HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:39:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Virtual elections
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>        Gee, with your statement on rights you might better try for
>Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Actually, she was already a [virtual] supreme court justice, an office
she got back in our rotisserie politics thread last spring/summer.  She
was "Missy Justice" until she became a <virtual} presidential candidate.

As far as virtual elections go, you may find that the johnsoN/olsoN
ticket is the best ticket overall.  It was our ticket that first pointed
out that Travis was a moron.  It was our ticket that proposed a flexible
format for the national anthem.  It is our ticket that has two really
tall guys of swedish descent on it.

Just think: washingtoN...jeffersoN...lincolN...trumaN...johnsoN & olsoN.
The N's have it.

>                                        Chris.

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
38 days and counting down...
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:37:04 EDT
From: corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Question for Canadians
 <92269.133855MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET>

Oh, I should add that over the past a ban on discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation has been added to most provincial Human Rights Codes but
has yet to be added to the Federal Human Rights Code (a reccomendation of the
White Paper I mentioned in my previous posting) Also, there was a rumor a few
years ago that Gay marriages are now recognised in Yukon but I've seen nothing
to support that.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:56:56 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: republican platform

>The second thing that caught my eye was something new to me, and I'm hoping
>some of y'all might be able to expand/clarify.  I forget what section it
>was in, but there was a sentence stating that the party wants to see less
>government ownership and control of land, especially in the western states.
>Does that mean selling off national forests, parks, and wilderness areas?
>Or just no more acquisition?  Or both?

The feds own lots of land out here and use lots of different labels
for said ownership; Kerry has mentioned SOME of them.  We could double
fed land ownership in those categories and still reduce total
ownership.

Well over half of Nevada is fed-owned.  We really need a rational
criteria for deciding when the feds should own (and under what label)
and it should be applied to ALL 50 states.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:41:05 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: behind the numbers game
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

[stuff deleted]
>I don't know about you, but I've yet to see a poll with a margin or error
>(whoops! margin OF error) less than 3 percent. I don't put much faith in
>these polls, even though they do show my man Clinton leading. After all,
>look what happened in Britian this year with their election.......
>
>Just a thought....
>
>Derrick Field
>dfield@ithaca

More to the point, however accurate the polling is, all it shows is
what people are telling the pollsters, and is not necessarily an
accurate indicator of how they will vote. The story of our general
election is partly about inaccurate polling, but also very much about
people saying one thing, and doing another. The Sunday Times poll
which went back to the same people for three weeks before and one week
after the election showed that their sample *was* representative, just
that the people said one thing before the election, but when it came
to the ballot box, they voted differently. You can't blame the
pollsters for that, can you ?

Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: FREE-ENERGY Technologies
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:32:35 GMT

The other day, when this guy sent his first batch of nonsense, I
sniped that some schools must not have admissions standards.
Now our delusional friend claims to have a BS degree in physics
from UW - Eau Claire.

!

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:13:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: behind the numbers game
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>I took a mass media research class last semester and one of the tiny bits
>of wisdom that my professor passed on to the class was that if a poll has
>a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points or higher, it is
>not a trustworthy poll.
>I don't know about you, but I've yet to see a poll with a margin or error
>(whoops! margin OF error) less than 3 percent. I don't put much faith in
>these polls, even though they do show my man Clinton leading. After all,
>look what happened in Britian this year with their election.......

Any individual poll might be considered untrustworthy, given the vaguaries
of the polling process and the problems in getting a truly representative
sampling, problems that other posters have described in more detail.
However, given the remarkable consistency of the polls in the last month
and a half, with Clinton maintaining an approximate ten point lead, I am
inclined to believe that the numbers are accurate representations of the
current mood of the electorate.

This will likely change in October, however.  Perot's entry is already
making the numbers more volatile, and the series of debates coming up are
sure to shake them up some more.  Whether this helps Bush is yet to be
seen.

The first debate ('for sure this time! honest! we mean it!') is slated for
Sunday the 11th in St. Louis.  Both Clinton and Bush have said that Perot
would be welcome, if he meets the Debate Commission's standards, whatever
those might be.

>Derrick Field

Gary W. Olson                "The federal government is basically one enormous,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  ongoing Meeting From Hell." - Dave Barry
31 days and counting down...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:40:00 EST
From:         ACLLAB <E3354012@APOLLO.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush
Comments: To: POLITICS <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Did someone jump on the bandwagon and mention Florio?

Hi. My name is Stu and I attend Montclair State in New Jersey.  Before
Florio's big 1 penny tax increase I was able to use the VAX terminal that
I am currently using now seven days a week.  Thanks to the newly elected
Republican state legislature my tuition is expected to increase 20%, anyone
can purchase an uzi, I can't inspect my car on the weekends without taking
a day off from work(which, by the way costs me more than the increase),
school bus drivers, custodians and anyone else related to the public school
system has lifetime medical coverage(payback to the NJEA campaign pledges),
my Homestead Rebate is gone(but Grandma was excluded, after all AARP supported
the Republicans), whoops gotta go, the labs about to close!  Maybe I'll use
the terminals located in the library?  Whoops, forget that those hours were
cut too.
	Guess I'll go to the mall and take advantage of the 1% off sale.

~ Stu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:08:01 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Decline of America: The Police State, foot

>From:         "I. P. Freely" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
>
>
>BOTH MEN: (correctly point out)  What?!?  Are you stupid?  Do you always
>employ idiotic kneejerk reactions when faced with simple problems?  Do you
>lobby Congress to ban cars when teens die in traffic accidents?  What about
>electricity, swimming pools and roller skates?  Wouldn't it make more sense
>to punish the offender rather than blaming an inanimate object?
>
>A typical American citizen with a bazooka is a threat to no one.  A criminal
>with a pocket knife is a threat to everyone. --- AnonyMoss
>
>---Robert

and let me just say this about that before anyone else does:

guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Jenna "lets give everyone guns, then we'll all have a fair shake" Cole-Steele
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:43:03 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
              28 Sep 1992 13:42:00 EST from <SABOE%VUVAXCOM.BITN
              ET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:42:00 EST linda said:
>middle of the afternoon. he told her to get out of the car, raped her, then
>left. he's tried but been unsuccessful in attempts since then.
>this happened about 3-4 wks ago.
>
>the news story said that when we are stopped by the police, we have the right
>to request they call for backup before we give them our license or get out of
>car, whatever.

"an" incident?  I don't mean to diminish the situation, but it's been
happening almost daily in Chicago/NE Ill., at least according to WMAQ.
Now they are trying to figure out whether it's the same joker or
whether they're into copycats...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:39:49 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Bye for now

Hi all:

As fascinating as all this is, there are some things I must attend to,
so I'll be setting nomail for a few weeks at least.

If anybody wants to contact me, email to my address.

Don't worry, though.  I'll be back.  :-)

--Missy P 2 B (KSTE@PURCCVM)
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 'air' baker and the debate debate
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:56:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Gary the swede asks:
>Just a quick question on this.  Won't Bush be busy preparing for the debates,
>too?  I mean, it's not much of an ambush if you get your own guy tied down,
>is it?

I'd guess that this strategy is the best Bush can do: it seems to me that
as long as Bush and Clinton are *both* stumping, Clinton gets ahead.
Bush needs to slow Clinton down more than he needs to speed himself up --
so effecting a sort of "time out" while both prep for debates may be a good
strategy for the Bushman.  But that's just intuition on my part.

According to NPR this morning, the current debate proposal under discussion
is 3 presidential and 1 veep debate (I don't remember the dates).  The pres
debates will be one with single moderator, one with panel, and one that
somehow mixes both.  Perot is anticipated to be included, and some
spokesperson or other said negotiations should be concluded today.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:33:54 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Virtual election comment ...

Hello fellow Friday revelers:
>>How can a candidate for Virtual President abandon the race, and the sure
>>"debate" we'll have in mid-October, and expect to have a chance on Election
>>Day?
>
>well, perot did it and now he's back.

It occurs to me that these comments might refer to the temporary departure
of my running mate, the other Kerry.  If they do (and I would never accuse
our opponents of doing this deliberately, of course!), I must take umbrage
at the comparison with perot.

>> I propose an e-mail "debate" - wherein we
>>allow either a non-candidate or the proposed logic czar to pose three
>>questions for all the tickets, and all seven, or nine, or ten tickets (I've
>>lost track due to the invisibility of most of the candidates) offer answers,
>>either jointly, or responses from all candidates.
>
>the E tickEt thinks this is acceptable. wE request tho', that we limit answers
>to a certain number of lines so as not to clog up email.
>
>what abt. rebuttals???
>
Works for me, too.  I'm confident that my running mate and I will manage to
do our part :)

I would also remind listmembers that the KErry ticket has endorsed beer.
Wheat beer is good stuff, even though I can't get it in West-by-god-
Virginia (thank goodness for out-of-town visitors with trunk space!).

Looking forward to crossing virtual swords . . .

Kerry
p.s.: Val -- the Boulevard wheat beer (I think that's the one from the
local brewery there in KC) is real nice.  I bought some at Gomers.  Yum.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:51:00 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: HR 1674

On the other hand,

Since the NSA can listen to any telephone conversation anywhere in the
country at any time they like, what difference does it make?

They've already won.

--Missy P 2 B
From: SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET (linda)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton at Drew University
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:05:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

>I do know the 2nd party was a GOP member and was from New Mexico.


that's pete domenici, republican from new mexico

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:26:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: H. 'You People' Ross 'I don't want to be a spo

There have been three polls investigating the new balance. Two
have Clinton leading Bush by 11% points. One has Clinton leading
by only 5 points.

I think we'll get a slightly better feel in the next poll, after
people have digested their feelings about Ross's return.

I also agree that his poll numbers will be higher than his votes,
because people will be more apt to "send a message" with pollsters
than in the booth.

One reason Perot's re-entry hasn't hurt Clinton much is that Perot
probably snatched up a bunch of formerly "undecided"s. Those were
expected to go more heavily toward Bush than toward Clinton in
November (undecideds tend to think, "Well, I dunno, guess I'll just
vote for the President). So in the long run, Perot will hurt Bush
more than he will hurt Clinton.
IF he had stayed in the race the whole way, my guess is that he
would have hurt Clinton more. But by now, lots of the not-Bush
voters have settled on Clinton, and Perot is unlikely to do much
to change their minds again.
That's why Clinton got a boost when Perot left, but didn't take
a beating when he returned.

Texas is the only state where Perot might pick up electoral votes.
The only one that matters, anyway. Even there, he's more likely
to hurt Bush, since they're competing for the Favorite Son
vote, whereas Clinton is taking more ideological voters. And
Texas is very even right now.

As to the debates:
I think they are most likely to help Clinton, who is a much better
debater than Bush (and Gore much better than Quayle). Perot is apt
to get eaten alive, I think. "I'll think about that later" doesn't
play well in an October debate, esp. if the panel gets follow-up
questions.
Paradoxically, though, I think it was a good move for Bush to agree
to debates. Even though they will PROBABLY help Clinton, they MIGHT
help Bush. And Clinton doesn't need help. Bush does.

Talking about Baker's strategy is silly. Baker has tried several
gambits. None of them so far has been successful. Maybe the debate
tactic will be, but the mere announcement won't make any difference
at all.

With Perot's return and the debates in the offing, we should think
of polls as being much more volatile than they were before. We could
easily see big jumps in Monday morning polls. The question is whether
those jumps will translate into votes. I doubt it, personally, barring
some spectacular debate performance.

While I'd hate to see it, I think tactically Clinton ought to duck
any questions on foreign policy. Ducking might hurt him a bit, but
he can afford that. Answering badly could hurt a lot. I hope he
doesn't follow this strategy, though.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:59:00 EDT
From:         i'm voting for harry truman <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      behind the numbers game
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Well, I don't know about you, but this has been quite an interesting Friday.
Time-travelling presidents, James Baker as the lathe of heaven, beer beer
and more beer, and, of course, the latest polls.

From: MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
>So, Perot seems to back in.  The CNN poll I saw had Clinton at 52%, Bush at 35%
>and Perot at 7%.  Clinton's numbers actually seemed to go up because of this.
>Huh?  I (and I think everyone else) was predicting that he would hurt Clinton
>more than Bush.  After all, didn't his pulling out help Clinton?  Maybe I'm
>missing something crucial here.  Any thoughts on the matter?

I heard the same figures on NPR this morning (the "Gallup tracking poll", they
called it).  The poll data Jamie gave is probably more on the mark, though.
(Has anybody noticed that the CBS poll is almost always narrower than the
other polls?  Do they ask the question a different way, or what?).  An 8-10%
gap seems about in line with Clinton's lead over Bush in Michigan (which has
16 electoral votes, nyah nyah nyah).  I don't have the exact figures, but
they did include Perot as a choice for the respondants.  Clinton's lead was
around 12% before Perot jumped back in, so he's seen some erosion, though
I doubt it's enough to give Bush a serious shot.

Michigan has been called by many a "battleground" state, but it seems that
the state is tilting heavily in favor of Clinton, despite not having chosen
a democratic candidate since Hubert Humphrey.  Unemployment is around 9%,
compared to 7.6% nationally, and with G.M. announcing more plant closings,
that number will probably grow.  Also, Clinton has done a good job of keeping
blue collar workers (the 'reagan democrats' of yore) in the democratic
camp so far, and that will likely prove to be the key to Michigan's vote.

>Martin

working on some
m00sehead lager,
Gary W. Olson                "In the cool month of May his woman sent him away
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  but it's just another day for the man they call
32 days and counting down...  Hate." - Mary's Danish, "Shotgun"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:26:04 BST
From:         "(Dunstan_Vavasour)" <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: CounterSpin #13: DEBATE EVASION
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

[flipping loads of stuff deleted]
>MOCK SOPHISTICATION: Some commentators have pointed out how reluctant
>reporters are to charge a candidate with lying. Michael Kinsley, in a
>column debunking Bush's tax claims (Washington Post, 9/3), noted: "Keep
>the phony dispute going long enough and eventually the press throws up
>its hands and declares wearily that both sides have called the other
>dishonest long enough and it's time to move on."

Well, this shows a failing on the part of the reporters. They should
keep asking for a straight answer to their question - even to the
point of asking the same question five or ten times. If they don't get
an answer, they should report the fact. One TV interviewer here will
dig and dig with a question, and every now and then he gets a scoop
for his programme because the subject has *had* to answer the
question.

Dunstan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:      Re: Perot--in, out, what?
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:37:39 GMT

In <POLITICS%92092911525003@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> K=A*T writes:

# From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
	....
# 
# I kinda agree.  I think it was demeaning that Bush People and
# Clinton people went to pay homage in Dallas.  And I further
# agree with what you said earlier: Bush or Clinton would have
# scored well with me (and I hope with some segments of the population)
# had they said to Perot, "Look, our positions are clear and
# declared.  If you want to run, run.  If you want to support us,
# fine.  But we are not gonna come to you to Dallas to explain
# our position, ask for forgiveness, and then maybe have your
# support."
# 
# > --Missy P 2 BzP3xdm~q%ck6$Pw
# 
# --KAT

	I agree, too.  It even gave some credence to Perot's
	claim that he is the only one who has seriously attacked
	the issue of the deficit.  Clinton had a deficit-reduction
	plan, and I think that Bush even finally came up with one.
	It is just as much up to Perot to understand their plans
	as it is up to them to understand his, if you see what
	I am trying to say.  Maybe they didn't even get a courtesy
	copy of the book....

	And, frankly, I do NOT myself believe that the deficit
	is the biggest problem facing us immediately.  The biggest
	problem is getting the economy rolling again, getting people
	jobs, and curbing the greed in the big business world
	while ending this era of socialism for business.

	Then we can worry about the deficit.  After we start taxing
	the rich at the rate they should be taxed, also.  I read
	a study that indicated that the amount we got behind each
	year was almost precisely the amount that was NOT paid by
	the wealthy and by big business....

	Certainly the wealthy and big business should be bailing
	out the savings and loans (and after the election,
	the banks) instead of those of us who did not engage in
	such shenanigans..

	But in emphasizing the deficit, Perot is actually detracting
	from the excesses that caused it.  I wonder if he is for
	ANY regulation of business or if he too will really continue
	to regulate people and consumers.  

	What he as a very wealthy man seems to be saying is,
	let's ignore how we got into this mess, and just ALL OF US,
	you poor people along with us rich people, solve this
	problem together.

	I say, BULL.  The rich got richer.  Let them get poorer
	for a while.

Ginny
	

===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU