HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Silly Americans!
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:36:59 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <05NOV92.14218920.0112@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA> writes:
>The media in the USA dictated who wins the election. I'm Canadian and
>feel Perot would have solved America's problems it faces. However, the
>media doesn't allow for him. 52% would have voted for him if the polls
>did not show him losing. Only 19% voted for him because the polls show
>he wouldn't win. Do you see the irony here? If you Americans weren't
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>bombardedwith polls Perot would have won! Polls should be banned but...
>oh I guess that might interfere with one of your rights or something!
>Its so egocentric for the canidates to say America is the greatest
>country and people on the face of the earth. Canada by the way was
>ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.
>Haven't heard about it..... did you expect your media to report it!!!
>

 Interesting...you live in America too, as do the folks from Mexico, ...
Actually, the polls didn't sway *my* decision whatsoever...I just didn't
like Perot...

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: little scraps of paper, mostly
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 07:02:15 GMT


Bear in mind, however, that the 20% who voted for Perot were damn well
certain that he was going to raise taxes.  There was never any secret
about that.  The results look to me like:

20%  higher taxes
43%  higher taxes on upper incomes
39%  never never never never...except for the energy bill two weeks ago.
-- 
                                                John Berryhill, Ph.D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:20:42 GMT

In article <10351@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.215033.28838@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>|>Actually, there's a school of linguistic thought that argues what a
>|>native speaker of a given language says is "correct."  Since Clinton
>|>is a native speaker of the English language, "How're" is correct, even
>|>if it isn't necessarily mainstream or in the dictionary.  The goal
>|>of language is communication, and "how're" is not ambiguous.
>
>
>Does this generosity cover spelling as well?
>
>After all adding an 'e' to potato does not change how it is pronounced.

Don't know about that.  I'm not a linguist, and am merely reporting an
interesting thing I heard.  My impression was that this idea is used
to cover regional dialects, which can vary greatly from the more
generally accepted form of a language (I believe in Germany, regional
differences are enough to make you less than intelligible to others).
Spelling tends to be standardized, given that we have dictionaries and
books galore.



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22605 talk.politics.misc:58156 tx.politics:6996
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:46:47 GMT
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.211519.14545@bnr.ca> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:
>>Well I guess thats fair cause I feel there's enough evidence 
>>that under the Reagan/Bush years that makes me think the 
>>same of these two GOP-heads.  You remember things like 
>>increasing the national debt by over 3 trillion in 12 years.  
>
>Wrong----it increased 3 trillion in the last 4 years, under
>George Bush. It increased at a far slower pace under Reagan.

Could someone bring in some real facts here?  I do remember that 
in '85, the debt had doubled from 1 trillion (which RR dramatically 
deplored on TV in 1980) to 2 trillion.  I believe it went to 3 tril before 
RR left office.  Anyone have more details?

>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.
>

How many balanced budgets did RR or GHWB present to Congress?

>
>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
>expensive, more responsive government. Let's hope Bill Clinton has
>the courage, wisdom and leadership to deliver that to us.
>

I'd settle for one that doesn't insult my intelligence and stoke my
cynicism daily.  So far, so good.

John C
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:37:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.063952.24801@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>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.

	The Republicans will be back in the White House in 4 years.
The party's not in a shambles, they lost their 2nd presidential
election in 24 years. Wow. The Rep.s still have a dozen decent
candidates, the Dems still have none.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22856 talk.politics.misc:58465 tx.politics:7052
From: yfeng@tssmed.hsc.usc.edu (Jeffrey Feng)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Who has e-mail address of Clinton/Gore Campagn?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 09:43:19 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tssmed.hsc.usc.edu

Dear netters:

Who knows of the e-mail address of Clinton/Gore campagn /administration?
I would appreciate it very much if you could send an e-mail to me.

Thanks in advance.

J. Feng

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: President-elect Clinton lying already
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:49:00 GMT

In article <1dea4pINNend@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>  And on the question of mandates, let Clinton have it!  I do not want to
>give the Democrats a SINGLE excuse when 1996 rolls along.  I can't wait.
>They've promised us a paradise and we'd better get it.  Thursday on C-SPAN
>some analysts were saying that Clinton is going to have a BIG problem with
>the Democratic congress next year.  He's going to only want a small amount
>of economic legislation crafted by him passed, but will wind up being
>SWAMPED with every left-wing bill which got vetoed during the last 12
>years.  Will he veto legislation passed by his own party?  Sounds like
>gridlock to me!
>

One of the first things Clinton should do is to force Congress to give
him a line-item-veto.  There would probably be much less concern about
his desire to increase spending (oops--investment) in the business
community, if they knew the President would have a line-item-veto to
be able to cut away pork and unnecessary spending.

Gerald
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton: predictions 93-96
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:08:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

> 9. An abortion-rights constitutional amendment will pass
> Congress and be submitted to the states for ratification,
> after heated Congressional debate. Widespread protest,
> (possibly violent) will result.
> 
> REASONS: The issue of abortion is so polarized, with
> absolutist positions on both sides, that civil unrest
> cannot help but occur. A political solution in this
> emotionally charged confrontation looks unlikely.

You must be joking!  A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in
both houses!  (Not that 39 states [my prediction:  Quebec will secede, and the
Maritimes will join the USA] would ratify, anyway.)  In other words, this would
be as hard as overriding Bush's vetoes was.  And Congress did not shift enough
(Senate a bit left, House a bit right) to change those numbers.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:05:41 GMT

sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
|> >Yup.  The majority has spoken.  And the majority DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.
|> >57% of the poeple voted for someone OTHER THAN Clinton.  So now we have
|> >a president elect that the majority of the people did not want in office.
|> >
|> 
|>   Faulty reasoning. The ballot only allows you to choose one candidate that
|> you prefer/want most. It does not allow second choices (presumably based
|> upon some weighting system). Therefore, it is invalid to conclude that a
|> majority did not want/would not find acceptable Bill Clinton, only that he
|> was not the first choice of a majority.

ABC did their best to manufacture the runoff.  They conducted an exit poll
of Perot supporters, asking them for whom they would vote if he were not
in the race.  They went, if I remember right, 39% Clinton, 40% Bush, and
21% no comment/no vote/other.  I know this is a stretch, but the 39% of 19%
puts Clinton over the 50%, and in the putative runoff doesn't materialy
change his percentage over Bush (consigning Marrou and others to noise for
now).

I believe Cinton's economics are nearer to Perot's than Bush's, except that
he lacks the fanatical focus on the deficit.  One could say that 62% (not
61) voted for higher taxes, infrastructure, health care, Choice...
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: jce@ferris.cray.com (John Ellsworth)
Subject: Re: Evaluating Ross Perot
Originator: jce@ferris
Reply-To: jce@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:39:47 CST


In article <oez8ylG00iUy852qZo@andrew.cmu.edu>, Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> He's a KooK!

Hey, you're right!  

But he's not just any old KooK, he's my kind of KooK.

Wish we had more like him too.

John.
jce@cray,com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13346 alt.politics.clinton:16081 alt.politics.elections:22874 talk.politics.misc:58487
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: None
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:20:06 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>
>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
...and ABC exit polling says that nationally, over 50% of voters are
"scared" of a Clinton presidency with 25% of those people voting
for Clinton...  So we're both scared and excited.  Hmmm... It sounds
more like the start of a great roller coaster ride.

Rocky Giovinazzo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mlt2001@andy.bgsu.edu (the big steak!)
Subject: pat is back!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: bgsu
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:01:24 GMT

 PAT BUCHANAN IS BACK ON THE MCLAUGLIN GROUP.  THE ANTI-SEMETIC IS BACK IN
HIS GLORY.  THE MAN WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND HURT GEORGE BUSH IN THE
PRIMARIES.  WHY DID THIS RACIST RETURN TO THIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM? 
BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WILL LISTEN TO HIM, EXCEPT MICHAEL KINSLEY OF CROSS
FIRE!  WHEN WILL PAT LEARN THAT HE WON'T WIN ANY SUPPORT OF ANY SORT WHAT
SO EVER.  THIS SHIRT STUFFING CONSERVATIVE HAS NO FUTURE.  UNTIL JOHN
MCLAUGLIN REALIZES THIS WE'LL HAVE TO PUT WITH MORE PAT!  I RATHER WATCH
MEET THE PRESS!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13730 alt.politics.clinton:16803 alt.politics.elections:23439
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If Clinton is Elected...
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:28:05 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

In article <1992Nov3.155824.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
}I saw this sign up above a Law Firm, and thought it was relevant:
}
}	       	If Bill Clinton is Elected will the Last
}	     	American please bring the Flag!

Sure...if we can get it unwrapped from around the last Republican.


Lance 

-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13111 alt.politics.clinton:15734 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7890 alt.rush-limbaugh:8991
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 02:59:33 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <Bx7x0C.Hx1@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.194407.9787@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>
>>Fine, go ahead and sulk. But, the majority has spoken. That is the
>>democratic way. 
>
>Yup.  The majority has spoken.  And the majority DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.
>57% of the poeple voted for someone OTHER THAN Clinton.  So now we have
>a president elect that the majority of the people did not want in office.
>
Yup, and 62% of the people *didn't* want Bush, and 81% didn't want
Perot...so *obviously* you get the lesser of three evils...so what!!!



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13487 alt.rush-limbaugh:9221
From: mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire)
Subject: Re: What happened to ???
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:16:53 GMT

davidk@welch.jhu.edu writes:
>Does anyone know what happened to Mz. Fitzgerald, the woman that Bush had an 
>affair with?  I had heard something a while ago and forgot all about it until
>a friend of mine asked.  So I will ask you all, Anyone knows where she went?
>-=davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Most of the rumors died on the vine when the media printed a photgraph of her.
(She made Grandma Bush look like a beauty queen.)


--
Tim McGuire                                 Texas A&M University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Associate                          Lecturer 
Institute for Scientific Computation        Department of Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.194337.15005@wixer.cactus.org>, reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
> Don't bet on it... Bush just imposed a 200% tarriff on French Wine.
> This is just one the first action he will be taking from now until
> January to be sure that the Clinton administration is the last
> Democratic administration in a very long time.  Bush is attempting to
> start a trade war.  Clear and simple.  This could be something that
> Clinton will have a tough time dealing with given Democratic tendencies
> toward protectionism -- any moves Cinton makes to head off the trade
> hostilities will undoubtedly hurt American companies and/or workers.
> 
> I don't know what Bush's motives are for this -- he could seriously think
> that this is the "tough medicine" America needs so it will see the folly
> of electing Democrats.  Either way, it stinks.

Just to play devils advocate... lets assume that Bush IS imposing tarriffs for
the sole sake of hindering the Clinton Administration and so that this
administration "is the last Democratic administration in a very long time."
Could you then explain how this would be anymore dispicable than the Democrats
tainting bills that put Bush into a catch 22.(the bills would either raise taxes
with all the excess pork if he signed it, or he would go back on political
promises if he vetoed it) Now, in order to remain consistant, if we assume that
Bush is screwing Clinton with bad politics, then we must also assume that the
Democrats screwed Bush, so that he would lose the presidency. Pray tell, how
is it wrong for Bush to do this sort of "legislative skullduggery" whereas the
when the Democrats do it, it's good politics, and blame is pinned on the
president? Seems to be YALI (Yet Another Liberal Inconsistancy)

Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Its official: Clinton wins
Keywords: Clinton wins the presidency
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:14:09 GMT

In article <5NOV199201422020@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

>
>A business-as-usual, incumbent-dominated liberal Congress (willing to keep
>sending him spending bills to carry out his little social experiments and keep 
>themselves rolling in the pork and tax bills to pay the tab at our expense)
>and his rubber stamp is the only mandate Slickness needs.
>
>Who cares about a mandate indeed.  Everybody agrees now (no more divided
>government, remember?)  The Slick One wants to spend your money and Congress
>wants to spend your money.  Get the picture?
>

George Bush was pretty fucking good at spending our money too.

When was the last time a republican president submitted a balanced budget?

Wake up, man, the repubs in congress are just as concerned with pork
barrel spending as the dems are. If they werent, why didnt bush just
veto these 'liberal' budgets? Oh yeah,usually congress' budget had
LESS total expenditures than bushs.

republicans are no more friends of your pocket book than the dems.
get real. after 12 years of republican rule my meagre payheck is
$200+ lighter per month.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 17:24:42 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov4.054132.6645@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
>>
>>               BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>               FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
>>
>>The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the American
>>people had the last word!!!
>
>Yup, and they elected Clinton.

The media, having been a major factor in the Clinton victory, now have a
vested interest in his success.  On Nightline last night, Ted Koppel 
interviewed President-elect Clinton, and the senior members of his campaign
staff.  I've never seen Ted so ecstatic since the show originated.  Clinton
can expect a happy honeymoon for a while.  It'll be interesting to see how the
press treats him over the long haul.

>
>>
>>Simon
>
>Do you want to eat your words raw, or cooked?


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Thanksgiving Day.  In the days of our  founders, they  were  willing to give
 thanks for mighty little, for mighty little was all they expected.  But now,
 neither government nor  nature  can  give  enough but what we think it's too
 little.  Those old boys  in  the fall of the year, if they could gather in a
 few pumpkins, potatoes and some corn for the winter, they were in a thanking
 mood.  If we can't gather in a new  Buick, a  new  radio, a  tuxedo and some 
 government relief, why, we feel that the world is against us."

												Will Rogers

===============================================================================
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Dilemma in Republican (Toga) Party
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:31:49 EST
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

In article <6851@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> Lately there have been quite a number of posts from people citing Bush's
> defeat on the Rise of the Religious Right as the main reason. In order
> for the Republican party to regain its "pride" and the White House, the
> Religious Right must be expelled from the Party according to these
> analysts.
> 
> The next two years will test the constitution of the Republican Party,
> but at the moment it doesn't seem very clear which side will win --
> conservatives or moderates. (I'm keeping this at a gross level for my
> own simplistic understanding of the dilemma.)
> 
> The Right Wing will not be weakened as a force in the Republican Party
> as long as moderates seem to be losing control. Moderates like Gov. Pete
> Wilson in California and Gov. Thompson (?) of Illinois must succeed in
> passing their moderate agendas through and making them work. Wilson in
> particular is in trouble because of his relative moderate stance that
> reflected George Bush's political moderation. That is the only real way
> the moderates can win control of the Republican Party.
> 
> Open for comments...

In 1996 the far right gains complete control of the Republican Party. Dan 
Quayle is their nominee. The party falls apart.

The Republican Party ends up just being, how do you say, another blade
of grass under the horseshit of history. Just like the Federalists, The Whigs, 
etc etc.

United We Stand takes the place of the Republicans for a long long time.

> -- 
> Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
> 	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
> I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
> good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.

-Garrett

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh