HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Mandates & 3-Way Elections
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:52:49 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

Here is some data about other 3-way elections this century
where the winner had less than 50% (from NY Times 5/11)


Year	Candidates		       Percent

1912	woodrow wilson			41.84
	teddy roosevelt			27.39
	william taft			23.18
	(also 2 smaller candidates)

1992	bill clinton			42.97
	george bush			37.49
	h ross perot			18.78

1968	richard nixon			43.42
	hubert humphrey			42.72
	george wallace			13.53

1916	woodrow wilson			49.24
	charles hughes			46.11
	(also 2 smaller candidates)

1948	harry truman			49.51
	thomas e dewey (thruway :)	45.12
	(also 2 smaller candidates)


Is it fair to say that Clinton has about as big a mandate
as Nixon had in `68?
			- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: klf@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (karen.l.fenton)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:04:38 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <JTURNER.92Nov5105241@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
> To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
> of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
> is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
> present condition.
> 
> 					--Jeff Turner
> 

Bull. I've worked hard to provide a home for our
family. It's unlikely that my kids will be able to afford
homes, the way things are going. When I die, they'll probably
be forced to sell the house to pay the taxes.
Is it selfish to wish to retain what is ours?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:36:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.203821.16878@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
}I think the private-sector insurance companies, properly regulated, could
}do a far better job than the government of balancing risk factors, 
}charges and benefits.

And we libertarians all know, of course, that purely private sector firms
tend to be self-regulating :-).


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16703 ba.politics:6951
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ba.politics
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:40:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

>But in other 3 way races, 1980, 1968, and also to some extent 1948
>and 1924, the winning candidate did get 50% of the vote.
>So Clinton really didn't do as well as in those cases.
>For example, in 1980, Reagan had close to a 10 point win.
>*even* if every Anderson vote had gone for Carter, it would have
>been a Reagan victory. Here, of course, a Bush+Perot vote would have
>swamped Clinton.  The last comparable race was 1912.
>
>Pat

All right all you conservative whiners, this way to the gulag. No
complaining now, now it's OUR turn. What did you say? "Life isn't
fair," is that what I'm hearing?..Oh dear, now I'm afraid you're 
going to have to be placed in isolation..That's right, the cell
where we have Michael Kinsley piped in nonstop. Happy listening!

								(-:


						
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 1992 16:11:17 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: SUGGESTION: E-Clinton!

ph9991 suggests:

 I suggest that the Clinton Administration maintain an email
address and a monitor of the traffic on this newsgroup....and dare I say it...
perhaps have the President himself or at least the Vice-President or some
cabinet members respond directly to a random selection of postings on
the group?   Not too many, maybe only 10 a day or 10 every two days, but
SOMETHING.

*****************
Go ahead.  I'm sure Mr. Clinton will be reading his Email regularly. 
After all He will be our new Mr. President.  He is here to serve his
public.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Wake up and smell it!  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Dr. Seuss for President
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:43:28 GMT

In article <rabjab.230.721103669@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>Yesterday, two days AFTER the election, I saw a guy on the roadside
>waving the sign *DR. SEUSS FOR PRESIDENT*!.  Might have been a freaked
>out UC San Diego student, but I didn't stop to ask.
>

  Seems reasonable to me.

   A dead candidate for a dead issue.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:12:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210350.19781@gagme.chi.il.us> wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
>
>Also, Mr Del Boccio is VERY new to Usenet and, perhaps, could use a
>bit of space & seasoning, especially in these powder-keg groups :-).

Heh, heh.  You want that we flame him for real?

>I would only ask that you all offer HIM the same level of slack that
>we all needed when we first became active on this net.

Okey dokey.



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]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:49:18 GMT

In article <23957@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
}Recreational drugs should be legal and taxed sufficiently to pay for all
}costs incidental to their use.

This is so frustrating!  Taxes are part of what got us into this mess!  It
was a tax that was used to prohibit hemp!  They are part of the problem, not
part of the solution.

Employers should be able to fire users.  

This is true.

}Anyone who endangers anyone else as a result of using any recreational
}drug should be subject to unpleasant treatment designed to cure any
}physical or psychological craving for it.

But this doesn't happen.  Alcohol doesn't make people hurt others.  Neither
does tobacco, opium, cocaine, hemp, LSD, MDMA, etc.

Anyone who actually harms 
}someone should by prosecuted for that also.

True.

Anyone who knowingly sells
}or purchases a drug without paying all taxes due should feel the full
}fury of the IRS.

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.  The IRS is truly evil.  You support
their having their property forfeited, their careers ruined, their marriages
and families disrupted, and their imprisonment, all for not giving the
greedy bureaucrats what they try to extort?  I don't.

Those people who cannot prevent themselves from
}becoming addicted to something and will admit it should get 
}support to control their needs, subsidized by drug taxes.

Socialized addiction?  Just what we need, more impossible attempts to practice
socialism as anything other than tyranny.

Alcohol
}and nicotine are recreational drugs.  (Employers right to fire or
}reguse to hire should be more limited for alcohol, nicotine, or
}marijuana in moderation.).  Stop Prohibition.

Cocaine, opium, etc., are no less recreational.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: IK20073@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: We are going to hell
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:18:27 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Now that we have ronald Mcdonald for a president, I mean by Ronald Mcdonald
hair and a smile, the USA is down the tube.  Clinton had a very weak campaign
strategy, and only won by voters disstisfied with Reganomics carried on by
Bush.  I myself am a Perot supporter, and think that he should have won.
The only reason Perot dropped out is because he is a business man and thought
he was loosing.  His reentry really screwed up things for Bush also, which I
was extremely pleased about.  Perot showed that there is a dissatifaction among
voters with both the Democratic party and the Republican party.  Hopefully
Perot will run in 1996, I think he will do a great job at cleaning up the
economy.  Better than Bush has, and better than Clinton will.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:12:10 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Keywords: Say your prayers America

In article <1992Nov5.055052.1764@gagme.chi.il.us> statz@gagme.chi.il.us (Louis B. Del Boccio) writes:
>>     Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen
>
>      Tonight I have sad and disturbing news on Nov,3rd the United States
>      America "the new Russia" had an election and again the blind majority
>      was taken in by a slick talking used car salesman sissy boy pansy
>      looking con artist.It's hard to beleave that even when the facts about
>      how bad he ran Arkansas in the 12 years he had.Well it seems that the          majority wants a pres, 1.Leaves the country to start protest ralleys
>      against the U.S. for our part in Viet Nam not for moral reasons but
>     to escape the responsibility of going to fight for his country like
>      a coward.2 Cheating on his wife.3 doing drugs and then saying that he
>      didn't inhale.Did he mean the first time he smoked ?.This man is a
>      weasel.For those who voted for Cliton wake up and smell the coffie
>      thanks to you things are going to get even thougher.
>
>                                    Good luck America your going need it!

  On the other hand, at least we got a President who can think and speak
in sentences and a Vice-President who can spell (correctly).

  Neither of which the above poster can do, unfortunately.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:07:41 GMT

In <exuptr.211.720981821@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>In article <21800@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>>President John F. Kennedy supported private initiative and self-sufficiency.
>>Bill Clinton wants public programs and dependence on government handouts.

>I thought Slick Willie wanted to put a time limit on welfare.

Yes, and he also wants to change it from 'welfare' to 'workfare' and
make a number of other large revisions in it.  Of course, the neo-con
FUD machine has to ignore all of this, because otherwise they can't
keep trying to paint him as Ted Kennedy.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16235 alt.politics.democrats.d:351 alt.politics.elections:22990 ba.politics:6857 co.politics:1638 ne.politics:2773 nj.politics:573 or.politics:475 ny.politics:100 talk.politics.misc:58655
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:05:48 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov5.072015.16063@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>[Examples of government programs that benifit the rich:]
>Farm subsidies.  Defense pork.  Social Security.

Social Security doesn't benifit any income group preferentially. The
rich pay less into it as a fraction of their income, but (again as
a fraction of their pre-retirement income) they also take less out.

	
As for farm subsidies and defence contractor abuses, _mismanaged_
programs might benifit _some_ of the rich (those willing to steal
from the government.) The solution to that is to prevent these abuses
not to penalize everyone with alot of money.

>(As far as I can tell, the only programs that benefit the poor
>exclusively are Medicaid, AFDC, Head Start, food stamps, and one or two
>others.  These COMBINED are tiny.)

_Excluding_ AFDC and unemployment (neither of which can honestly be
called a "tiny" expense), the federal government spends over $100
billion each year on: Food Stamps ($16 billion, more than NASA, by
the way...), Special Food Program for Women, Infants and Children
($2.1 billion), Head Start ($1.9 billion), Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance ($1.4 billion), various housing project subsidies ($7
billion), Medicaid ($40.2 billion), etc...

>Then replace the corporate tax with a VAT.  

I've heard this term thrown around a great deal this year, but
I haven't seen a clear definition of a "value added tax". It
seems to be something like a sales tax, but not exactly...

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:49:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.060050.14101@eng.ufl.edu> seed@joker.mil.ufl.edu (Steven Seed) writes:
>>How has he changed the subject at all? He is introducing a comparison.
>>The quesiton is, is it right to raise the taxes on an arbitrary segment
>>of the population? He is introducing another arbitrary group, for
>>whom the question is it right to raise THEIR taxes would mostly
>>elicit a "no" from most people. I think the comparison is both fair and
>>enlightening.

>Excuse me! But the "rich" are not an arbitrary group.

I suppose, technically, "people how speak Spanish as a native language"
isn't an arbitraty group either. That doesn't justify unfair actions
against them by the majority of voters, however. (Even unfair actions
related to one's native language.)

>It's time that
>they pay their fair share! The minorities (what ever you mean by that) have
>suffered along with everone else except for the rich elite.

A minority is any group that represents less than 50% of the population.
It isn't limited to ethnic or racial minorities. Further, what do
you mean by "fair share"? I'd call "fair" taxes, ones in which everyone
receves equal treatment. You seem to think a tax which punishes the
rich for having money is "fair."

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Keywords: homosexuals
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:35:46 GMT

In article <matrix.721260216@sol> matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron) writes:
>Well, for those of you that voted for him the first thing on his agenda will
>probably to allow homosexuals in the military.  This country is going to be
>screwed after four years.  Folks I dont think you understand what this is 
>going to be like.  It will be worse the the Carter administration.  
>
>We homosexuals are permitted to serve with hetrosexuals is the day our military
>loses the rank of world power.  The will be so much inner-conflict that the
>military will not be able to complete it mission.  I'm in the Marine Corps
>and if anyone says that the majority of the soldiers want fags in your wrong.
>Infact your dead wrong.  Homosexuals will destroty the combat effectiveness
>of the Marine Corps.  When you hit the beach you dont want to worry about
>someone grabbing your ass.  Your worried about getting shot.  People say
>homos can reframe from their sexuals desires, but the a hetrosexual marine
>cant stop worry if that fag is going to give him AIDS or truck to screw him
>in the ass.
>
>You people did a real good job of getting him in.  After the liberals get done
>with America, it will not be a country of prosparity.  We will be a socialistic
>society.  
>
>Another thing Clinton is about to do is promote the Brady Bill.  That takes
>your right which is in the 2nd amendmant of the constitution away.  "the right
>of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,"  Read it.. Shall
>not be infringed.  James Madison adamantly defended the indvidual right to bear
>arms by stating: "Notwithstanding the militaty establishments in the several
>kingdoms od Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
>the governments are afraid to trust people with arms.", he also wrote, "NO MAN
>SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS.
>
>Some people would argue but they didnt have 12 year old carry guns.  And I
>say to you that is a bunch of BS.  8, 9 , 10 ,11 and 12 year olds fought in the
>War for Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War and years, even WWII.
>
>The problem is in the familys.  Liberals do not want to take responsility for
>their childrens actions.  Instead they want to blame societys problems on
>guns, racism, and our education system.  Open your eyes.  If our children
>were taught morals, the diference between right and wrong we wouldnt have 
>the problems were having today.
>
>I welcome your responses. matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu
>

  With homophobic, intolerant, fanatical defenders like this, who needs
external enemies.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:45:11 GMT

In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:

   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?

Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.

   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
   and other major projects.

Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15816 alt.politics.democrats.d:301 alt.politics.elections:22633 ba.politics:6740 co.politics:1587 ne.politics:2700 nj.politics:526 or.politics:423 ny.politics:53 talk.politics.misc:58189
From: klf@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (karen.l.fenton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:58:26 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> By the way, lest you think that all the $200,000+ homes in NJ are owned
> by the rich...it just ain't so.  Lots of them are owned by the regular
> middle income folks who have owned them for 20+ years.  The liklihood of
> the lowering of the estate tax deduction affecting the middle class is very
> high.  
> 
This is true - most homes in my town fall into this category -
even two and three bedroom converted bungalows. And we're very
diverse and basically middle-class.

> So....I acknowledge the Clinton win, but I do so with a firm grip on
> my wallet though I don't come anywhere near making even $100,000
> much less $200,000.
> 
Get ready to open that wallet wide! Take a look at the most available
indicator of what your government (congress) defines as rich - the
financial aid application forms for college. If you're making
over $25k/year, Bud, *YOU* are Bill's deep pocket.

The final electoral votes weren't captured when the Dems started
backpeddaling. Watch it grow. That chicken in every pot just flew away.

Karen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:59:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>>	income have 3 kids????

>Could be because they want them!  

Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.

>Don't make assumptions
>and preach population control when the discussion is taxes.

The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
why they should be.

                                     Frank Crary
                                     CU Boulder
From: drp@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Randy Peterson)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 22:36:01 GMT
Subject: Re: 9 more days
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton



	The Latest CNN Poll Came Out Friday Oct 30,1992

	Clinton	41 %

	Bush	40 %

	Perot	14 %

	Und      5 %

	It could go either way. So much for the Clinton Landslide !
	I think what will happen is the midwest will go Bush, while
	the two coasts will go Clinton. Ross should pull just enough
	away from Clinton to give the ball to Bush. This is just my
	prediction. Also the Weekly Reader Poll said that Bush got it.
	Bill Clinton made a nobel effort, but he just had too much
	baggage. Especially when this latest issue came up about Rose
	and Jennifer. It appears Bill gave a job to his lover over
	a better qualified woman (Black Female). He keeps making the same
	mistakes that brought down Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy. The Demos
	need someone who doesn't have all these lovers, drinking habits
	and such. We need a good but squeeky clean candidate for 1996.

	What a bum out .....

	Randy

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc