HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpassage@eden.Berkeley.EDU (David Paschich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot admits COBOL affair; details at 11
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:36:11
Organization: United Spam Growers' Defense Fund
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu's message of 12 Apr 1992 07:44:48 GMT

In article <s8ppgINNp1i@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

   Always wondered about this.

Although I think that the original subject line would have been a lot
more interesting...

   If the Republic lasts long enough something like the following is
   bound to happen:

   What if three days before the election one of the candidates of the
   two parties dies in a plane accident?

   ... is assassinated?

Same thing in both cases; the candidate's party scrambles to announce
another candidate.  When you cast a vote, you're generally voting for
an elector of a certain party, pledged to vote for that party's
candidate.  Depending on the circumstances, this would probably be
that party's vice-presidential candidate.

   ... suffers a stroke and is in a coma?

Hmm.  Depends on the malady; if he or she isn't going to come out of
the coma, probavly same as above; if not, the election goes on as
scheduled, and any future events are covered by the appropriate
amendment to the Constitution.

David Paschich
(amateur constitutional scholar)
From: dpassage@eden.Berkeley.EDU (David Paschich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:41:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: eden.DPASSAGE.92Apr15134137
	<1992Apr5.220456.18537@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
	<1992Apr8.051451.25520@athena.mit.edu> <zw0t=5j@rpi.edu>
Organization: United Spam Growers' Defense Fund
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu's message of 15 Apr 92 19:24:49 GMT

In article <zw0t=5j@rpi.edu> goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:

   Do you mean to say that if the results turn up: 30% Libertarian,
   27% Democrat, 27% Republican, 15% Perot, and 1% all others, the
   Libertarian candidate would not win? If so, why wouldn't he?

Because in the case of no candidate receiving a majority, the House
decides from among the top 3 candidates.  This will almost certainly
go to the Democrats, unless you expect the Libertarians to take more
than 50% of the state delegations...

David Paschich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:44:35 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

To respond to JW Solinsky's response to Bill COle.

Do you think people want to live in slums JAson?  DO you think all the
people in Harlem would rather mover elsehwere and live in a better 
place?  SO mayber were the chicken farm workers.  BUt I am
afraid that ECONOMICS keeps them there.  People cant afford to move.
They are not fully informed of other options even if they could 
afford to move.  And who would say, especially, in this economy
that they would get a job if they did move.

Sure there are a bunch of people who move around in the US but it
is the people who can afford it.  It takes alot of money and
usually a job to find a place to live.

Your theory bumps its head against reality.

And, what is this claim of the turnaround time for CEO's being three
years if he is inefficient.  The Pinto was designed in the 1960's and
Lee Ioccoco the head of its production is still around making even
more money.

The point about car safety regulations is that all cars must meet
in a mininum standard.  If they had no mininum to meet then they
could all get together and agrree not to and the conumer is stuck
with a nonchoice.

Breakdown rates of car are something else separate from safety
regulations so do not mix comparisions.   US cars were losing to
Japan for years  and while perhaps their repair rates are better
their MPG is not.

In fact, they could compete with MPG of Japanese cars but once Ronnie
got in they fought to lower govt mandated MPG and so it was and so
US cars are still gas guzzler compared to Japanese cars and 
European cars.

Alot of regulation, that is passed often is influenced by industry
to their likeing and than they can use it to complain and blame for
why they cant compete.  

As I said before, not all regulation is good but it is not the scourge
of the earth and can further your ends of freedom.

As I said, lets tell credit bureaus they can only report things that
are relevant to your credit worthiness like job, salary, if ever have
late payments and not that maybe your nosy neighbor thinks you might
get drunk ever other week.  DO you know that most credit bureaus have
their investigators have to bring in a certain quota of negative
information about people they investigate.  Definitely a bad
corporate regulation, wouldnt you think?

Why rely on imperfect discovery methods, and strengthen the law to a
outright prohibition.  Leave me alone so I can be free to do what I
want in private.  I say, regulations can help us to this end.  

It is naive to think that competition necessarily will help you there.
There are only three major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax. TRW &
another one).  They have no one to compete with.  They ahve no
incentive to compete b/c businesses use their services despite
invasions of privacy into citizens lives. They dont care.

The free market and perfect competition and perfect information as any
economist will admit is a model that does not exist in real life.
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: America: What Went Wrong?
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:51:05 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
In-reply-to: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 12 Apr 92 16:15:16 GMT

Just for your information:

This book will also be the basis for the next program in Bill Moyers'
"Listening to America" series (probably being broadcast at some random time
this week on your local PBS station).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Media and the "Character" Pseudo-Issue (was Brown $100 Limit?)
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:59:16 GMT
	<Apr.4.14.19.23.1992.5517@math.rutgers.edu>
	<43922@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<Apr.4.18.31.26.1992.9758@math.rutgers.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: cromar@math.rutgers.edu's message of 4 Apr 92 23:31:26 GMT

In article <Apr.4.18.31.26.1992.9758@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:



   rdale@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Dale) writes:
   > cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

   > >This strikes me as a candidate for the most inane story of the year

   > 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...

Does this mean that only lawyers with _large_ families would be
appointed to the Supreme Court by President Brown?
Is this related to his alleged unPCness on abortion???
 ;-)
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The American Way
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:56:02 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <BMEyrn.7MF@world.std.com> Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza) writes:
>The American election is a farce.  There is nothing and no one to vote for.
>On the other hand, one can argue that a nation that elects its leaders gets
>the leaders it deserves.  The best thing most people in the USA could do
>with their "choice" this November is walk away from it.  Don't vote, it only
>encourages them.
>
	Anyone who walks away from the election gets the leader they deserve.
And as far as I'm concerned, has no room to criticize them. Vote for an 
Extremist who has no chance of getting elected if you want to send a message.
Voting for no one is a defacto vote for the winner.
From: 2frwreel@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Brown's 13% tax and WSJ?
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:45:11 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Brown keeps quoting a wall street journal article
which supposedly says how wonderful his 13% flat tax
is.  Does anyone know the date and page of this article?
   Thanks in advance,
            -David
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Stop beating the Horse (was RE: regulations)
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:52:33 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <sauiaINN11m@agate.berkeley.edu> jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>I must say it is interesting to participate in an ivy debate over whether
>or not Americans benefit from legislation.  (we have MIT, Harvard, Columbia
>and of course, ALWAYS (EVER?) OBJECTIVE Berkeley)  I would say that we 
>are in no way representative, and (beware: eletist viewpoint) that we can
>not possibly have the viewpoint of typical Americans.  This especially 
>applies to you Jason.

But this is so much fun!  At least the first couple of days can be.
>To change jobs will involve not eating until they get it, plus at least
>a week.  Some people do not have savings, Jason.
>
>Let everyone be glad to be in school.  Finding a full time job to live on
>is a bitch right now.  Now, everyone make their last statement, and let
>it go.  This is me signing out.

Actually, I'm looking for a job right now.  You got one up in Boston,
Jason?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Vote NeXT!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:33:48 GMT

In article <4345@calmasd.Prime.COM> gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.023748.5564@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush) writes:
>>
>>                             Elect H. Ross Perot!
>
>
>The fact is that he is really the worlds first welfare billionaire.
>His fortune was made contracting for forms handling for the various
>state Medicare programs (MediCal etc.) where he could apply computers
>to the claims processing.  He was able to reduce the state's per claim
>processing cost from just under a dollar to about thirty cents while
>his actual costs were less than ten cents per claim.  The state agencies
>were not allowed to enrich anyone directly off of these programs but their
>subcontractors were allowed to profit.  And it was from these welfare
>programs intended to benefit the poor that H. Ross Perot made his first
>billions.

	I thought he made about $1 Billion off the GM deal. Does this mean
his only other customer was the Taxas welfare system? Also, a 3 X markup,
from what I know, is standard.

>
>Because of the imense amounts of money involved and because of the huge
>profit margins there were often allegations of "improper influence"
>being brought to bear on members of the state agencies awarding these
>contracts.  The gangs of "suits" that were brought in to implement the
>conversion to the automated system made IBM reps look like hippies in
>comparison.  Insiders in the companies being converted refered to them
>as the "Texas Mafia".

	When I worked at another company, They brought in some managers from 
an Oregon- based company. The fact that they were outsiders and were viewed as
working as a team meant they were constantly reffered to as the "Oregon
Mafia". Were they bad people? no. Were they totalitarian in attitude? no.
Were they percieved as a threat to the political structure of the company?
Sometimes, to some people.

>
>I assume the stupid political stunts will get sufficient coverage
>elsewhere, but for now me he doesn't sound much like the kind of guy
>I would like to see elected president.


	I'm not certain about him. He seems honest, and explains himself
well, but at this early point in the game his positions aren't clear. The
other major candidates, however, look worse, and the only negatives I've
heard about Perot have come from the Net, a Place where people tend to
exaggerate (calling Bush a Fascist is a common example).
From: jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 8 Apr 1992 06:05:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

I believe the original poster asked for people to say why they WOULD vote
for Mr.  Bush.  I don't think I'd mind seeing that.  Surely there are 
Republicans that can use a computer.  But all I've seen so far is comments
insisting there still is a presidential election, and that Libertarians
are over-represented on the net (like nasa employees).  

So, let the GOP speak, and give us rationale, hopefully other than just 
party ID.  And let everyone post to "why not vote Bush"

jason o'rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu (sm00sh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: no new york republican primary
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:36:41 GMT
Organization: UB



alright, i admit i haven't been toatlly up to date with the news lately...
bieing the middle of the semester and all... but since when did new york
cancel its republican primary?  i got up this morning at 5:30am and drove 25
minutes to my home (i live in an apartment across town) so i could vote and
then i fond out that there is none!  

okay... so maybe buchanan has dropped out... like i said i haven't heard
anything lately about buchanan i assumed just becuase everyone knows that bush
is going to win and therefore spent 90% of there coverage on the democrats and
therefore i missed the 10% of republican coverage...


here is my philosophical question for the day...

should geaorge bush recive any of new york electoral votes since no one in the
state voted for him?  Since no one cast a single ballot, who knows, I might
have won had any votes been cast... but we will never know... so, when the
caucus comes up... do new york's votes get counted towards bush and thereby
making his victory appear that much more solid than it was... or do they not
count at all and are considered abstained votes and so the total college is
reduced by, say, 24 votes.

BTW, even though buchanan did not eneter/withdrew from new york's primary i
still would have bothered going tothe booth, pulling the lever shut and then
simpoly not voted for anybody...  but that's just me. I want to register my
protest vote but can't... so much for elections being the voince of the
people.

jason

-- 
jadahlin@acsu.buffalo.edu
v285raag@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:14:30 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: alt

>Simply providing "free" T.V. times raises several questions: 1) who pays
>for it? 2) how do we determine who gets it? 3) what makes you think ads
>will be any more constructive?

1) Who pays?  If this were "regular programming", then ads would pay the
cost.  Unfortunately, their might not be enough viewers!! 

Otherwise, the media could offer a public "service" (through tax break)
or the time could be bought outright.  Buying some non prime time would
be MUCH cheaper than the current fleet of telephoners/hand out people
engaged in the election process.

The Discovery channel ran a "head to head" for Brown, Tsongas and Clinton
(I believe, I only saw the post-review).  They said this was THE FIRST TIME
this has happened in a forum purely for presentation of ideas (in a form
for mass consumption not dedicated to slamming each other) That fact is 
sad.  
 
2) Public TV would be adequate.  How do we determine who gets the info
now?  A person can always go to the womans league of voters for info.
Currently, we control who gets info by buying them (achieve recognition)
this is puke-rot. We should not have to flood our population with merely
the faces of candidates, this is worse than no information.

3) Ads would be more constructive because:

a) They now have their pledges written down
b) Anyone could read it anytime (without a VCR)
c) Candidates should be judged by their merit, not on their appearance


ELIMINATE PAC's!!!!!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.062159.4292@cs.rose-hulman.edu> carneyda@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jr Dan Carney) writes:
>All I would like to say is that Perot seems to be, based so far only on  
>his interview with King and the other posts here, sensible and willing to  
>do only what the people want. I don't know about you, but I am sick of the  
>same old crap. A politician states all of these great things he is going  
>to do for us(environment), than does none of them. I wonder who that could  
>be? It isn't just Bush either. Does anyone remember the 70s? That  
>inflation was sure great. It was a Democrat in charge then and now a  
>Republican is in charge and not doing any better.

Does anyone remember Richard Nixon and Gerald (WIN) Ford?  4 of 10
years is hardly "in charge."

#INCLUDE "Congress.debate"


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: PAC's  Lets have a real democracy
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:53:08 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: alt


  Currently, our candidates run for president on money that is given to
them by special interests.  Therefore, they  serve special interests,
and not the good of the country.  We do not have a real democracy.

  We should eliminate PAC's, eliminate funding from anyone or any group
for control of the government.  We have a bought house!  Any sort of private
funding whatsoever should not go into campaigns, including one's own money.

  Currently, our government is a farce because it must cater to special
interest groups.  It does not function for the good of the people, except
when the good of the people corresponds to the interests of someone trying
to make a buck.  Our media and some outstanding individuals have made a 
very tiny dent in this, but it is insufficient.

  How would they run for government?  Well, this would be provided for by
the government, as in a free public forum.  Every candidate would have
to get a certain number of supporters to continue to have coverage.
Taking out a page in the New York Times once a week would be adequate,
along with public debates on television for an hour or two.  The current
method of platform ideas through sound bytes is ridiculous and inadequate.


  Until these changes take place, we are living in a pseudo democracy.
What is our problem?
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 11 Apr 92 11:51:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alot of people have asked for evidence that regulations can destroy a place, but
Anthony Koumis has absolutely no excuse. I know you people don't get out often,
but next time it is as sunny as it was yesterday, take a walk through cambridge.
Look at all of the housing projects, and all the rent controlled buildings that
have been abandoned, because payments on rent control were not enough to pay for
maintenance. One third of the kids in Cambridge are born in poverty. They are
going to stay in the city because their parents are paid to do so by the
government. They are even given housing by the government. Compare what that city
produces as a whole to what it consumes. Our end of town (where all the housing
projects and things seem to have wound up) would collapse, if it weren't for all
of the start-up's needs to stay close to MIT. LOOK AROUND YOU at Cambridge, one
of the most regulated cities in the entire USA. Is what you see good?

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.063113.27772@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <ru1q2INNhs7@agate.berkeley.edu>, jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>
> ... Did you know that in Texas, there is enough
>room for all 5 Billion people in this world to live, in a healthy manner raising
>enough food to support themselves?

Is this the kind of thing that makes libertarians?  I would simpoly
LOVE to see the data on this.  Makes the Perot=Hitler assertion look
like F=ma.

>
>Agencies would develope that would certify the effectiveness of products. If
>people don't want to buy products that have gone through the trouble of being
>certified, let the buyer be ware.

I'm ware.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson)
Subject: Re: Citizens for Tax Justice (was Re: Jerry Brown's Tax)
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:55:55
Originator: meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
	<6APR92.02212324@umbc2.umbc.edu> <1992Apr6.171650.25690@udel.edu>

In article <1992Apr6.171650.25690@udel.edu> lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:

   This is how it works in Europe, maybe, but as I said, it is a tax on
   the profits of business. A business takes its income, deducts the costs
   of materials, etc, and multiplies by 13%, and that is how it will pay
   taxes. Either Clinton doesn't understand this, or yes, he's been
   lying.

That's not a Value Added Tax -- that's a flat corporate income tax.
VAT is on goods and services sold (ie. gross revenue), while income
tax is on profits (ie. net revenue). If Brown plans to replace a 35%
tax with a 13% per cent tax, I imagine that he means replacing a 35%
tax on _net_ with a 13% tax on _gross_ -- otherwise, your country
would soon be bankrupt.


David

--
#################################################################
David Megginson                  meggin@epas.utoronto.ca
Centre for Medieval Studies      david@doe.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto            39 Queen's Park Cr. E.
#################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections