On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:14:50 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> It is very difficult for an incumbent in a democracy to survive a recession. Just ask Disraeli.

1) Trump, knowing this, decided that pretending COVID-19 was
no worse than the flu, and letting hundreds of thousands of people
die unnecessarily, was necessary to avoid a discruption to the
economy that might interfere with his re-election.

And people ask why I am so strongly negative towards him, and
even say I suffer from so-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

2) One would, however, think that if it is so much in the interest
of political leaders to not have recessions, that some effort would
have been expended on finding a cure for them.

In fact, a cure exists.

How did Germany find the money to build the armaments with
which it started World War II, after Hitler took power because of the
Great Depression?

In fact, Trump, in his 2016 campaign, even included the major
elements of this cure as part of his platform.

The reason the cure isn't applied is basically because political
decision-making is controlled too much by rich people who don't
care if unemployment goes up, but who are wedded to Adam
Smith's dogma on free trade.

Basically:

Given that there is a 'recession' or a 'depression', and yet
the fundamentals - the physical means of producing enough
goods and services for the country to be prosperous - are
sound, it should be obvious that corrective action is possible.

Direct the factories to hire the workers to produce the goods
that the people need, instead of permitting them to lay staff off.
The minor problem that the people who need the production
aren't all able to pay for it is solved by the government printing
money right and left.

Disaster from the government printing money right and left is
averted by the money not being allowed to be used to purchase
imports.

Micromanagement, however, is only resorted to if necessary.
Just stimulating the economy through conventional monetary
and fiscal measures, rather than issuing orders to individual
factories, would be sufficient - again, with controls on imports,
so that a stimulated economy does not lead to an excess of
imports over exports.

Once you have control over trade, you can stimulate the economy
as much as you like - and therefore enough to *always and forever*
keep the unemployment rates down to their correct values, those
of the postwar boom (approximately 1948-1968).

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:

> How did Germany find the money to build the armaments with
> which it started World War II, after Hitler took power because of the
> Great Depression?

By issuing MeFo bills, which were off-the-record bonds whose
payback date was pushed along until the war made payback
unnecessary. They were also used to hide public expenditure
used for rearmament from the Allies.

If they had ever been redeemed, catastropic inflation would
have occurred. As it turned out, the war made this point moot,
the German government then ordered the Reichsbank to give
unlimited credit to the government, and of course there was the
plunder from the conquered countries.

One of the largest financial con jobs in history.

Is this the model you are proposing?

On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>>>> anything for it ?
>
>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
>>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
>>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
>>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
>>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>
>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
>> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
>> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
>>
>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
>> not do for Trump, by the way.)
>
> That's a good question.
>
> But it does have an answer:
>
> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
> knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
> interests, not Russia's.
>
> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
> it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
> that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
> weapons.
>
> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
> that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
> interests.
>
> This also can address another issue.
>
> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
>
> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
> near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
> just before Russia invaded at the least.
>
> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
> with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
>
> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
> part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
> doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
> the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
>
> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
> a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
> world.
>
> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
> a NATO member under current circumstances.
>
> Well, then, we're OK, right?
>
> Oh, dear, no.
>
> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
> to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
> close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
>
> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
> up more unbelievable things he has said.
>
> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
>
> John Savard

BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.

Lynn

On 3/18/2022 10:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>>>>> "Republicans win".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
>>>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
>>>>>
>>>>>> She may run again in 2024.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
>>>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
>>>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
>>>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
>>>
>>> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
>>> of how elections work.
>>>
>>> The real way, for President of the USA:
>>>
>>> the States select Electors, by popular vote
>>>
>>> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
>>> two are paired)
>>>
>>> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
>>> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
>>> the little States could be ignored.
>>>
>>> The supposed way:
>>>
>>> winner takes all
>>>
>>> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
>>> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
>>>
>>> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
>>>
>>> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
>>> main event.
>>>
>>> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
>>> a run-off is held.
>>>
>>> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
>>> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
>>> write-ins, though.
>>>
>>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>>> President of the United Staes of America.
>>
>> You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>> Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>
> Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
> College.
>
> The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
>
> Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
> Votes.

