HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr12.002048.3807@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
  
>Hindsight is great, but perhaps someone can tell me what they would
>have done instead.  Feel free to start in 1988 and go from there (since
>we are talking about Bush.)  Also, bear in mind that Bush couldn't have
>operated from hindsight as we can now.  

I haven't seen the previous comment, so I might be on thin ice with
my comments.  It can be argued that to call a cease fire after 100
hours (an arbitrary, symbolic number, having no bearin on reality.  100
is a round number.  Beyond that, what does it have to do wiht the military
situation?  The US at the turn of the century had plans for a 48 battleship
navy.  Battleships are named after states.  How many states did we have
then?  Hmmm.  Nice round numbers should NOT be trusted) of ground combat
is a violation of the usual tenets of war, that is to complete a victory.
Of course, I can't say much about the political pressure to end the
war.  There may have been other reasons to end it then, but I not sure.
I think the British were surprised by Bush's decision, so he may not
have consulted the coalition for this.

>
>  I'm not particularly enamoroured of Bush's handling of the end of the
>Cold War, but I'm much happier with it than say FDR's handling of the
>beginning of the Cold War.  

Please explain.  FDR was kinda dead by then.  It can be argued
that Truman started the Cold War.

>
>  I also guess I may have implied more than I meant to.  My feelings are that
>I think Bush is "as good as we are likely to get" mostly because I haven't
>heard but one speech from Clinton on this issue.  Since foreign policy
>is the one area the President really does have control over, I consider
>it a very important issue.
>
>  In the future, Clinton's views are likely to become more known.  Perhaps,
>I will change my mind at that time.

Leslie Gelb of the NY Times recently put up a report card on Bush's
foreign policy.  While noting that he seemed superb on Cold War
style policy, he was having great difficulty adjusting to his New
World Order.  Bush's thinking is supposed to be a number of years
behind the times (which, I guess, is better than Reagan's post-WWII
Pax Americana type of thinking).  True, Clinton's lack of published
views is a concern, and I would like to hear more from him before
November.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 01:01:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>
ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:

>Well, the dopey American public is well on its way to making the U.S. a
>first rate third world country.  And there aren't too many third world
>countries with stable governments.  We NEED a strong leader since we
>obviously can't do it ourselves.

Speak for yourself, bud.

I don't WANT or need a paternalistic government runing my life any
more.

   don
From: achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The Democratic psyche
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:42:34 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Dept of Mathematics
Originator: achin@math

I just thought of the following analysis of the Democrats:

   Superego:  Tsongas
   Ego:       Clinton
   Id:        Brown

What do you think?
-- 
Andrew Chin    Dept. of Math.    Texas A&M U.    College Station, TX 77843
achin@math.tamu.edu   Probably not TAMU's exact opinions.   (409) 845-1924
                * Fighting racism is not a special interest *
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Re: Brokered Democratic convention?
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
	<vcjj1ln.tssmith@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:23:04 GMT


``In fact, there is never a binding obligation for a delegate to vote
for "his or her" candidate.''

I was under the impression that on the first ballot the committed
delegates had to vote for the candidate they were committed to.
--
-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown and lack of thinking
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:42:28 GMT

In article <SOLOMON.92Apr13182951@chaos.utexas.edu> solomon@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Solomon) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.224246.22803@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>
>   This family of four spends half of our income on rent
>   We gross $15,000 and pay $2,295 in social security taxes.
>   We get standard deduction and exemptions of $5,700 and $8,600 respectively.
>   This makes our net income $700.  The 15% tax on this is $105
>   We get earned income credit of $769.
>
>   Total tax is $1631.  
>
>   On Brown's system we deduct our $7800 rent paid and 13% comes to $936.
>
>   The payroll tax in the current system is what kills us poor people.
>
>I'm completely confused by this.  I earn $26,000 a year, and my social
>security taxes are $1620.  How is it that your social security tax is
>so much more than mine, while your gross income is quite a bit lower?
>Is there a difference in the social security tax rates, depending on
>your situation?  I always thought that it was a flat percentage of
>your first ____ dollars.
>
>                   Tom Solomon
Social Security Tax is 15.3%  half of this is hidden from you by law
the other half is written on you weekly paycheck.  The hidden half
is cometimes called Employers contribution.  It doesn't matter
what its called or whether it is hidden, it comes out of the employers
budget for payroll, and hence the full amount is effectively a tax
on you.
  I am self employed, so I get to see the half that I hide from
myself before paying myself.
-Ted
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Primaries
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:45:26 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

There are clearly some misconceptions on this list vis a vi primaries.
Political parties are private organizations whose activities are
protected from government intrusion (to various extents) by the freedom
of association.  The government can not really regulate how a political
party chooses its candidates.  The courts generally slap the wrists of
any government entity that tries to regulate the behavior of a political
party.

A political party may decide to choose its candidates by caucus,
convention, primary, or a combination of the above.  Delegates to a
convention may be chosen by numerous means, including primaries and
caucuses, or by other conventions (e.g., a state convention could choose
delegates to a national convention).  It could even be that the party
chairman gets to select the candidates.  All that really matters, from a
legal standpoint, is that however the party's bylaws specify that the
candidates are chosen is adhered to.  If the bylaws are violated, then a
member of the party would have grounds for a court action against the
party leadership.

YOU HAVE NO INHERENT RIGHT TO VOTE TO CHOOSE YOUR PARTY'S CANDIDATE.
That is purely a matter of party bylaws within each state.  If you don't
like how your party chooses its candidates, then you can associate with a
different party or pressure your party's leadership to change the bylaws!

By the way, this is why the restrictions on ballot access that the
Democrats and Republicans have put in place to keep 3rd party candidates
off the ballot are so disgusting.  The party leadership largely controls
who gets to represent the party on the ballot, and only the
representatives of the two major parties get (in most states) automatic
ballot access.  Other candidates have to petition their way onto the
ballot, and in some states it takes 10s of thousands of signatures to do
it.  So, effectively, you have a few political hacks who choose the two
candidates you get to vote for.
.............................................................................

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:711 bit.listserv.politics:5738 talk.politics.theory:1991
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,bit.listserv.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:10:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Whether flat taxes reduce taxation on the poor probably depends
largely upon how the flat tax is designed and who we are talking
about.

My criticisms of the Brown proposal are 1) lack of a standard
deduction, 2) no exemption for necessities in his VAT tax, 3) a lack
of definition for how the VAT would be collected (a retail sales tax
would be the easiest and least distorting way to collect it, but some
Brown supporters claim that's not what Brown is proposing--I don't
know if even Brown knows what he's proposing), 4) a general lack of
specifics on the plan.  Will he tax services, for example?  Will sole
props be taxed as individuals or businesses?  Or both?  5) a general
unwillingness to defend his calculations against criticism.

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Ok, so who do you want? (was Perot for President)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Mar30.055147.11728@Princeton.EDU> <22572@goofy.Apple.COM>
	<Apr.8.14.32.36.1992.13321@math.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:16:04 GMT


cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

   earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

   > Like we have a zillion choices here.  Talk about drawing a bad
   > hand.  Can I get a new set of cards (candidates) please?

   Ok, I'll bite.  Who do you want?

Well, I, for one, want Andre Marrou.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government governs best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Primaries
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:25:12 GMT

In<6485@shodha.enet.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:

>There are clearly some misconceptions on this list vis a vi primaries.
>Political parties are private organizations whose activities are
>protected from government intrusion (to various extents) by the freedom
>of association.  The government can not really regulate how a political
>party chooses its candidates.  The courts generally slap the wrists of
>any government entity that tries to regulate the behavior of a political
>party.

I agree this is how it SHOULD be, but it isn't true.  PRIMARIES ARE
PUBLIC EVENTS.  They use TAX MONEY, state officials to count the votes,
etc.  And there are LAWS which affect how you can get on the primary
ballot.  As long as this is the case, they are PUBLIC, NOT PRIVATE.

If the parties paid all the costs for running the primaries, they could
do this.  Otherwise, no.

>A political party may decide to choose its candidates by caucus,
>convention, primary, or a combination of the above.  Delegates to a
>convention may be chosen by numerous means, including primaries and
>caucuses, or by other conventions (e.g., a state convention could choose
>delegates to a national convention).  It could even be that the party
>chairman gets to select the candidates.  All that really matters, from a
>legal standpoint, is that however the party's bylaws specify that the
>candidates are chosen is adhered to.  If the bylaws are violated, then a
>member of the party would have grounds for a court action against the
>party leadership.

>YOU HAVE NO INHERENT RIGHT TO VOTE TO CHOOSE YOUR PARTY'S CANDIDATE.
>That is purely a matter of party bylaws within each state.  If you don't
>like how your party chooses its candidates, then you can associate with a
>different party or pressure your party's leadership to change the bylaws!

>By the way, this is why the restrictions on ballot access that the
>Democrats and Republicans have put in place to keep 3rd party candidates
>off the ballot are so disgusting.  The party leadership largely controls
>who gets to represent the party on the ballot, and only the
>representatives of the two major parties get (in most states) automatic
>ballot access.  Other candidates have to petition their way onto the
>ballot, and in some states it takes 10s of thousands of signatures to do
>it.  So, effectively, you have a few political hacks who choose the two
>candidates you get to vote for.

>Hal Berenson	

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

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:724 talk.politics.misc:17725
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:17:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

Has Perot discussed "the true cost" of imported goods.  It is
a growing free trade issue, and i haven't heard anyone but 
Brown even come close.  The true cost includes damage to 
environment and worker safety.  Are people literally being 
poisoned to make your bargain goods?  Is some great
natural resource being destroyed for a short-term gain?
These questions are becoming more important in the discussion
of free trade and I welcome any statements made by candidates
regarding these issues.
From: hhuang@m4-035-19.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Sold Down the River...
Keywords: deficit
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:55:35 GMT


Yes, and as Brown noted, "Everybody knows what happened to Tsongas in Florida."
Tsongas suggested that wealthier Social Security recipients get less money, and
Clinton punished him for it.  Clinton also misrepresented Tsongas' position on
Israel.  Result?  Tsongas lost Florida.  Clinton, who has "laundry lists" on
how to "change" things, and the guy won't even allow cuts to the wealthy,
country club Social Security recepients.  You know, unless I read badly, an
article in probably Newsweek detailed an article on Clinton's position.  What
was Clinton's position on Entitlements?  Freeze spending and reduce 3% per
year.  Ha!  The liar!

Your 65+ year olds always have high turnouts, primaries, congressional,
governal, presidential.  People say their votes don't count, but every vote
against pork and entitlements is a vote against the powerful voting block of
our aged ones who generally vote: 

1) big government
2) socially conservative (but this takes a backseat to Social Security checks)

Under the Libertarian chart, this pattern is called Authoritarian.  Yes, these
old folks are the "down-most" of us all, and it is none too humorous when
Democrats have to pander to them.  When 46% (lowest figure I've heard,
Republicans have mentioned 52%) of taxes goes towards Entitlements, and our
taxes aren't even enough to pay off the annual deficit, let alone the public
debt, then something is very wrong.
From: rap@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gators for Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:50:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.


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)



Also, for anyone interested:  Henry Ross Perot is now an official 
candidate for the presidency of the United States in 1992, he has 
filed the appropriate forms which were required to get him on the 
ballot in Texas (the first deadline state) and in Florida at least.

In order to complete the forms it was necessary to name at least a
temporary Vice-Presidential candidate.  He has named James Stockdale
as that potential candidate.  Stockdale is a retired Admiral in the
United States Navy, he was a naval aviator in Vietnam and spent 
eight years as a prisoner of war there.  I have not had time to 
do a more extensive background check on Stockdale.

Another potential vp candidate (but not the one on the forms) is 
a man named Warren Rudman, of whom I know absolutely nothing.

Any responses?


************************************************************************
* We own this country, damnit--government should serve the people...   *
*                   <<<H. Ross Perot for President>>>                  *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  Hey, these won't even be MY opinions tomorrow.      rap@cis.ufl.edu *
************************************************************************
From: gandhi3@husc10.harvard.edu (Srinivas Gandhi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Carol Moseley Braun
Summary: Any news?
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:16:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Department of Government


	Well, it's been quite a while since the Illinois primary.
Does anybody in Illinois have any news on the Senate race?  Any
recent polling numbers or other newsorthy events would be much
appreciated!

-- 

Srinivas P. Gandhi
gandhi3@husc9.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: How Perot can make Clinton President
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:50:28 GMT

How Ross Perot can make Bil Clinton President:

Come November, the election results are as follows:
Bush    45%
Clinton 30%
Perot   20%
others   5%

	Since Busch came did not get a clear majority, the congress (House, 
Senate or both, I don't remember - sorry) would then choose amongst the top
three candidates.  Voting along party lines, Clinton wins and becomes
President.

hmm....

This could happen if I understand things correctly.  If memory serves me,
something like this DID happen in the early 1800's.  Imagine what would happen
if Clinton came in third!
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The Capricious Us
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:18:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: pop-tart.ISBELL.92Apr7211833
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


I've been following the campaign closely and I hear a lot of stuff off
Headline News and read a lot of stuff in the New York Times, New
Republic and various pseudo newszines like Time and Newsweek and I'm
curious:  why is the media going after Clinton, Brown etc like mad
dogs but ignoring Bush?

Truly, I don't really care about Clinton's affairs or his drafting
stuff but I mean why hasn't anyone asked Bush about his alleged
affairs?  His legislation to help his brother?  His economic policy?
Etc, etc?

Is this the presidential equivalent of the incumbent effect or what?
Or will this happen after June?

Personally, I think we should just lock Bush in a room with Peter
Jennings and Ted Kopel (name recogition you know) and force him to
answer some questions for ten hours.  Then we should do the same for
everyone else.  Then, we should get some really evil commentators to
ask them questions.

Really, whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit that he's the
sort of spineless political opportunist everyone claims we're
revolting against.

In the end, it isn't the media's fault, it's ours.  We want the fixes
but we don't want any pain for it.  Idiots.  Remember when everyone
was saying "our children will have to pay for the deficit"?  Well, all
those people were in their sixties, so this means they were talking
about us.

Sigh, no one to vote for.  Bush, the veto president, will never stop
looking at polls (remember, he'll start trying to look good for
history); Clinton is almost as shameless; Brown is living in an
alternate reality; Tsongas won't do much, really; Perot wants us to
become Singapore; and Marrou is a Libertarian (and after years of
discussion with them--most of which has been good--I've come to one
conclusion: the Real Libs(tm) and I have fundamental disagreements on
what constitutes reality--as opposed to ideology--and the ones who
acknowledge my reality are just slightly disaffected versions of what
the Repubs and Dems are and so offer very little that is different.
IMHO, of course.).

I suppose the best solution is to vote for a more united govt; either
a Repub Pres/Congress or a Dem Pres/Congress so at least we can get
*something* done.  Given cooperation and real debate, either party
could move us in the right direction on many things.  It's the other
things that I'm worried about....



And while I'm at it, isn't Rubbergate the stupidest scandal we've
every had?

--
Peace.
                     "There is a level of cowardice lower than that 
                      of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
                                               - Ayn Rand
                           ------
Don't just adopt opinions |  \/  | I am Charles Isbell, Homeboy from hell,
      develop them.       |  /\  | living axiom and anonymous absolute ruler
                           ------  of the cosmos.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:32:25 GMT

In article <EduqBi200WBNM87np4@andrew.cmu.edu> to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oligino) writes:
>
> 
>>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.  
> 
>
>    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.  

  Many leading Democrats didn't like the Democratic budget either.  They
merely passed it because they knew Bush would Veto it.  Even then, it
barely made it through.  

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:924 alt.fan.dan-quayle:1038