HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cs171wcu@uape_9.ucsd.edu (Mark Rotenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:23:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Mar31.202836.12958@cs.rose-hulman.edu> parkem@susan.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Eugene M. Park) writes:

> I'm try to avoid questions of character, but believe it or not, its 
> important.  I'm not sure I understand Perot.  What an ego, "I'm not
> running for president,... but if I were,...."  He wants to be president
> so bad, if he didn't, he wouldn't be so vocal, he wouldn't name
> James Bond Stockdale as a running mate.  But wait, he may change
> his running mate,... (in case something better comes along?)  I
> realize that you need a running mate to be listed on the ballot in
> a number of states, something like 28, but he has such an ego that
> he want's the world to draft him as president!

A neighbor of ours and good friend of the family is a very virtuous and
successful businessman, who recently retired from VP of a Fortune 500
corporation.  Over the past decade, many friends and relatives of his in
several states have voted for him as a write-in candidate, based probably just
on his personal virtues and the respect he's earned.  We all agree that he'd
make a great president, even though it's never been his ambition.

Given he were hypothetically thrust into a situation similar to Perot's, I'd
see him behaving no differently, albeit he'd be contributing considerably
less than $100M toward the campaign.  Meanwhile, he wouldn't be robbing the
public (his "employer" in the below analogy) with Brown's "Swaggart-esque"
1-800 campaign, or miring himself in political debts to the special interests
like Clinton.

>                                                 Now suppose your an
> employer, as far as the presidency is concerned, we all are.  This man
> comes into your office and says, "I really don't want the job, but if
> you force me, I'll take it.  By the way, I don't have any experience 
> in this field, but I did real well in other areas!  Oh, also if I'm
> forced to take the job, I'll pay all my expenses, but I really don't
> want it."  I wouldn't hire him, I'd give the job to someone who
> really wants the position.  I'd give it to someone with experience
> and who has definite plans for the next four years.

Would you give it to somebody who wants it so badly he'll lie, cheat and
steal to get it?  Unfortunately, many voters do, so politicians will.  As
for experience, Perot's personal experiences would be far more applicable
toward solving America's ills than many of those of the other candidates.
George Bush never saw a electronic checkout counter in a grocery store until
a few months ago.
								Mark Rotenberg
								mrote@ucsd.edu
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Idea for campaign reform
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:00:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.093828.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|I've been reading a lot of ideas on campaign reform and eliminating PACs.
|Most of them involve giving peopl free TV time etc..
|
|I think most of these ideas go too far and are too complicated.
|Here's my idea:
|	Give each real candidate a set amount of money (determining who a real
|candidate is is another issue).  Make it illegal for them to spend any more
|than that fixed amount.  Let them spend it however they choose! (but they can't
|keep it)  If they want to do expensive TV mud-slinging ads, let them!  If they
| want to take out print ads, let them! (get my drift?)   
|	One of the advantages of this aproach is that we would find out which 
|candidates can manage they're money (we know that members of congress can't!).
|
|I've posted this idea a few times before but no one comments on it. why?

I don't know why, but here are my thoughts. The basic thought is good.

However:

There are some problems. What about other people besides the candidates
who get together and decide to run ads? Can they be stopped? I don't think
it is constitutional.

It does show which candidate can manage their money. However, I suspect that
they would mange their money by running 15 or 30 sec TV ads. They are probably
the most effective way of using money to influence voting, particularly if
they are negative ads.

The big advantage I see, is that it does limit the influence of special
interest money.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,comp.sys.next.misc
From: bjmccall@beyond.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin J. McCall)
Subject: PEROT MAILING LIST!!!!!
Summary: new mailing list
Keywords: new mailing list
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:59:49 GMT

Hello again!

In addition to the FTP site for Perot materials, I have now begun a
Ross Perot mailing list.

If you would like to join the list, send mail to bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu
with the word SUBSCRIBE in the Subject: line.  If you would like to send
something to the list, send it to bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu with the word
POST in the Subject: line.

If you have any questions, send mail to the same address with the word
QUESTION in the Subject: line.

Ben McCall
bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:18:58 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <18012@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
> writes:

>|>     Exquease me?

>|>     The phone company was broken up BECAUSE of government anti-trust
>|> regulations. Anti-trust regulations are intended to preserve market
>|> forces and competition.

>What you've missed is that the phone company monopoly was created by government
>regulations.

    Again, exquese me?  Asphinctersayswhat?

> What?

    Exactly how did government regulations create the phone company
monopoly?  How exactly would zero regulations have helped?

>Jason W. Solinsky

Tim Smith

Oh, and learn to put returns in your posts.  Automatic wrap doesn't
work on all systems.
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot's 1-800 number
Date: 17 Apr 1992 16:15:32 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

TELANG@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:


>Does anybody have information on a number to be reached if one wants
>to volunteer for Perot's campaign.

>>  The 1-800 number for Perot is:
>>
>>  1-800-685-7777
>>

> somebody gave me this number but like u said it's an automated response


This is the only number.  One size fits all.  Basically, you push 3
and wait.  And wait... And waaaaaiiiiiiit...  Someone should come
on eventually.

Stratocaster
-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
Don't believe what the Moral Majority says. Remember that they are neither.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 16:25:48 CDT
From: John Schulien <U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Democrats crash and burn on the Campaign Trail.

rdale@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Dale) writes:
>>cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>>>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>> It seems that workers at Jerry Brown's 800 number are telling people
>>>> how to get around Brown's $100 contribution limit.  That is to make
>>>> several $100 contributions in the names of family members.
>>>This strikes me as a candidate for the most inane story of the year

No the most inane story of the year is "I didn't inhale, and I didn't
enjoy it." "Of course you didn't enjoy it", someone should have responded,
"YOU DIDN'T INHALE!"

>> Jerry Brown's entire campaign relies on the fact that he feels big money
>> buys candidates, and that he will not accept big money.  Now we find out
>> that he is devising ways around the claim that he accepts no more than
>> $100 and you find that irrelevant?  Explain please...

Who made the mistake? Was it Brown, or was it the drone who answered the
phone. I seriously doubt that the telephone staff was instructed to tell
people how to get around the $100 limit. I simply can't believe that Brown
would be that stupid! They should have had a prepared answer. Something along
the lines of, "we would rather you not do that; the purpose behind Mr. Brown's
blah blah." Most likely the person answering the phone heard the question,
thought for a moment and came up with a spiffo answer on the spot. Too bad it
was a reporter on the other end. Bzzzzzt. 5 yard penalty for the entire team,
and another wave of El Stupido Campaign Nonsense flushes through the media.

Hopefully they've learned from this fairly embarrassing mistake. They
shouldn't be having this sort of problem at this stage of their campaign,
or maybe they're just incompetent.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:10:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Keywords: free trade

In article <31546@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>The tarrif was invoked for unfair trade
>practices by the Japanese.  Specifically "dumping" (selling products
>for less than the cost of manufacture to gain market share.  At the
>time of the tarrif imposition in 1983, Yamaha Motor Corp of America
>had a THREE YEAR supply of motorcycles in its warehouses if no
>additional bikes were imported.  1982 models which started the year at
>$3099 were selling for $1999.  Now, I was intimately involved with the
>motorcycle business at that time, and I don't believe that the
>Japanese companies got together and formed a plan to drive Harley out
>of business.  But, the Japanese got into a market share war (with each
>other) and conducted business in a very unsound fashion.  Then they
>got caught in a recession.  In the words of one Yamaha executive - "We
>thought we could catch Honda (for number 1 in the market), and we got
>burned." Cycle World Febuary 1992.  Harley Davidson was hurt by these
>actions (it is tough to sell a 1200cc bike for 10K when others are
>selling similar sized bikes for 2K no matter how different they are)
>and asked for help through the trade laws.  Unlike the chip dumping
>snafus, this case was cut and dried.
>				
>				Brad Cote'

  The case may have been cut and dried, but why was America hurt by
the willingness of Japanese companies to sell motorcycles for $2k
when we would otherwise have to pay $10k.  What do the bikes sell for
now (with and without tariffs).

  I ask because many people I know would suggest that there doesn't
exist an empirical case in which "dumping" hurt America.  So what if
American consumers get a product at a cheaper price?  If I'm a consumer
of bikes I'd be a whole lot happier.

  The usual argument goes that once a company has market share, they will
then raise the price to above the $10k that would otherwise be faced.  My
understanding is that this empirically never happens. (Maybe it would have
in this case, you seem to know a lot about it.)

  If your argument is that it is important to save Harley Davidson 
in the long term at any cost to the consumer, I'll accept that.  I may
not agree, but I'll accept it.

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Libertarian Party (was Re: Ross Perot)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:17:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.162043.28529@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:

>I thought it would be nice to know where the LP's "dogma" originates 
>from.  Consider friend:

[excerpts from the Constitution deleted]

There are significant overlaps between my philosophy and that of the
LP.  However, I think it's fair to post some other constitutional
provisions which are not as congenial to it:

Article I, Sec. 8

The Congress shall have power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States; but all duries, imposts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
...
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;
...
7. To establish post-offices and post-roads;

And of course there's the infamous Sixteenth Amendment.

I'll grant that the US government has gone far beyond the limited
powers originally intended for it, but I remain unconvinced that a
government which did not lay and collect taxes would be capable of
protecting its citizens from other concentrations of power with _no_
accountability to its citizens.  For example, I don't see the
distinction, assuming there is no public police force with superior
firepower and legitimate authority derived from law, (which is what I
suspect would happen if police forces had to be funded from voluntary
contributions) between "private security services" and mercenary
bands, nor what's to stop a security service from forming an alliance
with other security services, then coercing their clients into
serfdom.  The retaliatory threat of hiring another service drops
markedly when the guys with the guns start threatening their clients'
life and those of their families and friends.  It's the Libertarian
platform's apparent attitude that there isn't anything that our police
forces and military defense is protecting us _from_, despite the fates
of so many countries in this bloodstained century, that makes it
difficult for me to take the party seriously.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gators for Perot
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:10:11 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> Article <1992Apr8.121257.5638@athena.mit.edu> From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)

>> In article <35027@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, rap@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Ryan Porter) writes:

>> Another potential vp candidate (but not the one on the forms) is
>> a man named Warren Rudman, of whom I know absolutely nothing.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rudman, the budget controlling
> senator who recently resigned his seat because he said he was
> sick of Washington and pissed that they didn't take care of
> the budget? That would be a PERFECT match. On a side note,
> I think that most VP candidates should be senators (or former
> senators) since they spend much of their time in the senate.


Agreed that Rudman would add support to Perot's drive for
the president.  There are few senators I consider to be "more
honest than dishonest" but Rudman is on the list.

The Budget Deceit - not civil liberties, banking problems, abortion,
nor any of the problem - is my first priority for fixing in this
country.  Once the Budget Deceit is handled the rest is handled by
the simple question "If we have to pay for this NOW, is it worth it?"
That means no new programs which a congressman/senator could get credit
for now and skip the blame for raising the taxes for later.

But I doubt that he would be willing to run against Bush - but I
would love to see the comparisons the reporters would make
between Rudman and Quayle.
-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:42:51 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

>The phone companies and the monopolies that the local companies still have were
>created by government regulation and are deplurable. Today, however,
>long-distance calls have been freed from this and there is considerable
>competition. 

    Exquease me?

    The phone company was broken up BECAUSE of government anti-trust
regulations. Anti-trust regulations are intended to preserve market 
forces and competition.
    Without these regulations there would be only one long distance
carrier.  That carrier would have ownership of ALL of the local markets.
Look it up.  It's not hard to find. After all, it was the BIGGEST ANTI-TRUST 
TRIAL OF THIS CENTURY!

>The answer to you question is that if the big three long-distance
>phone companies jack up their rates, they will lose their market share 
>and some of the twnety other long distance phone companies in the USA 
>will increase theirs. 

    What about local carriers?  Currently there is only one for each
region.  Government regulations require the local carrier to provide
equal access to all long distance carriers. (which is of course why
there IS more than one long distance carrier.)
    Does the libertarian party suggest that there be 20 different
phone lines going into every house and building? Who would pay for this 
infrastructure development?  Assuming that each company has an equal 
share of the local market, then each consumer would have to pay 20 times 
as much for phone service.
    The economies of scale force phone companies, and utilities in general,
tward monopolies.  Disaster action agencies (fire department, military,
red cross, and, IMHO, health care) also seem to be more efficient
on large scales.

>Jason W. Solinsky

(Take Econ 101 next semester. I'm sure they have it at MIT.)

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:52:50 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


Hello, Jason W. Solinsky.  Safety standards and health restaurant
safety standards further freedom by the simple fact that they
enable people to be safe at work and not die.  And not die by
eating in a unhealthy restaurant.

I believe earlier you claimed that you can be more free even if
there are more chances you might die.

Obviously, we have different visions of freedom.  I believe that
we should be free to work and eat in safe environments.  That people
should not be taken advantage of by working in a place that they
may have no idea is unsafe (toxic waste etc.).

THerefore, I live a safer and healthhier life.  Your vision of 
freeedom entails people running around ignorant of dangers
before them.  Running to court to protect rights that they probably
no longer have anymore b/c gov't regulation has been
abolished in an effort to make themselves more free.
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 22:04:56 GMT


	A Libertarian votes is NOT a vote thrown out.  If you beleive
Libertarian philosophy, THEN VOTE LIBERTARIAN!  That *is* why people vote. .
. the point of voting is not to vote for someone who will win but for
someone who you think will represent you the best.  Besides, if you really
care about who wins, if he gets many votes this year, then maybe *next* time
they'll get more media coverage and even more votes.
-- 
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us| 
ap.3684@layout.Berkeley.EDU ___________________________/
___________________________/ STOP The War on Rights
Restore liberty in the United States - Vote Libertarian 1992
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 08 Apr 92 20:12 PDT
Subject: POTHEAD'S MESSAGE TO CLINTON
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1640500005:000:980
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Apr  8 20:12:00 1992


IT'S OKAY, I DIDN'T INHALE

I 've just returned from the Clinton victory party here in
Madison.

Arrived sort of late, missed the TV crews, but the stunt was still
interesting. Lit up a joint and all the suits fled the room.
Couple of the younger Clinton fans and the volunteer coordinator
stuck around to hear a message I hope will be delivered. Told them
unless Bill admits he enjoyed the pot he didn't inhale, we will
collect the 2,000 signatures to put Jack Herer on the Wisconsin
Ballot as a Grassroots Party candidate for President in November.
Reminded them I had recieved 13,000 votes in my Republican primary
race for Governor in 1990, and that those 13,000 could be their
margin of victory or defeat in this state in November.

This stunt is repeatable. Show up at his HQ or a local function
carrying only 1 joint. Fire it up, blow some smoke around the
room. Say "It's OK, I didn't inhale." Leave a printed message.
Post an account to talk.pol.drugs.

Enjoy, Ben Masel
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:14:51 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr5.220456.18537@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
|> 
|> 	A Libertarian votes is NOT a vote thrown out.  If you beleive
|> Libertarian philosophy, THEN VOTE LIBERTARIAN!  That *is* why people vote. .
|> . the point of voting is not to vote for someone who will win but for
|> someone who you think will represent you the best.  Besides, if you really
|> care about who wins, if he gets many votes this year, then maybe *next* time
|> they'll get more media coverage and even more votes.

WRONG! The point of voting is to have some say in how the country is run. If I
vote libertarian, I will have absolutely no effect on who becomes the next
president of the United States.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: sasswb@unx.sas.com (Scott Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Request for Information about Libertarian Beliefs
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
X-Bytes: 734

I would like to know more about the tenents, beliefs, and planks (if that's the
right term, I'm going back to high school history) of the Libertarian Party.
I could infer their beliefs by wading thru the postings of this newsgroup but
I am way, way too busy to read all the extra stuff to deduce their beliefs.
Sorry if that's not the best attitude (I think one should be an involved, or
at least informed, voter) but I'm just too busy.

If possible, use short, succinct, "bullet" approach to listing the beliefs.
Of course, if some beliefs are more complicated, feel free to use whatever
words are necessary to explain the belief.  Please keep editorializing to a
minimum, but both sides, pro and con, are welcome.

Thanks,
Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections