HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Its official: Clinton wins
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:54:36 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <mvij.720894552@unix2.tcd.ie>
mvij@unix2.tcd.ie (madhav vij) writes:
 
>I feel that anybody calling Clinton's victory a landslide is having
>delusions......Look at the facts-Over HALF the American Electorate voted
>for "anybody but Clinton" and Clinton has not made it over the 400 electoral
>college votes(Reagan took over 500 votes in 1984!).
 
I am not calling Clinton's victory a landslide, but he *won*...that's
all that counts.  By your logic, 62% voted for "anybody but Bush" and
81% voted "anybody but Perot".  Clinton's showing in a three-way race
was good enough to win.  If you don't like it, too bad.
 
>   President Bush took two of the largest states, Texas and Florida.
 
So what's your point?  Clinton took *the* two largest states, and a lot
more in total than Bush.
 
>                                                                     I feel
>   that in 4 years time the so called Reagan Democrats will regret not
>   supporting Bush in his hour of need.                                        c
 
I am not a "Reagan Democrat" by any means.  I may very well regret
supporting Clinton.  I cannot predict the future with any certainty.  I
do know that Bush has been a very poor President, and Clinton has been
a good Governor with a chance to be a good President.  I would rather
he had the chance rather than suffer through four more years of Bush.
 
>                                        A democratic President and a democraticc
>   congress is an explosive mixture. "Clintonits" voted for change but all
>   they will get  in the next 4 years is "change, change, change in their
>   pockets". Clinton supporters don't believe me now but let time be
>   the judge!
>
I am perfectly willing to let time be the judge.  You, apparently are
not, since you are predicting what will happen.  I hope and expect you
will be proven wrong over the next four years.
 
>   Baker for President in 1996 !!!!!
>--
I doubt it, but we just suffered through a very long campaign.  Let's
let it rest for awhile...okay?
 
>-----
>Madhav.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13589 alt.politics.clinton:16535 alt.politics.elections:23216 talk.politics.misc:59108 alt.politics.perot:5349
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:07:36 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <adams.720979002@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes:
>
>>Bill Clinton -- Democrat          43,713,885
>>George Bush -- Republican         38,150,812
>>Ross Perot -- Independent         19,228,530
>>Andre Marrou -- Libertarian          234,413 <----- This is a disaster...
>>Bo Gritz -- Populist                  95,640
>>Lenora Fulani -- New Alliance         70,810
>>John Hagelin -- Natural Law           31,408
                                        ^^^^^^----+
>>Howard Phillips -- Wash. Taxpayers    29,677    |
>>Lyndon LaRouche -- Independent        25,063    |
>>Ron Daniels -- Independent            24,997    |
                                                  |
Perhaps, but this number is a sign of a badly mismanaged campaign.  If 
there really were 31,000 Hagelin supporters, a number with exceeds the 
sqrt{N} for the population of the globe, their simultaneous meditation 
should have been able to sway the entire US electorate to his side. 

Either that or he had just 177 supporters, whose meditation managed to 
sway 31,329 people to his side ... 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: How times change
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:22:58 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:26:16 GMT

In article <1denmmINNout@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Richard A. Mulac,
ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>I agree with you.  I don't even think a 50 point drop is anything to 
>get excited about.  My point was that when the market dropped 20 points
>one day about a month ago, Clinton and the "unbiased" media used it to
>condemn Bush.  If they are going to use that criteria to judge Bush, then
>they also have to apply it to Clinton.

Excuse me Richard but Bush was taking credit for everything good
and denying responsibility for anything bad. I'm surprised he didn't claim
credit for sunny days and blame the democrats for the killer bee
migration. He brought much of this on himself.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:06:23 GMT

niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>Everything you mention is an example of government getting out of the way
>>or collecting less taxes in certain circumstances. This fits the Republican
>>philosophy of inactive government.
>
>I have to disagree.  There is a MAJOR philosophical difference between
>Jack Kemp and George Bush on government's role in the economy.

Sorry... I got lazy and used "Republican philosophy" as shorthand for the
outgoing brand of Republicanism, that of the Reagan/Bush years. Normally,
I try to be sensitive to the bi-partisan nature of Clinton's election,
where so many Republicans (about 10%) voted for him, as did many others
who while not self-described Republicans nevertheless voted
Reagan/Reagan/Bush before joining Clinton this time.

>George Bush believes everything is fine, and that government shouldn't
>do ANYTHING.
>
>Jack Kemp believes in using the government to help guide the free-market
>towards solutions to problems.

The Republican party proper is diverse and a new dominant group is bound
to emerge, maybe led by Jack Kemp, who as you say is less dogmatic in
his anti-government attitude. They have evolved this way and that over
the years. Still, one relatively constant difference they have with the 
Democratic party is their general cynicism about and opposition to 
government solutions. The domestic and economic positions taken in the 1960 
Kennedy/Nixon debates were divided along similar ideological lines,
with Nixon downplaying the direct role of government in creating the
modest growth of the 2nd Eisenhower administration, while Kennedy
argued that "we can do better." Clinton has used this quote with regularity,
sharing JFK's belief in "effective governmental action" where appropriate.
Clinton is truly in line with traditional Democratic philosophy,
notwithstanding howls from the exiled ones that he ran as a Republican.
He has a more than adequate mandate to press forward his agenda of
change. Reaganite Republicans who are left behind will wallow in their 
denial and delusion that it wasn't their unwillingness to govern that was 
rejected, but merely the ideological impurity of their latest fallen 
standard-bearer.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13518 alt.politics.clinton:16411 alt.politics.elections:23104 talk.politics.misc:58884
From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:44:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov8.010851.26858@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>sdl@linus.mitre.org (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>>> Republicans became completely trapped in a philosophy that held that
>>> government could do nothing, and should do nothing, especially when
>>> capitalists were impeded in any way. 

>>I disagree.  Many Republican conservatives (who had served under
>>Reagan) have suggested lots of ways for the government to help the
>>economy: supply-side economics, significant tax cuts, deregulation,
>>enterprise zones (which now the Democrats and liberals have embraced), etc.

>Everything you mention is an example of government getting out of the way
>or collecting less taxes in certain circumstances. This fits the Republican
>philosophy of inactive government.

I have to disagree.  There is a MAJOR philosophical difference between
Jack Kemp and George Bush on government's role in the economy.

George Bush believes everything is fine, and that government shouldn't
do ANYTHING.

Jack Kemp believes in using the government to help guide the free-market
towards solutions to problems.

George Bush doesn't want to do anything; Kemp believes in a small but
activist government.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13853 alt.politics.clinton:17038 alt.president.clinton:383
From: mmcohen@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael M Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: WHITE WINE / SEED OIL
Date: 13 Nov 1992 11:36:03 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <LARRY.92Nov12134528@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>
>You are completely mislead regarding the tariff on French Wine and who
>imposed it.  It was imposed by the Trade Commission, and the Democrats
>backed it 100%.  Senator Moynihan was just on CNN praising the stand
>the US was taking.  The French have been abusing the US in trade for
>years, but until it involved the entire EC, it was not worth pursuing.
>The tariff was quite ingenious, actually, specifically targetting
>white wine, a purely French product while excluding Red wine that
>primarily comes from other sources including Italy.
>

GIven that the problem in this case was subsidies to
seed oil production, why was the tariff slapped on wine
rather than oil-seed? Just wondering....
-- 

======================================================================
=   Dr. Michael M. Cohen                   mmcohen@dewi.ucsc.edu     = 
=   Program in Experimental Psychology     mmcohen@fuzzy.ucsc.edu    =
=   433 Clark Kerr Hall                    408-459-2655 LAB          = 
=   University of California - Santa Cruz  408-459-2700 MSGS         = 
=   Santa Cruz, CA 95064                   408-459-3519 FAX          = 
======================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: Re: Individual rights Re: Mr. Waffle King
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:43:25 GMT

In article <BxCAx4.KzE@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth
Mitchell) writes:
> 
> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
> > 
> >  
> >  In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> Mike Best,
> >  best@anasazi.com writes:
> > > >Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
> > > >individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
> > > >the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
> > > >at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
> > > >todays portion of happiness.
> > > 
> > 
> > Conservatives give you rights if you are
> > a) wealthy
> > b) Christian 
> > c) white
> > d) heterosexual
> > e) male
> 
> FALSE. Conservatives don't GIVE people ANY rights; Conservatives believe
> that we were ALL born with EQUAL rights, and deserve equal opportunities.
> (Notice that I don't say "equal results"; results come from what you DO
> with your opportunities.) 
> 
Ken,

Do you really believe that someone, say, born into the inner city, where
the schools are terrible, where violence rules, where the only possible
sources of economic  support are welfare, a minimum-wage job at Burger King
(with no insurance or health benefits), or selling drugs, actually has
equal rights and opportunities?  Do you really blame THEM, and not the
social structure, for "unequal results"?  

"We seek not equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and
result."

Melanie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:43:04 -0600

In article <1992Nov4.165130.27624@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>  writes:
>
>     Also of note in last evening's broadcasts:
>
>o on (I believe) NBC, the Reverend Jackson was interviewed; he mentioned
>  that there is no longer a Russian threat...
>
>  Think again, Rev!

The point is that they have little reason to attack us. 
What they want most from us is McDonalds and information.
Besides, they have enough of their own inner turmoil to mount
anywhere near a successful war against us. The nukes, I suppose,
are still something to fear. But- are terrorists that stupid?

>...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13217 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6313 talk.bizarre:36908
From: terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (St Theresa of the Net)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Date: 6 Nov 1992 00:51:47 GMT
Organization: Computing Something Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Nov5.052030.29415@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Gore will be revealed to be from the planet Krypton, and therefore not
>a US citizen.  Vice President Russ Feingold becomes President in '02,
>and wins the next two elections.  

and Elvis will be his running mate.
Campaign manager: either David Letterman or the writers for Saturday Night
Live.

>The GOP doesn't see the Oval Office
>until 2012, a time in the wilderness equivalent to FDR/Truman.

oh, snort. Maybe by then the fiscal bullshit will have subsided and lots of
those little moneygrubbing freaks will be unable to live off the interest
of their stock transactions and they'll see the oval office in a maid's
uniform.
-- 
A little bit of uh huh and a whole lot of oh yeah.   \  (414)CRUSH-13
T. Flynn's Casa de Interesting: 1755 N Cambridge Ave #306 Milwaukee WI 53202    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13192 alt.politics.clinton:15863
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:40:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>
>In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
>the White House AND the Congress.
>
>Those of us who didn't endorse Clinton can now go from defense to offense,
>and in fact, we'll enjoy ourselves (in a Pyrrhic kind of way). 
>
>Because from January 20, 1993 on, EVERY bad thing that happens will be
>Clinton's fault.  Higher taxes.  Higher deficits.  More regulations.  More
>spending.  Homelessness.  Pollution.  Hunger in Africa.  Drought in
>California.  Everything will now be Clinton's fault -- just as everything
>after January 1981 was Reagan's fault, and all bad events after January
>1989 were Bush's fault (so sayeth the left). 
>

And, perhaps, you can blame him for higher economic growth, lower
unemployment rates, health care costs under control, reduction of
the deficit, etc. etc. 

John D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13642 alt.politics.clinton:16655 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8269
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:19:57 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield
Summary: nice hedge.

In article <1992Nov4.145200.17852@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafav
e@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <Bx6C05.DE3@ns1.nodak.edu> Carl Smith, csmith@plains.NoDak.edu
>writes:
>>I have, all my life, and I still don't fall for the NONSENSE that spews
>>out of the mouth of Bill Clinton.  But at this time it looks like we
>>are stuck with him.  But there is a good side to this.  After Bill
>>Clinton totaly screws over the country, the democrats won't get another
>>candidate in office before I am old and gray...
>
>Well this is a great attitude...... Well you have two choices 1.) You can
>continue to sit there and pout and spew doomsday predictions OR 2.)
>You can help to make the process work by supplying your ideas and
>talents. It's up to you.
>
>Norman
Well nice hedging of the point......
Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:21:32 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov3.183832.8448@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
> 
>                BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
>                FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
> 
> The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the 
> American people had the last word!!!

So, feeling like a complete fool yet, Simon?

You're certainly _looking_ like one.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: cjk@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US and EC Presidents kill GATT (opinion)
Keywords: Bush Clinton Delors trade tariffs politics GATT
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:37:32 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

In article <BxCGqG.MxM@world.std.com> crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:
>Partisan Politics takes priority over world trade in the final days
>of the Bush Administration.  
>
>Just one day after losing the presidential election, The White
>House announced Wednesday that the Global Agreement on Trade and
>Tariffs (GATT) talks had reached an impasse, and that $300 million
>in protective tariffs would be raised as retribution for French
>intransigence on the issue of agricultural subsidies........
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He means cheating.


Somebody set me straight here if I stray abit. (nicely)

GATT is GHWB agenda.  He started it, He wants to finish it.  I think
He is just applying a little bit of pressure on France that I believe
is justified.  Also signaling others to look and examine your trade
policies with the U.S.  Now, if the French crumble under this trade
retaliatory move, it removes a stumbling block for finalization of
GATT.  Not exactly a bad thing for Bush to go out on.

So....are you implying that Bush is doing this cause he's pissed 
at Clinton?

I think not.   But I would venture to guess that this is nothing
as compared to whatever Clinton has in store for trade cheaters.


>Carl Rosen           |  My views are my own.
>crosen@world.std.com |  I represent myself only.

Chris Kevlahan
cjk@cerf.net		| always looking for a good opinion
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13175 alt.politics.clinton:15825 alt.politics.elections:22638
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Its official: Clinton wins
Date: 5 Nov 1992 17:54:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov5.145221.29731@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <5NOV199201422020@vxcrna.cern.ch> CASPER,
>casper@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
>>Face it people, everyone who works for a living is about to become a
>victim of
>>a four-year-long mugging by IRS.
>
>Face nothing.... The man hasn't even been inaugurated yet and the
>Republican
>"crystal ball analyses" have started. You people have been brain-washed
>pretty well by all that lame Republican rhetoric.
>
>Norman
>
But then again, *they* were also the ones predicting a landslide for
Bush...one questions the validity of their predicitons...


>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: FROM PEROT VOTER -- CONGRATULATIONS BIL
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:59:05 CST

In article 5nw@xcluud.sccsi.com, gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com (Glynne Tolar) writes:
|The only good I see in Clinton winning is that 4 years from now you could not
|vote a democrat in for garbage collector!
|

I doub't it.  When the American people look back to the Republicans for
change, they go so far as to elect a Republican President and NO further.
Congress will always be Democratic until and unless we can put an end
to the pork barrel politics that keeps these hogs in power.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Before its too late...
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:26:02 GMT


I think it's really wonderful that you're at least willing to
give the guy a chance to do something. I'm not saying you have 
to support him, or agree with him, but your being really close-
minded to just assume that he's gonna screw up. In 4 years, if
he turns out to be the next LBJ, you're gonna look pretty stupid.

Lighten up a little. It's blockheads like you that are the reason 
people don't get along in this world.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh