Well I'm voting for Dole.

I know this doesn't pertain to Seinfeld, but I feel we are all a family and we can share things that don't conencide with Seinfeld. The reason I'm voting for Dole is, well I want my taxes lowered, I care about character and I don't think Clinton has it and I know Clinton is pure politics. Oh well...

Jusitn Tribble

The scariest thought in this election year is that the Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress & Dole gets elected President. I shudder to think of some of the bills that would pass a Newt Gingrich & Trent Lott led Congress that President Bob Dole would readily sign.

Joel

The real question here is which direction Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine are going with their votes. My guess would be Democratic all 'round. Except for Newman.

In article ,

I would say:

Jerry - Perot (don't ask me why) Elaine - definitely Democrat Kramer - write-in for himself Newman - Republican Mr. & Mrs. Seinfeld - Democrat the Costanzas - Republican the Soup Nazi - Socialist

I think Kramer would vote for the green-party candidate, what's-his-name (Ralph Nader?).

-Simonfeld

On 28 Oct 1996, Simon Russell wrote:

If we go along with the whole Nixon allegory, then wouldn't Mr. and Mrs. Seinfeld vote Republican?

The Soup Nazi must be a Fascist. The Nazi's hated the Communists and The Socialists - in fact, The Nazi movement sprang up as a reaction to Socialism and Communism.

Don't you think Newman would be a democrat because he could lose his job in a republican admin if they put the P.O. in the private sector. Just a thought!

I hope you watched the "debate" last night. You're voting for a tired, mean loser.

Bob Wells wrote:

I did watch it. Unlike most, I'm not so superficial to only care about looks, age and politics. I litsened to what Dole said, not how he said it.

Justin Tribble

Bob Wells wrote:

This is a joke, right? Please tell me it's a joke. Have we, as a nation, truly slipped this far? He's a "mean loser"? Senator Dole nearly lost his life fighting the NAZIs. He has served his nation and his constituency in Washington for more than two decades. This in mind, you're most incisive criticism of Dole is that he is "a tired, mean loser"? It's no wonder we elect smooth-talking televangelists, like that nice, young, good-looking Clinton who really "feels your pain". What does Clinton know about pain? While young, poor, honest Americans were dying and suffering in Vietnam, Clinton was at Oxford, a prestigous instiution for the elite, smoking marijuana and secretly condemning the war. And he "feels your pain". Yeah, okay...

Oh puleeeeezzzzeeeeeee!!!!! According to you, unless you fit the following four requirements, you are not fit to be President:

(1) have served in the Armed Forces; (2) have never smoked marijuana at anytime in their life; (3) have never gone to a prestigious or elite college; (4) have never condemened a government policy they thought to be immoral.

I think you have eliminated just about everybody.

Joel

Joel Reid wrote:

He hasn't eliminated Bob Dole.

Justin Tribble

Are you saying that Bob Dole has never condemned a goverenment policy he thought to be immoral? Whenever I listen to him that's all he does. Just ask him about welfare.

The point I was trying to make obviously went right over your head. Most of the arguments people have used as to why Clinton is not fit to be President could pretty much be used against most of the people born after WWII.

Joel

Congratulations on completely misrepresenting my sentiment!

To not serve in the armed forces is one thing; to furtively evade the secret service and then serve as commander in chief with a record number of deployments is quite another.

To smoke marijuana is one thing; to smoke it and then tell people "well, I didn't inhale" is, again, quite another. This is cowardly (which will resurface).

To attend a prestigous college is one thing; to study at one while "furtively evading the selective service" and then, years later, telling the American people "I feel your pain" is, AGAIN, quite another.

To *openly* condemn a government policy you find immoral is many things (admirable and brave, among them); to secretly codemn them while "furtively evading the selective service" is many other things (cowardly and shameful, among them).

Did anyone see Muhhamad Ali sitting next to Hillary during Clinton's convention speech? There was Ali, a public figure in the 60s who bravely and openly refused to go Vietnam; as a result, he was barred from boxing and (I believe) went to prison or was likewise punished. At the podium, we have President (hurts me to say that) Clinton, who secretly condemned the war and furtively evaded the selective service; as a result, he went to prestigous Oxford and [ahem] "didn't inhale".

In the future, please respond to what I have posted rather than proposing a child-like extrapolation of my viewpoint.

Then again, Gingrich got out of Vietnam, as did Rush Limbaugh...yes Dole did fight for his country...I salute him...

but...he certainly has served his own interests (gettin' rich) and that of big business (see tobacco, firearms, and liquor--all good old family values)

and Dan Quayle and Phil Gramm and Pat Buchanan, ...

And remember Al Gore did serve in Vietnam.

Who is the hypocrite: (1) a person who uses any means possible to not serve in the Armed Forces & then protests against the war; or (2) a person who uses any means possible to not serve in the Armed Forces & then is a hawk?