Many electoral votes would have been flipped if Ross Perot has not been
running in the election. Ross Perot took 19% of the popular votes and
most of those were from the Republican side. Many Republican voters
were disappointed with George H. W. Bush and voted for Perot's fresh
ideas. The popular consensus is that many Republicans would have held
their nose shut and voted for GHWB if Perot had not been on the ballot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

Lynn

On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine when he was Obama's vice president.

I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.

--
Michael F. Stemper
What happens if you play John Cage's "4'33" at a slower tempo?

In article <t14mvh$229$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine when
>he was Obama's vice president.
>
>I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.

Consider who you're wasting time debating.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 13:49:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <t14mvh$229$1@dont-email.me>,
>Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine when
>>he was Obama's vice president.
>>
>>I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.
>
>Consider who you're wasting time debating.

That was Clinton ("it depends on what 'is' is")/Gore and a fine point
is the meaning of "assurances"--apparently in Russian/Ukrainian there
is no distinction between "assurance" and "guarantee".

On 2022-03-19, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 13:49:55 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <t14mvh$229$1@dont-email.me>,
>>Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine when
>>>he was Obama's vice president.
>>>
>>>I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.
>>
>>Consider who you're wasting time debating.
>
> That was Clinton ("it depends on what 'is' is")/Gore and a fine point
> is the meaning of "assurances"--apparently in Russian/Ukrainian there
> is no distinction between "assurance" and "guarantee".

Yes, the Obama(Biden) negotiations were to remove the bomb-making
material (Highly Enriched Uranium) from Ukraine (in exchange for the
US building the nuclear research facility that was an early target of
Russia in this invasion.)

Chris

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:48:25 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine when he was Obama's vice president.
>
>I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.

They very well may have -- in our reality.

But in alt-reality, who can say?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:14:48 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:39:32 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> >>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>> >>>>>>> "Republicans win".
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
>> >>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> She may run again in 2024.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
>> >>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
>> >>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
>> >>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
>> >>
>> >> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
>> >> of how elections work.
>> >>
>> >> The real way, for President of the USA:
>> >>
>> >> the States select Electors, by popular vote
>> >>
>> >> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
>> >> two are paired)
>> >>
>> >> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
>> >> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
>> >> the little States could be ignored.
>> >>
>> >> The supposed way:
>> >>
>> >> winner takes all
>> >>
>> >> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
>> >> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
>> >>
>> >> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
>> >>
>> >> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
>> >> main event.
>> >>
>> >> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
>> >> a run-off is held.
>> >>
>> >> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
>> >> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
>> >> write-ins, though.
>> >>
>> >> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>> >> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>> >> President of the United Staes of America.
>> >
>> >You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>> >Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>> Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
>> College.
>>
>> The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
>> Votes.
>
>Not to mention that polls showed Clinton winning when Perot dropped out of the race in mid-summer. Clinton got a huge bounce from his convention, Bush basically none.
>
>Bush ran a really bad campaign, unfocused and negative. That was not enough to overcome the recent bad economic times, even with a revival under way. It is very difficult for an incumbent in a democracy to survive a recession. Just ask Disraeli.

IIRC, Doonesbury pegged it: Bush I expected to be re-elected because
he pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, but the economy got him. The latter, of
course, is what you just pointed out.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:19:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/18/2022 10:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>>>>>> "Republicans win".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
>>>>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She may run again in 2024.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
>>>>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
>>>>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
>>>>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
>>>>
>>>> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
>>>> of how elections work.
>>>>
>>>> The real way, for President of the USA:
>>>>
>>>> the States select Electors, by popular vote
>>>>
>>>> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
>>>> two are paired)
>>>>
>>>> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
>>>> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
>>>> the little States could be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> The supposed way:
>>>>
>>>> winner takes all
>>>>
>>>> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
>>>> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
>>>>
>>>> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
>>>>
>>>> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
>>>> main event.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
>>>> a run-off is held.
>>>>
>>>> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
>>>> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
>>>> write-ins, though.
>>>>
>>>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>>>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>>>> President of the United Staes of America.
>>>
>>> You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>>> Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>>
>> Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
>> College.
>>
>> The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
>> Votes.
>
>Many electoral votes would have been flipped if Ross Perot has not been
>running in the election. Ross Perot took 19% of the popular votes and
>most of those were from the Republican side. Many Republican voters
>were disappointed with George H. W. Bush and voted for Perot's fresh
>ideas. The popular consensus is that many Republicans would have held
>their nose shut and voted for GHWB if Perot had not been on the ballot.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

Does it have a State-by-State analysis showing this?

That's the only think that will work; overall totals are not
sufficient. Texas went for Bush I -- it would matter if every single
vote for Perot were in Texas.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 08:29:24 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:aaf1c868-b4e6-4abe-80ed-678d3a935fe6n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F.
>> Stemper wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very
>>> >>> good year, had a special ingredient that powered their
>>> >>> bomb. Perhaps, instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on
>>> >>> the Moon?
>>> >>>
>>> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon
>>> > Prime TV for $3.99
>>> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't
>>> seem to make sense.
>>
>> How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?
>
>Can you loan out a streaming "purchase" to a friend? Or several
>friends?
>>
>> Some movies are worth getting in the best permanent format
>> possible (I'm looking at purchasing LOTR for the 3rd time, now
>> that the Extended Edition is available in 4K, and has been
>> properly color balanced).
>>
>> The Mouse that Roared is a cheap and cheerful comedy, intended
>> as pretty much disposable entertainment, and certainly not made
>> with the thought that ordinary people would ever want to own a
>> copy.
>
>In 1959, *no* movies where made with the thought that ordinary
>people would ever been *allowed* to own a copy, dumbass.

Hell, they mostly weren't even made with the thought that they might
be shown on /TV/.

A lot of processes -- wider screens/films, "3d", smellorama,
sensurround -- were designed, either wholly or in part, to /prevent/
the film ever being shown on TV.

However, /some/ collectors were able to acquire films on (IIRC) 8mm.
Hence those really inferior versions of out-of-copyright films: the
8mm print used was seen so often it lost a few frames here and there.

AAFES had an 8mm circuit going among the remoter and smaller locations
in Germany in the late-1970s where the current films (well, current to
AAFES) could be seen by the very small audiences for free. It took a
long time for /Star Wars/ to show up -- Lucas was terrified the 8mm
prints would be diverted and sold to collectors and it took a while to
get it allowed.

This was distinct from their theater system, which did charge for
admission and used the larger prints used by real theaters.

>> I look at the thousands of SF books lining my family room (and
>> other parts of the house), and wonder if I'll ever re-read most
>> of them. ...and if not, why do I have them? I get a warm
>> feeling of nostalgia, and a bit of pride when I see them, or
>> when people visit and are impressed. Very occasionally I'll pull
>> one down and re-read it, but that isn't often.
>>
>So you're a hypocrite?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:40:59 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:m9a93hhodflq5f6eafe1v5u1r89lbrunle@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 07:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F.
>>>Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>>>> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very
>>>> >>> good year, had a special ingredient that powered their
>>>> >>> bomb. Perhaps, instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on
>>>> >>> the Moon?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon
>>>> > Prime TV for $3.99
>>>> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't
>>>> seem to make sense.
>>>
>>>How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?
>>
>> A valid point, and yet it must be kept in mind that, just
>> because it can be rented /today/ does not mean it will be
>> available /tomorrow/. Or next month. Or next year.
>>
>> Most DVDs last a long long time, when properly stored. The
>> exceptions appear to be mostly manufacturing defects, such as
>> bit rot, the secret code on the rim rubbing off (as opposed to
>> being permanently applied, so it can't rub off), or second-layer
>> problems. Or use of an "unknown opcode" -- but the Scenes Menu
>> can usually get you past that, and a newer player may well
>> recognize the opcode.
>
>Or cheaply made DVD-Rs with pirated content, but I do try to avoid
>those.

I've been suckered into those a couple times. In both cases, I
eventually found a /legitimate/ version available and replaced the
el-cheapo.

If the film was out of copyright, of course, such a film was not
"pirated". Just an el-cheapo.

Still, an el-cheapo DVD is better than an el-cheapo VHS, since the DVD
is usually actually produced by a company that knows how to produce
them. It took three tries with the original /Night of the Living Dead/
until I found an el-cheapo VHS tape that didn't run out of tape before
the film ended. What the first apparently two did was record it in LP,
but only use enough tape for EP. That doesn't happen with DVDs.

Some studios make DVD-Rs of their own, which are, of course,
legitimate. In some cases, when I had to replace a DVD that stopped
playing (a rare occurrence), the replacement turned out to be a
studio-produced DVD-R.

When I last investigated it, BD-Rs had been tried and found wanting,
so instead of a studio-produced BD-R you get an "mod" ("manufactured
on demand") BD.

These studio-produced DVD-R/mod BDs are, of course, older films that
don't have much demand but do have some. They may include a trailer.
They may have chapter stops every 10 minutes, but no Chapters menu.
They are /definitely/ for people who want to watch the movie! Little
or no effort is put into cleaning them up. Those that were originally
DVDs, however, both turned out to be the original DVD program, just
redone as a DVD-R.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-03-19 6:48 a.m., Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 18.10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>> when he was Obama's vice president.
>
> I thought that those negotiations happened in the mid-1990s.
>

They were.

McGuire isn't interested in facts. He probably believes that Obama
should have prevented 9/11, too.

On 18/03/2022 16.16, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>
>> How did Germany find the money to build the armaments with
>> which it started World War II, after Hitler took power because of the
>> Great Depression?
>
> By issuing MeFo bills, which were off-the-record bonds whose
> payback date was pushed along until the war made payback
> unnecessary. They were also used to hide public expenditure
> used for rearmament from the Allies.
>
> If they had ever been redeemed, catastropic inflation would
> have occurred. As it turned out, the war made this point moot,

I thought that Germany *did* have catastrophic inflation between the
two wars. Suitcases full of million-Mark notes and such.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

On 2022-03-19, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought that Germany *did* have catastrophic inflation between the
> two wars. Suitcases full of million-Mark notes and such.

That was in 1923.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:10:29 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>Well, the " PRINT *," part looks familiar. The last line would
>>look more so if it was preceded by six blanks.
>
>What, no sequence number?

I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.
BASIC certainly did and as a very young student teacher I once faced a
crying kid who had had a bully trip him on the way to the card reader.
After dealing with the bully I then told the first kid NOT to resort
his card deck but just check his cards to ensure they were all the
right way up and feed them into the reader. He said "you're kidding"
to which I said "nope!" 5 minutes later the kid was all smiles....
this would have been about 1978-79

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:19:49 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/18/2022 10:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
> >>>>>>>> "Republicans win".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
> >>>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> She may run again in 2024.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
> >>>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
> >>>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
> >>>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
> >>>
> >>> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
> >>> of how elections work.
> >>>
> >>> The real way, for President of the USA:
> >>>
> >>> the States select Electors, by popular vote
> >>>
> >>> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
> >>> two are paired)
> >>>
> >>> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
> >>> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
> >>> the little States could be ignored.
> >>>
> >>> The supposed way:
> >>>
> >>> winner takes all
> >>>
> >>> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
> >>> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
> >>>
> >>> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
> >>>
> >>> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
> >>> main event.
> >>>
> >>> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
> >>> a run-off is held.
> >>>
> >>> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
> >>> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
> >>> write-ins, though.
> >>>
> >>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
> >>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
> >>> President of the United Staes of America.
> >>
> >> You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
> >> Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
> >
> > Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
> > College.
> >
> > The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
> > Votes.
> Many electoral votes would have been flipped if Ross Perot has not been
> running in the election.

According to the website you give, maybe Ohio, and nothing else.

Ross Perot took 19% of the popular votes and
> most of those were from the Republican side. Many Republican voters
> were disappointed with George H. W. Bush and voted for Perot's fresh
> ideas. The popular consensus

Among people who have not actually examined the issue.

is that many Republicans would have held
> their nose shut and voted for GHWB if Perot had not been on the ballot.

He would have needed 2/3 of Perot's vote, properly distributed, to win. Not likely as a majority of Perot voters
were unhappy about Bush's "no new taxes" lie, and exit polls showed them about equally divided between Clinton and Bush as second choices. Many would simply not have voted without Perot.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

Interesting. Everything you say, almost, is refuted by your own source.

William Hyde

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
> >>>> anything for it ?
> >
> >>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
> >>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
> >>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
> >>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
> >>> Russia as any kind of threat.
> >
> >> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> >> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> >> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
> >>
> >> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
> >> not do for Trump, by the way.)
> >
> > That's a good question.
> >
> > But it does have an answer:
> >
> > a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
> > knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
> > interests, not Russia's.
> >
> > b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
> > it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
> > that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
> > weapons.
> >
> > If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
> > that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
> > interests.
> >
> > This also can address another issue.
> >
> > I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
> >
> > I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
> > near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
> > just before Russia invaded at the least.
> >
> > Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
> > with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
> >
> > Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
> > part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
> > doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
> > the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
> >
> > It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
> > a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
> > world.
> >
> > But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
> > a NATO member under current circumstances.
> >
> > Well, then, we're OK, right?
> >
> > Oh, dear, no.
> >
> > The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
> > to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
> > close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
> >
> > I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
> > wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
> > around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
> > seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
> > up more unbelievable things he has said.
> >
> > So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
> > Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
> > of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
> >
> > John Savard
> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
> when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.

Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.

Does reality not matter to you?

William Hyde

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:24:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
>>> last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.
>>
>> Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world? I
>> found it much easier to read than most of the languages that succeeded
>> it but in fairness it's been 20 years since I've read source code.
>
>My software dates back to 1969. I have 850,000 lines of Fortran code
>and 500,000 lines of C++ code.
>
>I doubt that any new projects are being written in Fortran. Most new
>stuff is written in C and C++.
>
My high school class was class of 73 and my first exposure to FORTRAN
was 74 + 75. I did pure math at university (bad idea - it's the 'arts'
area of the science faculty for employability) but later did an MBA
which was helpful but certainly didn't involve writing tons of code.
At grad school I hung around the data center enough that they gave me
an APL manual and an account but that was an extracurricular compared
to my regular work load so while interesting was never enough time to
master it.

Later it was mostly spreadsheets which are not really programming and
discovering the BBS scene which preceded the Internet as we know it.
(Well not technically but for the average computer oriented Joe and
Jane it was)

40 years later here we are :)

On 2022-03-19 3:16 p.m., William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>>>>>> anything for it ?
>>>
>>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
>>>>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
>>>>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
>>>>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
>>>>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>>>
>>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
>>>> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
>>>> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
>>>>
>>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
>>>> not do for Trump, by the way.)
>>>
>>> That's a good question.
>>>
>>> But it does have an answer:
>>>
>>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
>>> knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
>>> interests, not Russia's.
>>>
>>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
>>> it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
>>> that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
>>> weapons.
>>>
>>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
>>> that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
>>> interests.
>>>
>>> This also can address another issue.
>>>
>>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
>>> near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
>>> just before Russia invaded at the least.
>>>
>>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
>>> with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
>>>
>>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
>>> part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
>>> doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
>>> the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
>>>
>>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
>>> a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
>>> a NATO member under current circumstances.
>>>
>>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
>>>
>>> Oh, dear, no.
>>>
>>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
>>> to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
>>> close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
>>>
>>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
>>> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
>>> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
>>> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
>>> up more unbelievable things he has said.
>>>
>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>> when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
>> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
>
> Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
>
> Does reality not matter to you?

Not when it conflicts with his ideology, no.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:10:29 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>>Well, the " PRINT *," part looks familiar. The last line would
>>>look more so if it was preceded by six blanks.
>>
>>What, no sequence number?
>
>I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.

Pretty much every mainframe version of FORTRAN used sequence
numbers. Take a look at any FORTRAN coding form from the
era - columns 73 through 80 are the sequence number. It's
what you sorted on when you dropped your card deck.

Most other mainframe languages also used sequence numbers at
one end or the other of the line (e.g. COBOL, BPL, et alia),
mainly for the same reason (they weren't goto targets).

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:19:49 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/18/2022 10:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

>> > Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
>> > Votes.
>> Many electoral votes would have been flipped if Ross Perot has not been
>> running in the election.
>
>
>According to the website you give, maybe Ohio, and nothing else.
>
>
>Ross Perot took 19% of the popular votes and
>> most of those were from the Republican side. Many Republican voters
>> were disappointed with George H. W. Bush and voted for Perot's fresh
>> ideas. The popular consensus
>
>Among people who have not actually examined the issue.
>
> is that many Republicans would have held
>> their nose shut and voted for GHWB if Perot had not been on the ballot.
>
>He would have needed 2/3 of Perot's vote, properly distributed, to win. Not likely as a majority of Perot voters
>were unhappy about Bush's "no new taxes" lie, and exit polls showed them about equally divided between Clinton and Bush as second choices. Many would simply not have voted without Perot.
>
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
>
>Interesting. Everything you say, almost, is refuted by your own source.

Welcome to Lynn's alternate universe. It is a science fiction newsgroup
after all.

On 3/19/2022 5:11 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:19:49 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/18/2022 10:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>>>>>>> "Republicans win".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
>>>>>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She may run again in 2024.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
>>>>>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
>>>>>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
>>>>>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
>>>>>
>>>>> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
>>>>> of how elections work.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real way, for President of the USA:
>>>>>
>>>>> the States select Electors, by popular vote
>>>>>
>>>>> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
>>>>> two are paired)
>>>>>
>>>>> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
>>>>> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
>>>>> the little States could be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> The supposed way:
>>>>>
>>>>> winner takes all
>>>>>
>>>>> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
>>>>> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
>>>>>
>>>>> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
>>>>> main event.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
>>>>> a run-off is held.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
>>>>> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
>>>>> write-ins, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>>>>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>>>>> President of the United Staes of America.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>>>> Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>>>
>>> Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
>>> College.
>>>
>>> The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
>>> Votes.
>> Many electoral votes would have been flipped if Ross Perot has not been
>> running in the election.
>
>
> According to the website you give, maybe Ohio, and nothing else.
>
>
> Ross Perot took 19% of the popular votes and
>> most of those were from the Republican side. Many Republican voters
>> were disappointed with George H. W. Bush and voted for Perot's fresh
>> ideas. The popular consensus
>
> Among people who have not actually examined the issue.
>
> is that many Republicans would have held
>> their nose shut and voted for GHWB if Perot had not been on the ballot.
>
> He would have needed 2/3 of Perot's vote, properly distributed, to win. Not likely as a majority of Perot voters
> were unhappy about Bush's "no new taxes" lie, and exit polls showed them about equally divided between Clinton and Bush as second choices. Many would simply not have voted without Perot.
>
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
>
> Interesting. Everything you say, almost, is refuted by your own source.
>
> William Hyde

That source is a mixture of facts and opinions. It is a fact that Ross
Perot ran for President in 1992. It is a fact that Ross Perot received
19% of the popular vote. It is an opinion that the votes for Ross Perot
were evenly drawn from GHWB and and Bill Clinton.

I know people who voted for Ross Perot who would have voted for GHWB had
there been no choice. Of course, I do not know a huge sample of people
who voted in 1992 for Ross Perot and they were all here in Texas. So my
sample is not representative. But, I really doubt that many Democrats
would have voted for Ross Perot due to his outright conservatism.

Lynn

On 2022-03-18 5:10 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem
>> out
>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I
>> should hope.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
> when he was Obama's vice president.  That tells you what Biden thought
> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.

I bet you also wonder why Obama took so long to mobilize the USAF to
stop the 9/11 attacks.