HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olsen@kailasa.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:29:45 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>Could someone explain to me why anyone would ever consider
>voting for Ross Perot?  Does he have any platform other than,
>"I'm obscenely rich, and you're not" ?

Here's how I see Perot's basic appeal:

He's rich enough to finance his own campaign.  This says nothing
about how good a president he would be, but is does mean that he
can have a chance of being elected, and won't be dismissed as a
'fringe candidate'.  Do I think this a good state of affairs?  No!
But that's the political reality in this country.

He doesn't have to accept large bribes (euphamistically known as
'contributions') as Bush and Clinton do.  He will therefore not be
beholden to the special interests dispensing the "mother's milk of
politics".

He has shown in Texas that he won't lie to the public in order to
be all things to all people.  This was part of Tsongas' appeal as
well.

He has shown himself capable of managing a large organization
efficiently.  Many people rue the fact that the skills needed to
get elected to an office are not the same skills needed after
being elected.  It's painfully obivous that the Federal
Government could be run more efficiently.

He doesn't have a platform yet, because he's not campaigning yet.
What he's asking people to do now is give him a chance to be heard
in November.  It's worth giving him that, to keep Bush and Clinton
on their toes if nothing else.
--
Jim Olsen     olsen@mit.edu
From: kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:29:51 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <2202@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>(Tarl write about the House voting for pres if the national election
results in no >50% winner.  It is proposed that this might happen
with Perot in the race.)

I don't have a copy of the constitution on line anymore so I can't
check the appropriate article.  What about the electoral vote?  I
would assume that a three-way split could only occur if several states
each went for each candidate.  That would mean that Perot would have
to have a majority in several states.  An important question is what's
the mechanism for determining a state's electoral vote if no one gets
+50% in that state.  Does the biggest winner get the whole state?  If
that's the case, it will be a lot harder to get the three-way split a
the national level.

-- 
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control
a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not
crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our
government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA
Distribution: ne
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:41:56
	<2202@transfer.stratus.com> <2204@transfer.stratus.com>
	<2218@transfer.stratus.com>

   [US Constitution deleted]

Unbelievable.  The one paragraph that has the most bearing on this
thread was fucked up.  Other than that it was fine.
From: paetzold@sw.stratus.com (Kevin Paetzold)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tsongas
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:25:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I had a hard time understanding why Tsongas pulled out when he did.  It seemed
to me that Conn. was an obvious win and I sensed that he had enough momentum
going into NY that he could have gotten airtime just because of the media 
wanted his reaction to the Clinton scandal of the hour etc....

After watching an interview with him his explanation makes sense.  He apparently
has realized that Clinton would probably get the nomination and that Bush
would probably win (and at the time it was starting to really look like the
economy might be turning around which after all is Bush's only real weakness
with the electorate).  Tsongas has come out of this race a very strong candidate
for 96.  He has better name recognition, he has a message (I am not Santa Claus),
he has a more or less national campaign organization in place, he has a list of 
contributors he will be able to tap again in 96, and he will have some influence 
at the 92 convention.  

Tsongas claims he did want to risk allowing Clinton to define him in the NY media 
without being able to fight back as it could destroy his message/image.
Since it is unlikely Tsongas can get the nomination, the potential downside 
and high risk of getting back into the race is too great.  Unless Clinton
self destructs Tsongas would be a fool to get back into the race.

Besides the above, Tsongas would look indecisive and would appear to have been a 
quitter (when the going got tough he quit).  These are not the qualities 
people should look for in a president of the United States.
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The Process of Choosing a President
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:07:53 GMT
	<kujlp2INNe6c@news.bbn.com>
	<1992Apr14.194451.27667@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
	<2201@transfer.stratus.com> <11448@ksr.com>
	<DRG.92Apr15115238@bubba.ma30.bull.com> <11473@ksr.com
Distribution: ne
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <11473@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes:

   (Or are you seriously saying you prefer the current Constitutional
    methods of electing a US President?)

Currently, the Congress doesn't choose the president unless we have a
very close race.  Since that rarely ever happens, we have for all
intents and purposes, a direct popular vote.  I think the American
public has done a piss-poor job of electing government but what's the
alternative?  Let the congressidiots choose the president?  Oh boy.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The Process of Choosing a President
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:42:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.46700
Distribution: ne
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <DRG.92Apr16170959@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>In article <46627@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>   In contrast to?  The average computer nerd? The average libertarian 
>   adolescent?
>
>The average anally retentive, pretend economist.


Seems like an empty set here. The first condition is, no doubt, sufficient
to allow for genuine status. But, I'm still not sure what lucky section of
the populace deserves to pick the President under Guilderson-ism.
The ignorant public is dying to cheer our new saviors.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:30:25 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <GORDON.92Apr16113601@lugh.think.com>, gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
> In all of this, I've never even stated that I support Perot
> -- a fact you conveniently ignore.

Not at all - You support putting him on the ballot. I believe you stated
you want people to support putting him on the ballot even if they don't
want him to win - as I believe you stated was your position.

Adding a 3rd non-winning candidate to a ballot simply increases the
likelyhood of a president who had two-thirds of the population vote
against him. And makes it possible that the decision will simply be
handed to the house to decide, regardless of what the vote was. In
today's era of negative voting (people voting more against a candidate
they find unacceptable, than for a candidate they really want), a
3-way vote makes for indeterminacy.

As for the generic issue of a two-party system. There are several examples
of true multi-party democracies (no party has a majority) out there. Italy
and Israel come to mind. In my mind, neither is an example of sterling or
stable government.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:41:15 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <ku3nscINN8up@news.bbn.com> rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>Could someone explain to me why anyone would ever consider
>voting for Ross Perot?  Does he have any platform other than,
>"I'm obscenely rich, and you're not" ?

His other platform is "I'm not a politician", which, given the current
political climate, is quite popular. 

Wasn't he connected to Ollie North's "Have slush fund, guns, narcotics, 
and a friend in the justice department" operation? 



>
>-- 
>Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: regnery@wpi.WPI.EDU (George Matthew Regnery)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: ne
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:41:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.060847.16163@kronos.com> ed@kronos.com (Ed Baker) writes:
>
>Wasn't he in the book, "Where Eagles Dare"?  This was a non-fiction work
>by Ken Follet, and I really enjoyed it.  Ross Perot was the billonare who
>surrounded himself with what he called, "eagles".  These were exceptionally
>talented employees who went the extra distance.  When they got trapped in
>Iran (or somewhere), Ross went the extra distance for them.

  The book is titles _On Wings of Eagles_, and is indeed by Ken Follet.
Ross Perot was the billionaire and the president of Electronic Data Systems,
which made its money by contracting to do the computerization for a health
care system.  It did several medicare or medicaid ones in the United States,
and was also doing one for the Shah.  Two employees got arrested before the
Khomeni came into power, on trumped up charges, basically because EDS was
pulling out because Iran had not paid them, and because the government 
wanted to show that it was a little anti-corruption too, although the two
arrested were never arrested.  Perot hired  a mercenary to organize a
team of former employees to go and get them out of prison, and drive
them to Turkey.

>
>Anyway, Ross Perot was not a major character and I reccommend the book.
>
Yup, it was a pretty interested read, and true.



-- 
GEORGE M. REGNERY Worcester Polytechnic Institute '92 Operations Research
I like  investing, international   ** Investitionen, internationale Wirtschaft,
economics, Conservatism and elec-  ** der Konservatismus, und elektronische
tronic music.  I can speak German. ** Musik gefallen mir.  Ich kann Deutsch.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: ne
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.194451.27667@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> olsen@kailasa.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:
>>>(me) You people seem unwilling to put Perot on the ballot unless
>I didn't say you would.  But it seems that you won't do anything
>(like sign a petition) to put him on the ballot.  And there's the
>slight implication that anyone who does must be crazy.
>
>You want something like a Perot position paper.  I do too.  But
>Perot has said, basically, "get the signatures first".  I'm
>disenchanted enough with Bush and Clinton to consider a that
>having a third viable candidate would be a good thing, even before
>seeing a clear platform.  I may or may not vote for him, but I at
>least want to have the choice.
>--
>Jim Olsen     olsen@mit.edu


And you seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't want to go out
of their way (like signing a petition) to get Perot on the ballot
is somehow defective.  You have made this clear by your persistence
in continuing this thread.  

As for Perot, I don't see why an obscenely wealthy man who can finance
his own campaign is for that reason any better than a typical candidate
that must obtain contributions from a lot of people.  At least the
typical candidate is going to be looking out for a group of people,
not just himself.  Perot might turn out to be magnanimous and then
again he might not.  Since I personally don't respect anyone on the
planet who believes he is entitled to such personal wealth as Perot
has taken for himself, I will not lift a finger for his purported
candidacy.  Like the two netters you have been haranguing, I simply
don't understand the attraction of a Perot candidacy.  However, I
don't think you're crazy for thinking otherwise, just coming from
a different set of values.

-Nick Jovanovic


Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: kellyb@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Polnet
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:05:53 GMT

Is there anyone in this news group that is currently participating in
the Polnet simulation conference that is current taking place.  This is a forum
that is much like model leagues.  If anyone has, or is, participating I would
really appreciate hearing from you.
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The Process of Choosing a President
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:50:54 GMT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)

In article <DRG.92Apr15115238@bubba.ma30.bull.com>, drg@bubba (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
>In article <11448@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes:
>
>   I predict the next time this process is used to choose a president
>   will be the last time before it is supplanted by direct popular
>   vote.
>
>That would be a disaster.  The average American is too much of a moron
>to make an intelligent, reasoned choice.  For instance, just look at
>the current state of government.

I'm glad to see that you eschew the use of smileys (as do I).

(Or are you seriously saying you prefer the current Constitutional methods of
electing a US President?)
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:46:58 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: ne
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

In article <1992Apr13.155636.18909@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) writes:

|> You people seem unwilling to put Perot on the ballot unless and
|> until he has persuaded you to vote for him.  While that is a valid
|> approach, some of us are willing to put him on the ballot now, so
|> that he'll have a chance to persuade us to vote for him later.

I didn't say that I want to prevent anyone from being on the ballot.
I'm simply asking why people are interested in having him run--and
I haven't yet seen a good answer, at least not here on ne.politics.

Your last message contained only the vaguest of generalities--
he won't take large contributions, he's rich enough to
finance his own campaign, he "won't lie", he's a "good manager".
None of this constitutes even the most slender plank of a platform.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:17:48 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

[Yeah, I know. I'm following up on my own post.]

In article <2201@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> ....Think David Duke.

I might not have been sufficiently clear on this. David Duke got the support
he did, largely as a protest vote. There were three candidates in Louisiana,
a colorless incumbent governor (Buddy Roemer), a crooked former governor
(Edwin Edwards), and David Duke (who needs no further description).

People were somewhat unhappy with the current governor, and voted for one of
the other candidates. It's pretty clear the Roemer would have won handily 
against either one, but the voters weren't given that choice. As a result of
their protest votes, they had to hold their noses as they voted for a crook.

Having a three-way race at the federal level doesn't result in a runoff,
but it does result in simply handing authority for the election to someone
else, cutting the voters out of the loop.

Given the number of protest votes being cast this year, having a three-way
race seems an invitation to disaster. You should only put that third name
on the ballot if you want that candidate to win - not simply as a holder
for protest votes. Remember - he could always win.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:42:02 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Kronos Inc. / Waltham, MA
Disclaimer: This posting is a personal opinion and not that of Kronos Inc.

rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>Could someone explain to me why anyone would ever consider
>voting for Ross Perot?  Does he have any platform other than,
>"I'm obscenely rich, and you're not" ?

I don't get it either.  But they're active outside our front door, Ron:
this afternoon I was approached in front of the Demoulas supermarket
here in Somerville by a woman collecting signatures for the Perot
campaign.

Ugh.

-rich
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: The Problem with Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:24:26 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA


The problem with Perot is that he doesn't understand (yet) that a person
with his financial resources and willingness to spend them
(he claims he is willing to spend $100 million in the next 6 months)
can do much more *good* and constructive things inside the U.S.A.
and get much faster results, than any mere president of the united states, 
as head of the federal executive branch, could possibly hope to accomplish.

Is Perot the type of person who wants to be able to pass on vast
amounts of wealth to his children? He claims not. 

So there you have it, from now until the end of his life he could be
spending about $300 million dollars a year on exactly the kinds of
domestic agenda that he is interested in, and he could do everything
the way he is used to doing, with the kinds of employees he is used
to dealing with. 

Call these activities pilot programs if you will. It is certain that
the ones which worked would have a vast influence on public opinion
and policies at all levels of government.

But as head of the federal executive branch he would find it almost
impossible to get even the smallest of PILOT programs set in place quickly
through congressional action if those policies were in even the smallest
way disliked by special interest groups in any range of the political
spectrum.

Perot was not able to deal with General Motors effectively...

And how is he going to deal with congress? If they won't pass
a program quickly will he mix in his own wealth and fund it anyway?


-George Carrette.

Still waiting for Godot.


Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: ne
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:56:36 GMT

>>(Ron Newman) Could someone explain to me why anyone would ever
>>consider voting for Ross Perot?  Does he have any platform other
>>than, "I'm obscenely rich, and you're not" ?

>(Rich Braun) I don't get it either.  But they're active outside our
>front door, Ron: this afternoon I was approached in front of the
>Demoulas supermarket...  Ugh.

You people seem unwilling to put Perot on the ballot unless and
until he has persuaded you to vote for him.  While that is a valid
approach, some of us are willing to put him on the ballot now, so
that he'll have a chance to persuade us to vote for him later.
--
Jim Olsen     olsen@mit.edu
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: The Process of Choosing a President
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:09:59 GMT
	<DRG.92Apr15115238@bubba.ma30.bull.com> <46627@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Distribution: ne
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <46627@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In contrast to?  The average computer nerd? The average libertarian 
   adolescent?

The average anally retentive, pretend economist.
From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Petition Committee address
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:11:38
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: ne
	<kujlp2INNe6c@news.bbn.com>
	<1992Apr14.194451.27667@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.234238.4186@cs.yale.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU's message of Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.234238.4186@cs.yale.edu> jovanovic-nick@CS.YALE.EDU (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

   And you seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't want to go out
   of their way (like signing a petition) to get Perot on the ballot
   is somehow defective.  You have made this clear by your persistence
   in continuing this thread.  

I, for one, appreciate his postings on Perot.


   As for Perot, I don't see why an obscenely wealthy man who can finance
   his own campaign is for that reason any better than a typical candidate
   that must obtain contributions from a lot of people.  At least the
   typical candidate is going to be looking out for a group of people,
   not just himself.  Perot might turn out to be magnanimous and then
   again he might not.  Since I personally don't respect anyone on the
   planet who believes he is entitled to such personal wealth as Perot
   has taken for himself, I will not lift a finger for his purported
   candidacy.  Like the two netters you have been haranguing, I simply
   don't understand the attraction of a Perot candidacy.  However, I
   don't think you're crazy for thinking otherwise, just coming from
   a different set of values.

The point isn't that Perot is obscenely wealthy.  The point
is that he is a viable alternative to Clinton and Bush.  We
may appreciate other third party candidates, but here we
actually have one that could finance his own campaign.  I am
incredulous that a man intelligent enough to earn billions
of dollars would be willing to run for president.

The choice between Clinton and Bush puts me personally in a
quandary.  I have in the past been a staunch defender of the
two party system.  George and Bill have forced me to
reconsider -- their corruption, their unwillingness to stand
up for individual rights, their suppression of opposition,
but especially the way they are foisted on us by their
respective party hacks.  If someone could please explain why
I should support either Clinton or Bush, please do!

I am going to sign a petition for Perot.  Not because I
support him, but because his presence in the campaign might
made it focus on issues.  For the brief period of time when
the Democratic race had > 2 candidates, the candidates did
talk about issues (at least Harkin, Tsongas, and Kerrey
talked about what they considered to be issues).  The
candidates did not talk about each others affairs,
marriages, wife's law firms, roles in the DNC, etc. etc.
etc. ad boringum.  Perhaps I vainly hope that a viable third
national candidate would have the same effect.

--gordon

   -Nick Jovanovic