HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:17:23 GMT


In article <1992Nov9.192836.14619@athena.mit.edu>, 
kevinf@athena.mit.edu (Kevin A Frisch) said:

> I was just wondering, are those of you who are against term limits
> for Congress also in favor of repealing the two term limitation on
> the President?

Sounds good to me.  Heck, I'm even tentatively in favor of removing
the minimum age requirements for office as well.  (And that "natural
born Citizen" requirement for the presidency has _got_ to go...)

I think the main reason that there's a perception of a double-
standard in some people's positions ("I'm vocally opposed to term
limits on Senators and Congressmen, but silent when it comes to
Presidents") is that there simply isn't any great debate going on
(yet) about presidential term limits.  If there was, we'd probably
learn a lot more than we ever wanted to know about where various
people stand on the subject.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23339 alt.politics.marrou:2196
From: notbiff@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jake Davis Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.kibo,alt.sex,alt.postmodern,alt.religion.scientology
Subject: VOTING ??????
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:58:34 GMT
Organization: Default organization

HAY EVERY B0DY T0 DAY I WENT 2 V0TE BUT THE PLACE WAS L0CKED & THEIR
WAS N0 0NE THEIR ............. THE ELECT0IN IS T0DAY, RITE ????//

0R IS IT T0M0R0W ??????????

					-- Y0U"RE PAL, NELS0N !!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.144603.1361@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Propose how you think they should work.  How do you provide a company
> the chance to return to profitability without letting them compete?
> Or do you simply break them up, fire everyone, and sell off the
> pieces?  That would probably work great for the folks buying up the
> pieces, but you'd quickly see the industry drive itself into the
> ground until there were only one or two providers left.
 
There are lots of intermediate steps between the current bankruptcy 
system and having no system.  One complaint I've often heard is that the
current system allows them to stay in bankruptcy for a long time, or to
continue to cycle in and out of bankruptcy, filing four or five times. 
You could limit the amount of time they could spend in bankruptcy
protection, or set a cap on the number of times.
 
Anyway, what makes you think most bankrupt companies get broken up? 
Continental was attractive enough to have at least two companies bidding
on it. 
 
> This situation is analogous to claiming that the auto industry in this
> country has been profitable for the past several years because you can
> point to Chrysler making money this year.  Given the HUGE losses by
> both GM and Ford, the industry is still a money loser.  It works the
> same way for the airlines.
 
And what you are saying is analogous to saying that since US auto makers
are losing money now, the industry is going down the tubes and never makes
any money.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: yost@adobe.com (David Yost)
Subject: Re: Congressional check scandal
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141825.20904@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>I keep asking this question and not getting an answer: How is it
>irresponsible to write a check that you know won't bounce?

I totally agree.  If there was a problem there, it was that Congress
gave themselves an interest-free overdraft protection perq unavailable
to their bosses (us).  Not that some members of congress used it.

 --dave yost
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23168 talk.politics.misc:59037
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Date: 9 Nov 1992 05:20:20 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Nov8.030451.26863@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>They showed the Iran-Contra memo right before the election because it
>was RELEASED (as part of the Weinberger indictment) RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
>

The real blame for that fiasco rests with the special prosecuter's office.
Frankly, I think it stinks to high heaven.  

The prosecuter in the case had been a donor to the Clinton campaign.  His
law partners had also been major donors, to the tune of some $20,000,
collectively.  

Now, the memo was released two or three days before the election.  At
that point the candidate can't refute it; he only gets negative press,
as the press reports on the contents.

(I'm not commenting on the truth of the memo or Bush's account of events.
the truth of the matter is irrelevant to the sleaziness of the timing.)

The special prosecutor's office has run amok.  It is long past the time
for the government to pull the plug on this fiasco, which has burned
up over $30 million dollars in exchange for a few misdeamenor plea-bargins
and some highly creative interpretations of "crimes."  If neccessary the
president should pardon everyone ever indicted.  Drive a wooden stake
through Walsh's heart.  Whatever it takes to get these sleazebags
out of washington.


-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
	<1992Nov3.095734.12310@Princeton.EDU>
	<16894B72A.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1992Nov4.025149.901@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.025149.901@panix.com> paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker) writes:
    I thought abc was going to list "other" percentages. It seems that Perot,
   Bush, and the president all add up to 100%. I sure wish the commentators
   would explain this gross distortion.

This year, at least, it appears not be be a gross distortion.  Counting up
all the votes of everyone who got more than 100 votes (other than the big
three), they don't even come to 1% all together, which is definitely an 
aberration.  It looks like a lot of third party supporters defected to Perot
in an attempt to get *any* third party candidate elected.

Do not, however, let the media use this as an excuse in the future ("Well,
geez, guys, you all didn't get even 1% all together in '92, and you want us
to report your true results this year?").
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23379 talk.politics.misc:59411
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:01:00 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <bill.721344029@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>
>Oh what a baby you are.  Reagan and Bush have stonewalled on this
>issue for 6 fucking years, shredding records, deleting files, and
>indictments were lost because of struck deals with Congress.

>Yes it was politics.  Yes it deserved to be.  Yes Bush got thrown out
>on his ass.  But isn't holding up this vital piece of evidence deceiving
>the people of the U.S.?  Don't we have a right to know that Weinberger's
>notes contradict Bush's sworn testimony?  So Clinton's folks pulled
>a fast one. This is war.  Tell me the Moscow stuff wasn't digging in
>as well.  

>Face it.  Bush lost.  Go cry somewhere and dream of a future indictment.
>Go FAR FAR AWAY.
	As stated previously, I don't personally believe the 
Clinton campaign was told about Walsh's supposed plan to time the
release of information on the Weinberger case.  HOWEVER!  Your
statement says that even if it is true, that it's alright.  It most
certainly is not since there are ethical problems with this
abuse of power.  Digging up info and starting rumours about a
Bush mistress or Clinton's war protests are just that... Ethical and
possibly legal abuse is something entirely different.
	We'll have to hope that some electronic dating or other
proof halts an investigation.

>If there's anyone to blame for the timing, it's BUSH - all of this
>should have been out in the open years ago.  So fuck him.  He's 
>history, and he won't pull this shit anymore.
	You mean 1 month ago.  That's when the original release of
info on Weinberger was supposed to be.  How do you suppose that the
president was going to get this "out in the open years ago" anyway?
The investigation hasn't exactly been slowed by him-- or am 
I forgetting something?

Rocky Giovinazzo
giovinaz@hks.hks.com
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Pundit Prognostications
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1d4ffjINN2rr@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K.  
Sherman) writes:
>                      Rate the Pundits!

OK.  According to popular election predictions the top 3 and bottom 3 are

> 	    Popular vote percentage     Electoral Votes
>             Clinton  Bush   Perot        Clinton  Bush
Actual		43	38	19	      370   168
> Frank Luntz   42      37      20            400   138
> Theo. Lori    45      37      16            352   186
> J. Glassman   42      41      17            250   288

> J. Germond    49      42       9            325   213
> McLaughlin    45      46       8            262   276
> Sen. Wirth    54      40       6            380   158

According to electoral college vote the top 5 are
> C. Matthews   47      39      13            363   175
> Sen. Wirth    54      40       6            380   158
> Theo. Lori    45      37      16            352   186

> McLaughlin    45      46       8            262   276
> Fred Barnes   44      45      11            261   277
> Ralph Reed    42      43      15            246   292

The also rans
> Ed Rollins    46      39      15            323   215
> Werthheimer   45      40      14            317   221
> Bob Novak     47      39      14            280   258
> Dave Gergen   45      42      12            308   230
> E. Clift      47      41      12            388   150
> Ann Stone     45      43      11            340   198
> W.Schneider   46      42      11            319   219
> M.Kondracke   48      40      10            351   187

So it looks like the overall best prognosticator was Theo. Lori and the overall  
worst was McLaughlin.
--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your enemies."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Jesus of Nazareth
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23755 talk.politics.misc:60066 tx.politics:7288
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:11:32 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <BxGnos.IHF@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>And the loser in that senario is the American public which ends up paying
>more money for lower quality cars.  Japan does have more import
>restrictions on cars than the US, but European automakers have made
>some real inroads.  The biggest problem is that Japanese consumers
>still consider US cars junk.  That's not surprising since American 
>consumers also think Japanese cars are of higher quality.  How can
>the US car companies expect to sell cars in Japan when they've been
>losing market share in the US!

For starters we can start by educating American consumers about the
high quality of American cars.

People have forgotten that Japanese cars became popular during the
70's because they got good fuel economy.  Not because they were "high
quality".  It takes Hyundai 10% of the sales price of their cars to
convince you their cars are worth buying.

As for the current quality, a recent Baldridge award article gave
defects per vehicle at .7 for Japanese and American cars.  With
repairs, maintenance, and insurance being lower for American cars,
it's pretty stupid to jump up and down about how great Japanese cars
are.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: mohr@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gordon Mohr)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:33:09 GMT


>In article <JASON.92Nov6092924@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>}	If it wasn't for Reagan, Bush would have never got into
>}office.  If people didn't want more of Reagan, Dukakis would be the
>}president right now. (that thought makes gives me the shivers)

That thought makes my mouth water. With a ballooning deficit, the house
post office and bank scandals, a potential stalemate w/Saddam still in
Kuwait in the middle east, and a continuing recession, a Dukakis
presidency would've done for the country what the Florio governorship
did in New Jersey: give the Republicans veto-proof majorities in both 
houses. (and, of course, the Presidency too)

- Gordon Mohr
- mohr@cory.berkeley.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23460 talk.politics.misc:59557 alt.activism:18618
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: U.S. election results (was Re: Other candidate totals:)
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:14:43 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Here are the latest numbers from AP.  Note that Fulani has considerably less
than previously reported, due to miscounting some of Marrou's NY votes as
belonging to Fulani.

a2274 us-pres-sumall
BC-US-Pres-SumAll,100
11-06-92 16:23,
By The Associated Press
   Here are the latest nationwide vote totals for all candidates on
the ballot in the race for president with 99 percent of the
nation's precincts reporting.
   Bill Clinton, Dem 43,860,888 - 43 percent
   George Bush, GOP (i) 38,220,427 - 37 percent
   Ross Perot, Ind 19,266,862 - 19 percent
   Andrew Marrou, Oth 283,790 - 0 percent
   Bo Gritz, Oth 97,754 - 0 percent
   Lenora Fulani, Oth 80,595 - 0 percent
   John Hagelin, Oth 42,547 - 0 percent
   Howard Phillips, Oth 39,845 - 0 percent
   Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,960 - 0 percent
   Ron Daniels, Oth 25,833 - 0 percent
   James Mac Warren, Oth 25,084 - 0 percent
   Drew Bradford, Oth 4,605 - 0 percent
   Jack Herer, Oth 3,539 - 0 percent
   Helen Halyard, Oth 3,067 - 0 percent
   J. Quinn Brisben, Oth 2,789 - 0 percent
   None of These, Oth 2,525 - 0 percent
   John Yiamouyiannis, Oth 2,316 - 0 percent
   Honest Jim Boren, Oth 981 - 0 percent
   Earl Dodge, Oth 953 - 0 percent
   Delbert Ehlers, Oth 876 - 0 percent
   Eugene Hem, Oth 395 - 0 percent
   Isabell Masters, Oth 395 - 0 percent
   Robert Smith, Oth 290 - 0 percent
   Gloria La Riva, Oth 178 - 0 percent
   

--f2

----------------------
  "You may wait here in the sitting room,
   or you can sit here in the waiting room."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: The good news
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:48:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.191430.27360@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>
>I have been considering the results of the last 24 hours and have
>determined that there is indeed a bright side. I at last will be
>able to bash a president without remorse of any kind. Slick Willy
>fooled less than half of the people in this country and that says
>a lot, probably the people who should be most ashamed of themselves
>are the ones who voted for Ross Perot, and delivered us into the
>hands of Comrade Clinton.
>
>Did you notice Perot's insult of his mindless followers and the
>White House. He said "I have been the one you have used to
>irritate the oyster, and out has popped a pearl." Yup, he managed
>to get enough people to vote for him to insure that the pearl (Slick
>Willy) could be visited on us.
>
>We have truly gotten what we deserve with this one folks.
>
>        Steve Martin
>        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

Hate to burst your bubble, but I would have voted for Marrou 
had not Perot been running.

And to (without permission) almost quote Ms. Magazine --

I would vote for a gerbil before I'd vote for George Bush!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.003259.3551@objy.com>
jenn@objy.com (Jennifer Hom) writes:
 
>
>Interesting.  I heard this morning (on some NBC morning show ... Today?) that Perot
>received the largest amount of votes (percentage-wise, I assume) that a third-party
>candidate has gotten since 1912 ... Strange.
>
Not strange at all.  He is a master salesman with $60 million to spend
on advertising.  No third-party candidate in history has ever had such
resources.
 
Jim McMaster
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Marrou < 0.3%. The *REAL* reason...
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:10:53 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article BBC@news.cso.uiuc.edu, belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
>steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:
>
>>  Are you sure of those numbers?  I can see that it's possible that some
>>of Marrou's votes haven't been tallied yet, but if so how is it that Genis's
>>and Boddie's votes -were- tallied?
>>  That seems hard to explain, but then again so is the notion that the LP
>>Senate candidates got five times as many votes as the LP Presidential
>>candidate.
>
>I understand that many Perot voters voted independant and 3rd party right
>down the line.  If all Marrou voters, and only 10 percent of the Perot
>voters, voted for the Libertarian senate candidates, it would explain the
>numbers just fine.
>
>Dave
>belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu


Here's another possibility.  Marrou wasn't much of a presidential candidate.

I've voted Libertarian in the past, and looked at Marrou/Lord, and found
them considerably less desirable than two of the other three candidates.
Perhaps others did the same.

--f2
From: selliott@cup.portal.com (J Steve Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Info needed on estate tax changes
Date: Sat,  7 Nov 92 10:11:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

I've heard from various sources of a proposed tax bill in the senate which
would lower the estate tax cutoff from $600,000 to $200,000, and raise the
rate on which the remaining amount could be taxed. I think Gephardt or 
Mitchell might be behind this. 

If anyone can give me more information about this, i.e., bill number, who
is sponsoring the bill, what it's status is, etc..., I would appreciate it.
I need this information to identify the bill when I write to my senators, and
to George Bush and Bill Clinton. 

I realize this has nothing to do with the election, which is over now, but
this newsgroup is most likely to be monitored by people who could give me
that information. 

Thanx in advance, Steve Elliott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22659 alt.politics.marrou:2098 talk.politics.misc:58221 alt.politics.clinton:15846
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:26:46 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:

>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.

Don't be an idiot.  At most it means that at least 57% thought someone
else would be better.  Presumably, if everyone got to pick the person
they thought would be the best choice out of anybody at all, Clinton
would come in even lower.  But if 2% would rather the Pope was
President, that wouldn't mean they thought Clinton shouldn't be.  They
might have voted for him and still have preferred Clinton.

Moreover, you are ignoring the protest vote factor.  Some people voted
for Perot who wouldn't have if they thought he might win.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:47:13 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov6124309@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil>
baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
> Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
> that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon. ...

I don't think it is accurate to say *all* Wallace votes came from Nixon.
Some perhaps, but there are alot of Southern Democrats who would never
vote for a Republican.  To many Southerners, the Republican party will
always be the Yankee party.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Censoring information , Is it possible tomorrow?
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:25:30 GMT

In <Bx769K.2tG@intcorp.mn.org> jdf@intcorp.mn.org (Joel D. Flatt) writes:

>ruman@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (ruman) writes:
>> 
>> Would it be possible, and will it be constitutional to pass a law
>> barring any network from disseminating information regarding the 
>> polls until polling closes on the West coast. Could it be argued


>What about Hawaii and Alaska?  How about not counting ANY ballots until 
>the day after the election?  

As a West Coast voter, I've never understood the hue and cry
over early election results.  It's not like the Eastern
voters haven't already voted, and certainly their opinions
have no bearing on the competence of any of the national
candidates.  Personally, I'd like to see earlier release of
east coast exit poll results so I don't need to stay awake
past 9PM to find out who won the presidency if the east
half's vote is enough to clinch it.

Of course, the presidential candidates are really some of
the least important options on the ballot.  My vote has more
influence in, and my life is more influenced by, the choice
of governor, state legislators, county officials, judges,
etc., and the fate of bond issues, initiatives, and referenda.
Anyone who won't bother voting just because the presidency
has already been decided has, IMHO, a poor grasp of the
federal system.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23105 talk.politics.misc:58885