HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: michaell@snake12.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Lack of Majority
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:28:52 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization

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.


Considering the strength of Perot, no matter who won, they would not have
one by a majority.   That's just the fact of the matter.  A plurality voted
for Clinton, and he's now President-elect.  If the plurality had voted for
Bush or Perot, they would have, and their supporters would have been happy,
and the rest, not so happy.  

Can a President who the majority did not vote for be successful?  Certainly.
There are a number of presidents who won with a plurality voting for them.
Some of them were extremely successful.  I think we all want Clinton to be
successful -- I hope no one wants the country to go down hill because their
man lost.  I had high hopes for Bush, even though I wouldn't have voted for
him if I could have (I'm 21).  I thought he did an excellent job in putting
together the Gulf War coalition and on Middle East peace, and I hope
history credits him for that.  However, the flaws of the republican economic
policy blew up, and  for that, he deserved to lose.

Obviously, the challenge for Clinton in the Clinton Era is two fold - first
of all, prove that he is a "new kind of Democrat".  We'll know that
within the next few months.  Secondly, he'll have to earn the confidence
of those who didn't support him.  That'll be partially done by the first,
and I expect to see him "campaigning" for that before inaguration.  He'll
have media support,  at least initially.  I noticed his victory speech was
as much a campaign speech as it was a victory.  Why would Gore  say that
Clinton's efforts over the last 13 months  with many trials was proof of
character?

I don't know if Clinton has a mandate - it all depends on if he can govern.
Bush could have had a mandate if he used it, especially after the war.  He
didn't, because he (and his staff) became arrogant and they lost.

President Clinton will need our support.  Governing is not winning elections.
If he's right, his plans will pass.  If he is wrong (and every president, no
matter how great, is occasionally wrong),  I hope it'll be pointed out.

Both parties, and the political system as a whole, has the opprotunity to
change.  If the republicans decide to follow the Pat Robertson or Dan Quayle
route, they'll lose in 96 like the Dems lost in 84.  It'll be interesting


Michael
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13313 alt.politics.clinton:16021 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8017 alt.rush-limbaugh:9121
From: freshlt@quig17.alleg.edu (Timothy Freshly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:12:46 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

In article <J1RSBL2Y@cc.swarthmore.edu> rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Rob  
Brooks) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> Um, I think we're kind of missing the point here.  I was under the
> impression that the way to rebuild a country was to work with its  
leaders,
> not "throw stones" at them.  I'm as guilty of Reagan/Bush bashing as the
> next guy but, as Bush and Perot both said on election night, it's time  
to
> stop attacking the other parties and time to work together to rebuild
> America.  


	So when Reagan/Bush were in office it was OK to bash them but now  
that your candidate is in office NO ONE should criticize anything.  Don't  
be so hypocritical.
	I do agree, however, that we need to pull together to help get the  
ball rolling again.

			Tim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13347 alt.politics.clinton:16082 alt.politics.elections:22875
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Its official: Clinton wins
Keywords: Clinton wins the presidency
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:24:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov5.161409.18390@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>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?
	It's too bad the Democratic Congress refuses to pass the 
Balanced Budget Ammendent which the president just happens to support
and who just happens to be a Republican. PLEASE!

Rocky Giovinazzo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13307 alt.politics.clinton:16016 alt.politics.elections:22819 talk.politics.misc:58420 alt.politics.perot:5222
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:44:06 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>
>>Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
>>George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
>>Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530
>>Andre Marrou -- Libertarian          234,413 <----- This is a disaster...
>>Bo Gritz -- Populist                  95,640
>>Lenora Fulani -- New Alliance         70,810
>>John Hagelin -- Natural Law           31,408
>>Howard Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers    29,677
>>Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063
>>Ron Daniels -- Independent            24,997
>
>I had hoped better for Marrou.  He was hurt by Perot and the close race
>between Bush and Clinton.  But to get only .2% of the vote...ouch.
>

Yes, if it hadn't been for Clinton, Perot and Bush, he might have had 
a chance!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
X-Xxdate: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:04:43 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:08:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.222614.23808@dg-rtp.dg.com> William Crosmun,
crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com writes:
>What exactly can the rich do with their money that would be BAD for the
>economy?  If they spend it they provide jobs for those who produce what
is
>bought.  If they save it they provide capital to others to produce.  The
only
>BAD thing I can think of is to bury their money in the back yard and I
suspect
>that they wouldn't be rich if they did this.

Well......

They can

1.) Take the money out of the country to be invested in another country's
economy.

2.) They can pollute the crap out of our environment leaving the clean-up
to
the tax payers.

3.) They can perform corporate raids and dismantle perfectly viable
companies
for their retirement funds.

4.) They can swindle people out of their life savings as has been done by
several individuals recently.

5.) They can earn huge sums of money, regardless of the health of the
company they are running by ignoring long-term investment so that
short-term profits are maximized.  They will then jump ship like
a pack of rats before the #### hits the fan.

6.) They can lay of the workers for bad performance due to
business decisions they had no part of.


I could probably go on all day and it would be easy to give examples.

Norman

 
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bill Weld in '96 (was Re: Dear Republicans)
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:51:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

>
>   >William Weld in '96.
>
>

From what I understood, Gov. Weld has no intention of running for pres. in
1996.  This is only his first term as gov.  Supposedly, he wants to fix
Mass. first and obtain more experience.  I seem to recall that his wife
laughed when asked about Weld running in 1996.  Maybe in 2000.

On another note, with many people proposing to delete newsgroups, I'd
like to remind you that Bush is still president for two and a half more
months.  This also means that for formal headings Bush should be referred
to as President Bush, Quayle as Vice President Quayle, Clinton as 
President-elect Clinton, and Gore as Vice President-elect Gore.


patricia

  "One of the greatest sorrows of human existence is that some
   people aren't happy merely to be alive but find their
   happiness only in the misery of others."
                                          --Dean R. Koontz
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:41:49 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <Nov.8.12.57.09.1992.11273@cadenza.rutgers.edu>, masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
> crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
> 
> [ Bush torpedoes GATT and starts a trade war with Europe ]
> 
>>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
>>Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.
> 
> And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
> will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton. If he gets
> away with it, there will be no transition, just a debacle.
> 
> One thing he's already done is to commit a lot of money for porkbarrel
> projects (rebuilding Hanscom Air Force base in Florida [which was
> scheduled to close before Andrew levelled it], building the V22 Osprey
> helicrasher [which the DOD says it doesn't want], etc.). To have a
> hope of reducing the deficit, Clinton will have to cancel these, to
> the chagrin of those living in the areas affected. Republicans will
> then start hollering about how Clinton's destroying jobs.
> 
> Also remember that he was CIA director under Ford. So he's got some
> ties to the boys with the black bags, too, and will probably keep on
> pulling them after he's out of office. On a happier note, the CIA's
> charter prevents them from conducting domestic covert operations
> against U.S. nationals, so they couldn't possibly be doing anything
> like pulling media strings or sabotaging the economy.
> 
> Right.
> 
> Any speculation on what else it will be?

Uh-huh.  Let's move this poor thread to alt.conspiracy, where it will feel 
right at home.  Have a care, now:  come January 21, the CIA will be under 
Clinton's control.  Then YOU can spend your days telling us "Oh no, Clinton 
would NEVER have the CIA do anything dirty!"  What's sauce for the goose, 
bud....

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Dear Democrats & Repubs too
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:41:15 GMT

In article <1db70gINN6l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:
> How about if they blame assholes like you? Paul, in case you haven't noticed,
> *alot* of democrats ARE NOT blaming Bush for the recession, they're blaming
> him for NOT RECOGNIZING that the country was in deep shit and badly needed
> some leadership to get it out again.
 
 The time you are refering to, I think, was May, 1991 when 3rd quarter reports
clearly indicated that we WERE NOT in a recession and in fact, we have not been
in one since. At the Convention President Bush stated in front of all America
that government spending would basically be frozen. Are you saying that this
was not an effective remedy? If you claim he tried nothing during the period of
recessiom you are flatly wrong and whining about your own uninformed
conclusion. NO PRESIDENT does _nothing_! Even I can admit that Gov. Clinton
will do _something_. Don't fall into that lapse that the Dems try-- "Oh... Bush
forgot about America! He didn't care! He did nothing!" 

> They're Blaming Bush for being proud of his inability to compromize with congress to get *something* done. In case you
> were asleep at the time, 90% of the nation (democrats and republicans alike)
> were in support of Bush during the Gulf War, primarily because he *was* a
> leader and he *had* a goal. After the war, he rested on his accomplishments
> and ignored what was going on in the country, that there were alot of people
> hurting because of the economy and social/ethinc tensions. *Many* people
> felt betrayed because he *failed* to recognize what to them was painfully
> obvious...

 Here you are wrong. The whole reason why taxes were raised was BECAUSE of the
concensus Bush tried. Bush lacked a backbone agaisnt Congress. When he said
that he offered his hand, and Congress bite it, he was right. All of the "geat"
presidents that I can think of took Congress by the nose and said "This is what
we are going to do, NOW DO IT!" Bush tried to be too nice, and look what
happend.

> Typical Republican tactics...try to figure out who's to blame instead
> of trying to get the job done...

 After personally attacking Paul, do you really think this is effective? Are
you saying that you exemplify a typical Democrat? Stay consistant. And after
the arguement that you tried above, your point is basicaly moot.

	--That Vince guy.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13638 alt.politics.clinton:16640 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8263
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:25:19 GMT
Organization: Return to Traditional Nukeylar Values

In article <1992Nov4.170330.29897@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> polant@whiskey.egr.msu.edu (Brad Polant) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

[Simon-izing Deleted]

>I just want to say, that after reading this board for months, and listing to half-baked, all-stupid, and hypocritical blather from the republicans.  On issues of draft,drugs, taxes,trusts,millie,hillery,and family values.  On behalf of all those who had to endure this dribble, and all those who thought rush is a fat fake who wipes with the flag and spits on the constitution. 
>GLOAT GLOAT GLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOATGLOAT {one million times follow}GLOATGLOAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Ignore the sourgrapes who decry clinton's big blow-out, ignore the disaffected few, it was a solid clinton win.  Once more this is the first year since 1956 anyone in my family has voted for a democrat, and after the shrub-man's pathetic screaching the past few weeks, maybe never a republican again.  I call this the bush-quayl-baker-gingrich-rush-dole-buchanan-robertson factor.  Kemp is a good man, but hasn't a chance of even getting the republican nomination.  Good bye guys!!
>ding dong the bush-man's dead
>ect.
>GLOATING in michigan

Maybe after you're done gloating you'll buy yourself a keyboard with
a carriage return key...

Hope your erection wears off soon...

Now Fuck Off[tm]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:55:23 GMT

In <1992Nov11.141534.19179@ncsu.edu> jccompto@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES C
COMPTON) writes:


>A conservative would support prostitution and drug legalization?


     In short, yes.  what we see today in mainstream politics is Not
Conservatism, but Neo-conservatism, simliar to, but distinct from true
Conservatism.  A Conservative believes in free market forces to shape
society, and that from those forces will emerge a moral society- that
good will overcome evil, because it is more powerful than evil.  We do
not see this type of thinking too much today, certainly not in our
media-run political system.  Even Jesse Helms is a crusader of
squelching pornograhy, which a conservative would disagree with.  Let it
defeat itself would be their position.
     point of interest:  William F. buckely favors legalizing drugs

For more on this, Read some of the conservative writings of the forties
and fifties for more of this.  in particular, Richard M. Weaver's "Idea's have
consequences" (1948) and "Life without prejudice"  (1965- posthumously
published) for more on this positions.

-Ted




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:57:41 GMT

In article <BxBz85.A05@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.152623.13597@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>In article <Bx6CAM.AxI@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>>
>>>>Uh, Simon -- the polls are open for another five hours in this time
>>>>zone...and *ten* more if you're in Hawaii.  You might want to wait until the
>>>>polls are *closed* before announcing the results...:-)
>>>
>>>Why should he wait?  The media doesn't.  That's right, all you people
>>>in Hawaii can forget voting.  Bill Clinton has been declared president.
>>>YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT.  GO HOME.
>>
>>IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS, CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, DUMMY.
>>
>>its not the fucking medias fault. why should they not tell facts that they
>>know> the fault lies in the e.c. system, under which it is possible to
>>receive ZERO votes west of the mississippi river and still win the
>>presidency. dont blame the press on this one; they called it even
>>earlier in 1988......
>
>You seem to have missed my point.  While I AGREE that the electoral college
>system needs to be changed,  that has little to do with the point I was
>making above.  If the pres was elected completely by the popular vote that
>would not prevent the media from predicting the outcome of the election.
>And predicting the outcome does influence the people who have not voted
>yet (how much I don't know).
>
>Changing the electoral college is a separate point.  I have been saying
>for a long time that the electoral college system should be dropped and
>the pres should be elected by the popular vote.  I think that the EC just
>distorts the people's votes (although the outcome of the election this
>time would have been the same).  Despite the fact that I HATE Perot, I
>find it ridiculous that about 1/5 of the voters (who voted for perot)
>had their say reduced to ZERO by the electoral college.  Their 1/5 was
>thrown in with the candidate who one the state. Basically, I view it
>as the state saying that "since the majority of us in the state want
>candidate X, you have to vote for X also."
This is exactly what many people feel.  I don't like the fact that a candidate
winning by 5% is called a "landslide" by being inflated by the electoral tally.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: No Liberals here! (was Re: Hey! Now It's ALL CLINTON's Fault!)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.172852.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.192448.16136@odin.corp.sgi.com>, archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>> There hasn't been a real leftist involved in presidential politics since
>> Eugene Debs.
>
>Oh yeah right! Yeah, George McGovern was as right as Barry Goldwater! Tom
>Harkin? Closet Conservative. McCarthy? A war monger. Jerry Brown? Completely
>rational. Roosevelt? He really loved free- for-all. Long? Damn that bullet! He
>would have imposed free trade. Jessie Jackson? Defender of traditional American
>Values. Mickey " Sec. of Defense" Dukakis? "No taxes here!" Mondale? He lied
>when he said that he would raise taxes. Babbitt? Business over the envionment!
>Al "I love capitalism" Gore. 
>
>Nope. No Liberals here!

Liberal does not equal socialist, since we still believe in
capitalism.  Learn a little more political history, and what the
little labels you bandy around actually mean, OK?



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.bush:13323 alt.politics.clinton:16037 alt.politics.elections:22833 talk.politics.misc:58432 alt.politics.perot:5230
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:28:20 GMT
Organization: ucsd
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>>>Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063 <-----------------------------
>                                        ____________________________________|
>                                        |
>                                        v
>                  This looks like an even bigger disaster.
>                  That many votes for this freak.

I may be wrong, but to just to get on the California state ballot alone
he needed at least 100,000 signiatures.  I take it his supporters are
paid to get these signed.  And he sits in a jail somehere.  Remember
his famous campaign ad "The First Woman on Mars" back in '88?

------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13262 alt.politics.clinton:15965 alt.politics.elections:22766