hitler, Stalin or Marrou
Summary: None of the above is already the majority!
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 20:55:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Illinois State University

In article <1953@ra.nrl.navy.mil> ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
>Keywords:  Tough Decision
>
>> Article <6483@shodha.enet.dec.com> From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
>
>> So, does that mean that you'll wait until the day before the election and
>> check the polls, then vote for whoever is in the lead so it's "your
>> {wo}man" that's elected?  Does it mean that you'll blindly vote for
>> whatever candidate, no matter what their views, based on party
>> affiliation?  If your choices were Hitler, Stalin, or Andre Marrou would
>> you vote for Hitler or Stalin because they represented the two major
>> parties?
>
>Gee thats a tough one .....
>
>Thats like choosing which of the four plagues are your favorite.
>
>In this case the best vote would be "None of the Above";  I would
>feel very guilty about electing any of them.
>
Funny, most americans feel the same way.  NONE OF THE ABOVE today means 
don't vote, an unfortunate trend which is becomming more and more wide
spread.  Perhaps it is less a sympton of apathy and more of a realization
that, regardless of who is elected, the government really doesn't give a
flying fuck about any of us, unless our gross income tops several million
dollars.

Jean.

BTW - This is only a comment on what is going on.  I DO vote and encourage
others to do so, but abstaining and effectively saying NONE OF THE ABOVE
is a tempting alternative.
-- 
Jean Liddle
Computer Science, Illinois State University 
e-mail:  jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
         jliddle@katya.acs.ilstu.edu
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:49:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer ) writes:

>4) When did this country start going down the shitter?  When did the divorce
>   rate start rising?  Control of whether a person is married of divorced
>   isn't an issue as it will never happen on a governmental scale anyway.

Don't tell the Chinese that!  (ref: recent _Economist_ article on
government control of marriages and divorces in China)

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:59:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.211627.10781@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>I am so sick and tired of reading and listening to all this rot about how
>less regulation by the government will make us more free.  It is time to wake
>up and smell the coffee.

<stuff deleted to save space>

>LIbertarians are saying they are for freedom so no more regulation.  Do
>you really think unbridled economic competition is going to get us
>more freedom and better choices.  NO WAY, the companies will get together
>and form monopolies and give you bad products at high prices.

While you have some good points, e.g., reasons for anti-trust laws,
worker safety laws, etc, I must say that I disagree with the notion that
the government exists to protect us from our own foolishness.  I'm NOT a
Libertarian (at least, not a capital "L" libertarian) but I do feel
that the government interferes with too many of our choices in life.

The government has no business deciding whether abortion should be "allowed".

The government has no business deciding that I haven't the intelligence or
competence to own a handgun.

The government has no business saying that I'm a criminal for smoking a
joint after dinner.

The government has no business forcing me to use my taxes to support
the military in a string of immoral wars.

   don
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:04:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Apr13.202702.2425@udel.edu>, lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes...

>taxes on the rich. God forbid the rich pay there fair share! 

Who decides which persons are "rich"?  Who decides what is a "fair
share"?  Oh, I see, if you have more "guns" then I have then you are poor
and I am rich and you'll take from me whatever you want.THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS, AND YOU, ARE SAYING.  "Fair share" is just a code
phrase for "you've been more successful than me and I want to live off of
your success".  You are just a greedy bastard.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:912 talk.politics.misc:18197
From: solensky@animal.clearpoint.com (Frank T. Solensky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:27:28 GMT
	<1992Mar31.192012.2999@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<kthodpINNm7m@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
	<1992Apr1.010956.17820@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp.


In article <1992Apr1.010956.17820@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
   Several of the Alabama Democratic electors announced that they were
   withholding their electoral college votes from Kennedy; I believe they
   did this before the election.  Yet all of the Democratic votes in Alabama
   are counted towards Kennedy's total in the conventional histories.

Just out of curiosity -- did the ballots in Alabama specify who the elector
was, or just the candidates?  If the latter is the case, I would claim that
a vote for Kennedy/Johnson was a vote for Kennedy/Johnson and not "uncommitted".

--
				-- Frank Solensky / Clearpoint Research
Red Sox magic number: 161
From: kra@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Kenneth R Aron)
Subject: Hitler/Stalin/Marrou
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:53:34 GMT

	I unsubscribed to this newsgroup because I got sick of
the bickering going back and forth.  I recently resubscribed
because I was bored...

	Someone posed a question about Hitler, Stalin and Marrou
(sp?) running for President.  Eliminating the fact that this is
such a stretch of reality, I'd vote for Hitler or Stalin over
Marrou.  You see, they're dead.

Ken



Kenneth R. Aron                 NYS EMT-Defibrillation            | |  / /
kra@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu      Columbia Area Volunteer Ambulance | |/ / 
                                Columbia University, NYC          | |\ \
"EMTs do it as if their life depended on it"   	                  | |  \ \
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
	<1992Apr8.051451.25520@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.051451.25520@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.220456.18537@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>> 
>> 	A Libertarian votes is NOT a vote thrown out.  If you beleive
>> Libertarian philosophy, THEN VOTE LIBERTARIAN!  That *is* why people vote. .
>> . the point of voting is not to vote for someone who will win but for
>> someone who you think will represent you the best.  Besides, if you really
>> care about who wins, if he gets many votes this year, then maybe *next* time
>> they'll get more media coverage and even more votes.

>WRONG! The point of voting is to have some say in how the country is run. If I
>vote libertarian, I will have absolutely no effect on who becomes the next
>president of the United States.

Do you mean to say that if the results turn up: 30% Libertarian, 27% Democrat,
27% Republican, 15% Perot, and 1% all others, the Libertarian candidate would
not win? If so, why wouldn't he?
--
 Mitchell Gold    |\  Can't you feel them circling, honey? Can't you feel 'em
 sundance@rpi.edu | \  schooling around? You've got fins to the left, fins to
------------------+--`  the right, and you're the only bait in town.
                  |            RPI anthem -- Fins, Jimmy Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot waiting to be drafted
From: pmahler@StarConn.com (Paul Mahler)
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:24:28 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot waiting to be drafted

Perot has said for years that he would only run if her was
drafted by the American Public.  He said that he would
only run under these circumstances because only someone
with a mandate like this can give the government back
to the people in-spite of the special interest groups.

This is not an attempt on Mr. Perot's part to be coy
or run without running.  It is a practical issue where
he will run if drafted. He is also smart enough to realize
that this won't be fun.   Current politicians, the media
and special interest groups are sure to try to undermine
the campaign by whatever ethical or unethical methods they
have at their disposal.  Only the mandate of the American
public will allow Mr. Perot to be effective when he is
president.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mahler                   internet: pmahler@StarConn.com
Consultant
1800 Market St. #257          voice: 415.327.6737
San Francisco, CA 94102       fax: 415.322.1603

"I work for myself; there's no one else to blame it on." 
-------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mahler                   internet: pmahler@StarConn.com
Consultant
1800 Market St. #257          voice: 415.327.6737
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dan@ektools.ssd.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Subject: Re: Gators for Perot
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 16:55:49 GMT

In article <35027@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> rap@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter) writes:
>
>A bit of news from the Gators for Perot, the University of
>Florida group dedicated to getting H. Ross Perot on the 
>ballot:
>
>We had a meeting tonight to discuss Perot's views.  We came
>up short on a few vital points, however.  Since I'm sure 
>that nobody on this group minds finding out more about 
>ANY candidate, I decided to post this query for information
>on the net, in case anyone can help me...
>
>Question: Deos anyone know any SPECIFICS about Perot's views
>	on the following topics, which we came up mostly 
>	blank with?
>
>		1) Health System/Insurance
>
>		2) Environment
>
>		3) Abortion (more specific than 'pro-choice')
>
>		4) Energy Policy
>
>		5) Middle East (specific reasons for 
>				opposition to gulfwar)
>
>		6) Civil Liberties (has a nasty appearance of
>			            a gun controlling, drug 
>				    fighting, intruding dude)
>
>

If you are asking this question you have missed the whole point of
Perot.  He has no views.  His electronic town hall offloads the
resposibility of having any views.  So who needs Perot.  Any babbling
idiot will do.  That's his ticket.  The babbling idiot platform.  No
matter what they ask him, he says "That's our highest priority!"  With
the state of American management, and this guy being one of their big
ones, how can anybody take him serious.  You might as well vote for
Mickey Mouse or Winnie the Poo.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:23:15 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr10.053918.7032@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.001425.10901@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>|> What got me steamed up was this simplistic notion that less
>|> regualiton equal more freedom.  A simple and untrue notion. One
>|> must look at the regulaiton and what it is doing.  It can be furthuring
>|> freedom.  LIke worker safety standards, or health codes for 
>|> restaurants.
>
>OK, lets take these rediculous statements one at a time:
>
>1) Worker safety standards futher freedom.
>
>2) Health codes for restaurants further freedom.
>
>Both prevent people from doing things. My question is, "How do these regulations
>increase freedom?"

Well, if each person had a intrinsic "freedom unit", and more
of them are alive because of aforementioned regulation, then
there'd be more freedom, no?

But more seriously...

Perhaps the original poster could have come up with better "freedom-
furthering" regulation.  However, the reply did show the usual
Libertarian lack of concern about people's health and safety.

May I point out that anti-trust regulation does increase competition.
Does freedom = competition?  There certainly would be more free choice
in goods and services for the consumer.  Though, of course, it reduces
the freedom of corporations from forming cartels, so I guess I just
must be wrong.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:28:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I'm curious about this too.  I can't find anyone who will say anything
good about Bush, but the polls seem to show him ahead.  Is it merely a
function of name recognition and the amount of mud the Democrats have
slung at each other?

I have to agree with the original poster, however, that a lot of the
people I talk to say they'll reelect Bush.  None of them can give me a
reason why, though.

--Scott
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:57:50 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
	<1992Apr13.180710.22279@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

 
>Oh sure, the "soak the rich and give everyone a $300 tax cut" deal.
>How is that supposed to stimulate the economy?   The capital gains
>tax cut was not to be found in it either.  It would have lowered it
>maybe one or two percentage points.  
 
>I think Clinton and Tsongas said that if they were President they would
>veto what the Congress passed. 
 
>WFT

    Let us not forget that Bush made a big deal about what average
americans would gain from his package- First time home tax credit for
instance. All aspects of the plan that would have helped middle class
americans were removed from the package he sent to congress with the
cavetate that those issues would be adressed later. In escense what Bush
put forth to the american people was not what he asked congress to give
them.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Tsongas pulled a boner on health care
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:32:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: igor.1992Apr6.193253.18852
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <MEGGIN.92Apr4131108@epas.utoronto.ca> meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
(David Megginson) writes:
>Is the Canadian health care system being talked about that much down
>there? The general feeling in Canada is that Americans barely know
>that we exist ;-)

Yep, National Health Care is a pretty hot topic now and the Canadian system
is often used as an example of what is possible/impossible.

Unfortunately, as you've seen in this news group, there is also a pretty
strong disinformation campaign being put forward by a number of sources:
Libertarians, the American Medical Association...

Thus, any information you can provide would be extremely valuable!

   don