HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au (Frank Horowitz)
Subject: We Interrupt this FlameFest... (expats & the electoral college)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: CSIRO Geomechanics
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 07:55:35 GMT

...for a semi-serious (and nonpartisan!) question.  My wife and I are U.S.
citizens, living in Australia.  We are intent upon voting in the upcoming
presidential election, but do not know the answer to this question:  

Do expatriate citizens have any representation in the electoral college?  

All answers (in particular factual ones :-) will be cheerfully accepted.

(Donning my flameproof BVDs.) We now return you to your normally scheduled
catfights.

__________________________________________________________________
Frank Horowitz;                            frank@mlb.geomechanics.csiro.au 

CSIRO-Geomechanics, P.O. Box 54, Mt. Waverley, Victoria 3149, AUSTRALIA
Tel. (03)881-1247 (Int'l +61 3 881 1247),FAX (03)803-2052 (+61 3 803 2052)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:22:39 GMT

buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>X-        talk.politics.misc.usenet, alt.politics.elections.usenet
>X-Cc: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu, qn@queernet.org


>Should homosexuals have equal rights in job opportunities?
>78% YES
>17% NO

>Are Gay Rights a threat to the American family and its values?
>44% YES
>51% NO

I suppose these two votes are at least a step up from what I expected.
I am especially surprised by the 51% NO on the second question.

>Is homosexuality an acceptable alternative lifestyle?
>41% YES
>53% NO

Again, although a majority disagreed, I am pleasantly surprised at
the high YES margin.

(should gays be hired in these positions? Percent saying yes)
>83%	Salesperson
>64%	A member of the President's Cabinet
>59%	Armed forces
>59% 	Doctors
>54%	High-school teachers
>51%	Elementary-school teachers
>48%	Clergy

I am quite surprised at the high numbers for the armed forces, especially.
Although, I don't see how a gay female doctor would necesarily be any different
with women patients than male doctors, for example.

[...]

>Do you think the candidates have:
>					CLINTON		BUSH
>Gone too far in supporting gay rights	16%		5%
>A position that is about right		44%		41%
>Gone too far in opposing gay rights	3%		27%

>"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
>receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
>and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.

78% percent believe that gays should not be subjected to job discrimination
(or at least have that legal protection). Again, the REpublican Party's
platform and campaign is saying, "LESS IS MORE". If they can't handle diversity
within their own party (on abortion; some polls indicated that anywhere from 
40-75% of delegates opposed pro-life amendment), why should we trust them
to be in charge of a much more diverse mass of people, the United States
citizens?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians don't have a problem with
CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Lets not blame reagan for
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:43:43 GMT

In article <716378053.11@iphase.FidoNet.Org>
Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender) writes:
 
>
>         Year                Deficit (millions of dollars)
>         ====                =============================
>         1982                $127,940
>         1983                $207,764
>         1984                $185,364
>         1985                $212,260
>         1986                $221,140
>         1987                $149,661
>         1988                $155,141
>         1989                $153,319
>
>Who was responsible for these monster deficits?  The "liberal, Democratic Congress"?  Not entirely.  Don't forget the pipe-dream of a 600 fleet navy,
>the monster defense buildup under the Gipper, and the $600 hammers bought by the Pentagon, in addit
>ion to those '82 tax cuts for the wealthy. For these deficits, and the rampant and sometimes wasteful spending of the Reagan defense apparatus, I
say,
>loud and clear,       >>>THANK YOU RON!<<<
>
 
Another poster who doesn't understand that you can't compare raw numbers
independant of inflation, growth in GNP and so forth. If he did he'd see
the trend to falling deficits. That's why economists use %GNP to look at
the actual effect of a given level of debt on growth.
 
