HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mind the Gap)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:09:28 GMT

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

Yes.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:31:04 GMT

In gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>[deletia]
>Moreover, you are ignoring the protest vote factor.  Some people voted
>for Perot who wouldn't have if they thought he might win.

Actually, all of the polling evidence that I have seen,
even some taken right at the (real) polls before the vote
show that the opposite was probably more common.  To wit,
people preferred candidate X but voted for Clinton/Bush
because they were second-guessing the electorate and
decided that "Oh well, X can't win anyway."

The odds are (and these "Who would you *want* to win?"
polls show) that the numbers for Clinton/Bush should be 
even lower.  However, people afraid that they might be
"throwing their votes away" voted for the candidates that
they did not actually prefer.  Even so, Perot managed a
respectable showing, though he likely stole some votes
from other n'th party candidates (Marrou, Fulani, ect.).

  -  Mike

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22969 alt.politics.clinton:16205 talk.politics.misc:58621 alt.politics.marrou:2150 alt.politics.bush:13410 alt.politics.perot:5265
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: First Election Results
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:43:37 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

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.

1.  ABC said something about it at the time, along the lines of "we were
    going to do it but we haven't been able to get the numbers from all the
    reporting precincts".

2.  In California, Andre Marrou came in 4th with 0.4 percent of the vote.  If
    his national percentage was also under 1/2 of 1 percent, then any organi-
    zation that wants to describe the vote in whole integers perforce rounds
    Marrou's share to 0%.  It also makes it extremely likely that Clinton's,
    Bush's, and Perot's shares, expressed in whole integers, add up to 100%.
    This is an extremely slight distortion, not a gross one; and is not per-
    petrated by commentators but by the arithmetic definition of rounding.

3.  My local paper had the absolute figures of the popular vote (99% of pre-
    cincts counted) this morning.  If you don't want the distortion inherent
    in whole integer percentages (or for that matter in 5-decimal-point per-
    centages), you can check your own local paper for the absolute numbers.

4.  The national popular vote count doesn't matter.  The only numbers that
    matter are the electoral votes.  Everyone who ran for president *except*
    Clinton and Bush got 0 electoral votes.  That is a raw number with abso-
    lutely no distortion of any kind.  That 0 is not perpetrated by any com-
    mentators, but was perpetrated by over 105 million Americans, most of
    whom chose to vote for Clinton or Bush.

5.  If it really matters to you what percent of the national popular vote
    the AIP, Natural Law, P&F, Libertarian, Green, etc., parties got, wait
    two weeks and ask the parties themselves.  I'm sure they'll be eager to
    tell you.  Wait two weeks because that's usually how long it takes elec-
    tion offices to finish counting absentee ballots, and I'll bet every
    single vote, however long delayed in reporting, matters to these parties'
    self-esteem, even if it doesn't make any difference in the result.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:57:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.120458.10221@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1dmj55INNktk@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, 
|> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) said:
|> 
|> > > > Barbara Boxer elected to a Senate seat in California, 
|> > > > despite huge numbers of bounced checks, [Robert J. Skrobola]
|> > > 
|> > > Really?  And just what were these "huge numbers," anyway?
|> > > 
|> > > (Hint: This is a trick question.)  [wdstarr]
|> >
|> > I'll bite. 149 "bounced" (overdrawn) checks..
|> 
|> 149 "overdrawn" checks, I'll believe... with the important note that
|> every one of those checks was honored by the bank and that not one of
|> them "bounced" in the traditional sense of being returned for lack of
|> sufficient funds.
|> 
|> From the very beginning, too many people have been recklessly tossing
|> around the word "bounced," implying, whether intentionally or not,
|> that the people who were paid via these checks were left holding the
|> bag, when in fact all that happened was that the House Bank gave its
|> members automatic overdraft protection, a service which is also
|> provided by many commercial banks.
|> 

I don't know of any commercial banks that automatically cover overdrafts
for which there is no savings backup.  Otherwise, its not an overdraft,
its a loan.  

I'm not sure anyone is saying check-bouncing was bad because someone
got stiffed.  The point is, that the same people that we give up to 34%
of our earnings every year cannot even run their own finances responsibly.
Why should we entrust them with so many trillions if they can't even
balance fractions of millions (1 trillion = 1 million million!).  I'm
certain these wern't just math errors, either, which leads to the more
profound question: what were they using these multi-thousand dollar
loans for, and how did they pay them back?  I understand that it was
common practice to pay them back after leaving office, when campaign
laws no longer apply (ie, could be paid off by special interest in
return for favoritism).  

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Summary:  Yeah, right.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:08:00 GMT

In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes...
> 
>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 
>that she was his mistress, she was a close confidant whom he trusted.

How do you know Flowers was a confidant or that Clinton trusted her?  Do
you believe everything your Big Brothers in the (Republican) Party tell you?


>If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
>who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
>press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 
>will he pick to help him run the country using that same "judgment"?

I suppose all the friends YOU'VE ever had are perfect and will never betray
your trust.  Let's not forget that Bush had friends and family who have
betrayed his trust and have embarrassed him.

>I guess one thing we'll be short of during the next four years is family
>values at the top.  I just hope he doesn't turn the White House into a
>brothel like Kennedy did.  What a black eye on the United States of
>America.  Oh, the shame of it all!

Get over it!  The US was respected during the Kennedy regime, sexual antics
notwithstanding.  Since most politicians are immoral anyway, the personal
sexual morality of Clinton is TRIVIAL.

> 
>  I know, maybe if we start now we can develop a campaign based on the 
>theme "America wants change".  I'm sure the American people will go for
>it and elect someone else in 1996.
> 

Yeah, I hear Ross Perot is considering a '96 campaign.  Go Perot!

Sincerely,
Doug Chatham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23148 talk.politics.misc:58972
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Date: 8 Nov 1992 21:28:41 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>  I can't believe it.  President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
>Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 
>that she was his mistress, she was a close confidant whom he trusted.
>If his judgment allowed him to choose for a close trusted friend a person 
>who would spill true or untrue details of an intimate relationship to the
>press and embarrass him by posing nude in a magazine, what kind of people 

Lets see, Gennifer's posing in Penthouse *should* embarrass Bill Clinton...
why *should* it embarrass him? Its *her* body that she's showing off, what
business is it of Clinton's *what* she does with *her* body. She is a 
grow individual and is capable of making her own decisions. As far as
going from being the envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes, you
are showing you're ignorance of world attitude toward the US. They
don't envy us, if anything they laugh at us for having such an egocentric
attitude (of which you are a prime example), and for our victorian, prudish
attitude concerning the human body (of which, you are *again* a prime
example). I guess Demi Moore and her husband should *really* be embarrassed
by her nude photos of when she was pregnant...



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:39:52 GMT

In article <BxGnAK.IDz@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.160315.5035@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austi
>> I think he'll cave in to the big spending Democratic Congress and
>> devastate the economy and lose to Kemp in '96 in a huge landslide,
>> if and only if the Republicans jettison assholes like Pat Buchanan
>> and the Fanatic Right.
> 
>I hope not.  Kemp is one of those who claims that the national debt 
>just isn't that big of a problem.  Also, Kemp has considerable ties to the
>Fanatic right.  We'd be better off with a Libertarian Republican like
>William Weld of Massachusetts.

The Republicans best chance for the future is probably someone like 
William Weld or Pete Wilson.  But I don't think they can wise up in
time for 1996.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:21:12 GMT

porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges) writes:

>In article <10251@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>Just thought I'de make a snide comment about ABC and the accuracy of their
>>exit polls.
>>
>>Last night, the very first state that ABC announced the results in, minutes
>>after the polls closed was Georgia, and they put it in the Clinton
>>column.
>>
>>As of 7:30 this morning, those fools down at the state house.  The ones
>>who actually bothered to count the votes even after ABC told them it was
>>all over are saying that Bush has won Georgia, narrowly.
>>
>>Not that it will make any difference.  I just like to see Sam Donaldson
>>with egg on his face.
>>

>Actually, all of the networks (including CNN) subscribed to the same polling
>service this year, so it would be everyone who had it wrong.  Also, I
>didn't see Donaldson on much at all last night; Jennings and Brinkley
>were the anchors.
>-- 
>					-- Don Porges
>					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
>					..uunet!inmet!porges

Not 100% true. Although all of the networks subscribed to the same polling
service this year, each of them used that data any way they wanted to. I
didn't watch ABC at all, so I don't know what happened (other than from
what I am hearing here), but it is very possible, in fact very likely, that
each network could come up with different analysis even though they all
were working with the same data.
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: 300,000 out of work
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:22:37 GMT

In article <27216@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>Patrick J. McGuinness writes:
>>The real flaw in 40 MPG rules, though, is that if only X% of the market wants
>>a product, then forcing a higher percentage is just plain anti-market
>>dumb.
>
>Very good point.
>
>>If you want to force people to stop guzzling gas, a gas tax
>>hike would be far more effective.
>
>Now this I see as hily regressive.  In my case, what with my

I agree ... but it *would* be a "market incentive" for smaller cars.
And, convenient for the Govt, it raises lots of cash.

>relatively new 33 mpg car, I'd do the numbers on my spreadsheet &
>realize there was no way I could make back the bucks I'd spend on a
>new car at the gas pump, unless something horrible happened.
>Single-mom Jody down the street with her near poverty-line income &
>20-yr-old Toyota is definitely not going to go for it.  Basically, a
>big gas tax is a great way to earn revenue, & push people onto mass
>transit where that's an option (both of these goals have their
>merits), but clumsy for getting the demand for hi milage vehicles
>raised.  So are there other things we could also do that would help & be
>less regressive?  How about tax write-offs & credits for the R&D work
>necessary to get those kinds of cars into the fleet?  That could
>reduce their sales price since the companies won't have to earn back
>as much R&D payout.  Financing/interest deduction for purchase of
>vehicles in that class?  Fed credit on state tax & license fees for
>these vehicles?  Fed license tax for gas guzzlers?  What do you think?
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this is the best (and only good) idea.

Most R&D stuffs, tax credits, subsidies, is just Govt meddling,
so I suspect the Democrats will eat it up. :-)
Just as, for example, Carter mis-spent $20 billion on synfuels
before they closed that program down.

The "gas guzzler" tax on new low-MPG cars - that's the right
way to do it. It (again) doesn't fight the market, but creates the
right incentives for high MPG cars, and is not regressive, since
the bigger cars are usually more expensive.
NOW ... don't they already have some kind of gas guzzler tax?
I'm unsure of this.

>Some of these look like auto co. welfare programs to me, but maybe a
>combination of these in some form would be helpful.

I agree.

BTW, there is a lot more oil and gas out there than the environmentalists
will acknowledge. Proven reserves are higher now than ever.
Given that, it is unclear why these economy-hobbling techiniques are
desirable at all, except to satisfy the "freeze in the dark, and walk"
puritanism of the anti-energy folks.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hulsej@sun.lclark.edu (Jose Hulse)
Subject: D'Amato or Abrams?
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:58:10 GMT

Last I heard, this was still undecided because D'Amato's lead was very
thin and there were lots of ballots left to be counted (by hand or
something?)--some judge apparently impounded the ballots and we wouldn't
know the result till next week.

Does anyone have the latest official word on this one?  I'm thrilled about
Clinton's victory, but kind of disgusted that Mr. Filibuster might remain.
--Jose' "Finally, a winning President I voted for" Hulse

-- 
_______________________________________________
Jose' Hulse  hulsej@lclark.edu |  Four years ago, Bush said that if I voted 
for Dukakis I could expect crime,taxes and the deficit to go up.
I guess he was right...I voted for Dukakis and look what happened!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: it's over
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:46:21 GMT


In article <1992Nov4.192101.27403@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, 
steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) said:

> Lets see here, draft dodger running the military. Guy who has a
> drug pusher for a brother helping us stop the drug problem in
> this country.

Fascinating...  Does E equal MC-squared in your private little
alternate universe, just like it does over here in reality, or is
that different too?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22691 talk.politics.misc:58267 tx.politics:7018
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Your Federal Tax $'s Hard at Work in Houston
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:03:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin



*3   NEA:  AWARD BRINGS ART AND EDUCATION TOGETHER
     The National Endowment for the Arts has awarded a Houston
public schools arts education program with a "contract" for
$150,000 over three years (Holmes, HOUSTON CHRONICLE).
Participants in the program are the Texas Institute for Arts in
Education, the Houston Independent School District and five
Houston performing-arts groups, according to the CHRONICLE.
     Funding goes to the institute, which has been involved in a
program with HISD since 1985, the paper reports.  Teachers attend
seminars and receive training from artists, while students,
teachers and parents attend artistic events.  The institute's
executive director, Victor Kendall, initiated the effort to
combine arts and educational groups.
     Wood referred to the award as a "contract," rather than a
grant, to emphasize the notion of partnership with the NEA.  The
institute received one of eight contracts awarded nationally from
among 150 applicants.  The contract is part of the NEA's national
initiative, Arts Plus, writes the CHRONICLE (11/3).
     For more information, contact Victor Kendall of the Texas
Institute for Arts in Education at (713) 528-7424.


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:04:22 GMT

In article <10255@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>Now if Clinton had been asked, Do you think Cuomo would make a good SC justice
>you might have a point.
>
>Unfortunately he was asked, Who do you think would make a good SC justice?
>
>While you are correct it is not a promise to appoint Cuomo, it is an
>indication that Cuomo is on the short list.
>
>I am sure, given the importance of the SC and the fact that he has been
>asked questions about it before, Clinton has given a lot of thought to who
>he would appoint.
>
>I do not believe that the Cuomo remark was off the cuff.  I believe it is
>indicative of what he is actually planning.

Keep in mind that when Clinton made the statement, Cuomo was still whining
about not wanting to endorse Clinton.  I think it was just a shrewd move
on Clinton's part to shut Cuomo up and make up for the mafioso remark
that Gennifer made.

Still, it's conceivable that Clinton would come through as a favor to Mario.
Then again, MC doesn't look to be a power in 1996 (unlike Warren's threat
to Eisenhower), so Clinton might be better off making a less overtly
political nomination.

See the thread I've started on this issue.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23199 alt.politics.perot:5342 soc.culture.african.american:10788
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:02:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Nov6.211001.19136@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>The DC vote has *always* mirrored the national African-American vote.  
>And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the African-American vote did indeed 
>go 87-9-4, Clinton-Bush-Perot, just like DC.
>
>Take your conspiracy theories to Scott Barnes.  The rest of us know how
>to think.

Think again. According to ABC's exit polls, The African-American vote
was 85-8-7, Clinton-Bush-Perot. So the DC numbers may initially start out
as the typical African-American vote, but Perot's anti-DC rhetoric 
definitely had an effect on making DC anti-Perot.

By the way, If all these African-Americans don't work for the government
(as the deleted part of Mr Frank's post implies), who do they work for?
  
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637