>Yep, we all splurged in the 1980s.  Except, of course, for the government when it came to education, health care, and infrastructure. But, I think
you
>forget a few things that have deepened this recession and have threatened the American business cl
>imate in the long run, such as deep tax cuts for the wealthy that fueled the jump in the deficit, shifting of the tax burden to the middle class, the
>runaway corporate debt that spurred the boom in plant closings in the late '80s, and the ever popul
>ar leve
>
>
>
>buyouts that helped give the corporations more of a debt headache and the '80s a reputation for greed.  For all this, I say, in part, Thank you, Ivan
>Boesky, Michael Milken, Carl Icahn, and fellow Raiders, but also a big thanks to the man who set th
Well, another display of ignorance. The number of jobs went up during that
time. Industry isn't static. The poster also, for some reason, groups together
a number of unrelated people under (I suppose) the general idea that all
financiers are basically evil men. Of course, Michael Milliken floated the
issues that financed Sprint and Turner cable and many other new startups
that employ thousands, but never mind that. Boesky was a small time fraud
who made money on inside trading- which has nothing to do with the point at
hand.
>
><<<Tom Cavender>>>
>
      --mike
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:22:45 GMT

In article <BuF3t0.6tK@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>The main issue therefore becomes for me: "What is the appropriate
>>role for government to play in issues on which there is no moral
>>consensus?"  As a libertarian I conclude that the only appropriate
>>answer is to stay the heck out of it and leave the decision to the
>>individual who will bear the moral consequences of her own
>
>If I were dictator, I'd say the fetus is a person at some viability age,
>and has an implied contract with the mother to be carried to term at
>that point.  Before the point of viability, the fetus as no rights to
>protect.  If the mother does not abort before the point of viability,
>she accepts the implied contract.
>
The viability of the fetus is not even a valid defense of abortion.
The reason being that we do not allow other family members to pull
the plug on those who, for example, are hopelessly confined to an
iron lung to keep them alive.  Such persons are not "viable" without
outside interference in this case.  Likewise, the fetus is not viable
without outside interference (the mother).

If Voyager found a one month old fetus in the sand of Mars, everyone,
including the pro-choice people, would be claiming "life on Mars".
However, if Voyager found a one month old fetus in the womb of a
woman, it would not be viable and could be burned with a lot of 
other medical waste.

I do think that abortion, in some form, is here to stay but I wish 
that we could understand it for what it is instead of rationalizing
a very difficult decision.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Some state polls
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:41:15 GMT

ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey) writes:

>In <1992Sep7.153823.9803@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>>One more [poll] I heard about: in Tennessee, Clinton/Gore only lead by 4 
>points.
>>Kind of surprising in Gore country. Could be a fluke.  
>I'm not surprised.  After all, Dukakis couldn't even raise a fight in Texas 
>with Bentsen on his ticket.  I figure the Dems. see any state in the old
>South (besides Arkansas) that goes for them as gravy and an indication
>that things are going very, very well.  Rather they look at the South as
>a Bush base where they can give him trouble.  The more he has to work to
>nail those states down the less emphasis and energy he can devote to New
>Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan.

I think Tennessee will eventually go back to Bush, as will Ohio. When you
look at the electoral map, it certainly seems as if the entire election
will hinge on only about 3 states - those being Michigan, Missouri and
Pennsylvania. While I hear much talked about other states in the region,
I think that most of them are probably already taken. It would seem that
Illinois is safely Clinton's this year, seeing how thin Bush's 1988 margin
was, and in light of the popular Carol Mosely Braun. On the other hand,
Ohio and New Jersey are easily Bush states, seeing the wide margins he won
by in 1988, and with New Jersey still reeling from Gov. Jim Florio.

This leaves the three states mentioned above: Michigan, Missouri and
Pennsylvania. Bush is working on Michigan very heavily, and is likening
himself to a Missouri native, Harry Truman. With the narrow victories
that Bush achieved in Pennsylvania and Missouri in 1988, however, these
two look promising for Clinton at the moment. But then again, the governor
of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, doesn't much like Bill Clinton, and would
probably rather see Bush win his state, so I wouldn't expect to see Gov.
Casey campaigning for Clinton. Personally, I'm looking at Pennsylvania
as THE key state. If Clinton cannot win Pennsylvania, he can't win. 
.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: Re: Email Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM to me
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 09:40:45 GMT

In article <exuptr.491.716163335@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>"Well, if you'd let me write $300 billion in hot checks every year,
>> I could give you the illusion of prosperity too!"
>>   -- Lloyd Bentsen, '88 vice-presidential debate.
>
>>We'll be paying for Reagan's alleged boom for the rest of our lives, thank you.
>
>Congress.  Congress.

That's how you party-line Republicans answer everything these day.
Rather defensive, and you sound kind of like a broken record.

>                      The president doesn't make bills

If you know so little about American government, please refrain from
discussing it with such smug conviction.

>                                                        or write checks

If you know so little about finances and economics, please refrain
from discussing them with such smug conviction.

>thank-you-very-much.

You're welcome.
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:24:51 GMT
Organization: (none)

In article <NEERI.92Sep9134509@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.210623.6097@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>
>>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes.  Fulani got only 217,219.
>>How is that "almost as many"?
>
>Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
>of Dukakis.

Interesting mathematics.

Half as much and "almost as many" are "close enough".
Sounds like some recent budget and tax bills.

>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>>
>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
>>PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  
>
>... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
>MORE THAN 5%.

I also omitted Carter.
Yes, Anderson was either an independent or a renegade Republican (your call).
He was not a "third-party" candidate.

My statement stands:  In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes 
than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  

>And the New Alliance Party (what the hell do the stand for anyway ?) is
I don't think even they know the answer to that!

>America's fourth-largest party by any measure.
OK

>Party #2 got almost 100 times
>the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
>Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
>consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.

Interesting Math, again.  

You have a weird, non-objective definition of "reasonable".

If the Demoblicans consistently got only half as many votes as the Replicrats,
who got more votes than all other parties put together, would you still say
that the two parties are "about in the same league"?

bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus.  ~~~    and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h    ~o~  Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie        /|\  Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:36:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.181831.22586@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>
>I'd like comments as well, but I'd really enjoy seeing poll results from
>certain states, including MO, IL, PA, MI, OH, NY, MA, RI, NJ and CT.
>
>-ACF
>

   Polls from last week in Missouri.   Statewide, Clinton leads by about 6
points.  However, some other details are interesting.  In St. Louis County
(a relatively conservative suburb of St. Louis -- and Bush needs strong
support from suburbs to win), the results were Clinton 48-37 over Bush.

Greg 
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu

Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Fundies distort republica
Date: 08 Sep 92  18:50:00 EST

-> On the other hand, we can address:
-> -the damage to our society caused by the rejection of many
-> traditional moral (NOT religious) values. We can oppose
-> immoral governmental programs without making immorality
-> illegal.
-> -the democrat emphasis on "rights" without responsibilities -the
-> moral repugnance of abortion as a method of birth control, and the
-> reasons that there should be some, but not too many,
-> state restrictions on it.
-> -the anti-family, anti-moral extremists who have gained such a loud
-> voice in the democratic party.
-> -the legitimate gay issues (end of discrimination and condemnation)
-> as contrasted to the illegitimate gay issues (gays as a legally
-> priviledged
-> minority groups; equal time to gay viewpoint in schools). What government programs are "immoral"?  What anti-moral, anti-family extremists have seized control of the democratic party?  And, just what are legitimate gay issues?

I am very concerned that we are seeing, in the GOP, a return to the good olddays of Joe McCarthy.  George Bush's Sunshine patriotism and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan's activities are, I'm sure you agree, repugnant to most of America and most Republicans.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
(Democrat)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Educational Spending
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:23:15 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

In article <1992Sep8.175155.25747@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
 
>
>William December Starr writes
>> Don't private schools generally have a lot more leeway than public
>> schools in deciding which prospective students to admit and in
>> disciplining/expelling troublemakers and poor students?  If so, it
>> isn't too surprising that, all other things being equal, the private
>> schools turn out a better "product."
>
>  Exactly.  In my limited experience, most private schools operate on
>principles similar to those of an insurance company.  That is, if the risk you
>carry is to great, you are dropped.
>
Is your argument that this explains all the variance? Because if that's
the case, it's a weak argument. There are also private schools that
*specialize* in troublemakers, and those that specialize in poor students.
 
An important difference is that the parents of private school students
actually care about their children's education. Unfortunately the poor
parents who are about their children's education can't do anything about
about it as they have middle-class liberals to protect them from school
choice programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12912 talk.politics.misc:44995 alt.politics.marrou:1128 alt.politics.bush:4814 alt.politics.clinton:5030 alt.politics.perot:1441
From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Previous Libertarian showings (was Re: New poll results)
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:29:29 GMT
Organization: (none)

In article <1992Sep9.130248.12177@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>jking writes:
>>                                 The American Independents under
>>Wallace were the last third party to win electoral votes...
>
>It must have been a maverick elector, but I notice that the Libertarians
>garnered 1 electoral vote in 1972. So when it's all said and done, at least
>it won't be a shut-out. But mark it down as an error, not an RBI.

Actually, there were 3rd-candidate electoral votes in most of the last
dozen elections.  However, Wallace (1968) and Hospers (1972) were the
last ones cast for other than Dem. or Rep. candidates (i.e Bentsen &
Reagan).  Also, Wallace was elected as a Dem. many times before running.

Hospers is the only non-D/non-R to get an electoral vote in a few decades.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Lets not blame Reagan for everything....
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:24:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep14.133850.15984@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>Speaking of President Reagan, did anyone see Bush's speech in Orange County
>yesterday? He was going on about the "shining city on the hill" that Reagan
>built. What is this shining city? Is it a schizoid delusion?

No, it is in Orange County.  It is being rented,
because the occupants cannot afford to buy it.

>I.e., psychotics build castles in the sky and schizophrenics live in them?
>
>Seriously, what is it?

Vacuous sloganeering.  Don't worry about it
(but don't buy it!!)

>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13000 alt.flame:12803
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:36:24 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA15070; Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:38:04 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12088; Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:38:02 -0700
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (lib404.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB32);id AA03577; Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:37:29 EDT for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB15);id AA21734; Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:36:27 EDT for qn@queernet.org
X-To: soc.motss.usenet, alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet,

X-        talk.politics.misc.usenet, alt.politics.elections.usenet
X-Cc: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu, qn@queernet.org


Should homosexuals have equal rights in job opportunities?
78% YES
17% NO

Are Gay Rights a threat to the American family and its values?
44% YES
51% NO

Is homosexuality an acceptable alternative lifestyle?
41% YES
53% NO

Which apply to you?
43%	Have a friend or acquaintance who is gay
20%	Work with someone you know is gay
9%	Have a gay person in your family

Should homosexuals be hired in each of the following occupations (percent saying
yes):

83%	Salesperson
64%	A member of the President's Cabinet
59%	Armed forces
59% 	Doctors
54%	High-school teachers
51%	Elementary-school teachers
48%	Clergy

How do you feel about each of the following homosexual rights?
					APPROVE		DISAPPROVE
Health insurance for gay spouses	67%		27%
Inheritance rights for gay spouses	70%		25%
Social security for gay spouses		58%		35%
Legally sanctioned gay marriages	35%		58%
Adoption rights for gay spouses		32%		61%

In general, how important is the issue of gay rights to your presidential vote?
40%	Very, or somewhat important
57%	Not too, or not at all important

Do you think the candidates have:
					CLINTON		BUSH
Gone too far in supporting gay rights	16%		5%
A position that is about right		44%		41%
Gone too far in opposing gay rights	3%		27%

NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by the Gallup Organisation of 547 registered voters
by phone August 27, 1992. Margin of error +/- 5%.

Letters to the Editor, with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number,
 should be  sent to:
			Letters Editor
			NEWSWEEK
			444 Madison Avenue
			New York, NY 10022

Or faxed to: 		212-350-4120

You may also phone NEWSWEEK's Telephone Mail Desk, 1-900-990-MAIL and voice your
comments. The cost is $1.95 for the first minute, $.95 each additional minute.
Calls and letters may be edited for space and clarity.

---
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12555 talk.politics.misc:44045 alt.politics.marrou:1063 alt.politics.bush:4271 alt.politics.clinton:4258 alt.politics.perot:1403