Joel

Obviously Person #2 is worse, and Clinton more than meets the description with his record number of deployments and his attempt to swoon the electorate with Tomahawk cruise missiles. It turns out that Clinton isn't morally opposed to American military intervention overseas--so long as he isn't wearing the uniform.

My Dear SKUG,

you sound like those poor fools (and probably are one of them) who drive around with "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Bush" bumper stickers on their Ford Explorers.

Blame them for what? Things are in great shape. These "scandals" you love to enumerate don't mean squadoosh as far as any of our daily lives are concerned. Ronnie Reagan's adminstration had dozens of crooks, thugs, and criminals, but things were humming along so who gave a shit. Poor Georgie Bush got to take it up the ass.

The bottom line SKUG is that this country doesn't change horses in midstream when things are good. You can look it up. See ya in 2000!

Bob Wells

When we look outside and see the birds still flying around and assume everything is okay then we are headed for disaster. Things my seem "okay" right now, but eventually the mistakes made over the past 6 years will catch up with us. Dole, Perot, and other third party canidates want to prevent a ressesion that could easily happen.

Justin Tribble

SKUG wrote:

This was after he tried and failed to get into an entertainment unit so as to stay out of combat. He fought like hell to keep from going to Italy and when he got there he was injured within the first 1 1/2 hours he was there. He's a hero because he forgot to duck?

He's a sour, crusty old man that I don't want running my country.

This is not to mention how he dumped his first wife for no reason so he could marry the plastic Elizabeth. Now there's a broad for first lady.

Give me a break.

If you listen to the rhetoric, Dole might not really be able to lower taxes, and while its redundant, his tax plan does seem risky. I just don't see it working. Look at character, that's all Dole is trying to do. Does Clinton attack character? No. He could. A pro-family man as Dole should not be having a second wife if he listens to his own speech. And of course, there are rumors of when he was younger which I can not substantiate, but I have heard. I mean Dole has grown into his character through stagnation. Once you reach a certain age, you tend to become defined. I don't see where Clinton's character is bad. Everything we here is speculation or heresay. As for politicking, let's see. You don't think Dole is pure politics? What else is he? He fits the muckraking politician to a tee. I believe that he must be a nice guy even genuine, but I feel Clinton holds these values as well. In fact, I see Clinton coming across as a more genuine person than Dole, that Clinton is out to help the middle class more than Dole. If you really want to talk ethics, how could Dole deny that tobacco is addictive (when we know it is, and he gets much money from tobacco and cigarette companies)? That does not seem to work. However, Dole will attack drugs, but I don't feel it is Bill Clinton putting kids or encouraging kids to use drugs. Yet, an equal amount of kids smoke or try smoking, even moreso, because cigarettes are legal and more accessible. I feel that when we look to the future, Clinton has the better view. I don't agree with all of his plans, but in my heart I would like to believe that some of the bills he signed were appeasement to the middle ground. However, we can't have a president who has aligned himself with the religious rught or Christian Coalition as Dole has. Not everyone holds the vaslues of these groups and these groups attaining power can only hurt progress. I like to think for myself regarding social and political issues, and I don't think the government has the right to tell people what they do in their own homes if it is not harmful. That's why I am voting for Clinton.

Chris Webb wrote:

So, the fifteen reiterations of "$550 billion tax _scheme_" did have its desired effect on the electorate?

Frankly, he couldn't.

You're comparing divorce to lying, draft-dodging, illegal business scandals, illegal and _foreign_ campaign contributions, drug use, and corrupt appointed officials.

This is like the three-year old who jumps around the room while bragging, "I have a secret, I have a secret, I have a secret..." Put up or shut up!

Was it stagnation that placed him near death in the mountains of Italy, fighting for his country and people all over the world?

The Indonesian campaing contribution is not heresay. Nor is the Whitewater scandal. Nor is the refusal to rule out a pardon. Nor is the "suicide" of his top official and lifelong friend. Nor are the FBI files. Nor are the travel office firings. Nor is his sojourn at Oxford during the Vietnam war. Nor is his use of marijuana ...I could go on

Clinton is great at coming across as genuine. How genuine is a candidate who runs on a liberal platform in 1992 and then with low approval ratings in 1994, he hires Dick Morris, formerly a major Republican adviser, to improve his standing with the moderates? Subsequently, he takes a "tough" stand on crime and signs welfare reform legislation, approximately a month before the Democratic convention. Yeah, he's real genuine; a man of conviction if you will. ;-)

Name one proposal of Dole's that fits your "right to tell people what they do in their own homes" stance. Just one! Do "targeted tax cuts" not dictate how people spend their hard-earned money?

First off, you seem to have fallen for this old war hero stuff which Dole tries to sell. So what if he fought in a war, while I respect that people did that, it doesn't make him any better of a leader. And just because Clinton didn't support the war, so didn't a lot of people. I know I would have, because the war was none of our business. Not everyone has to fight in order to rule the country. We try to romanticize that nonetheless.

The fact that he doesn't believe in gay marriage. By the way, I am straight, so its not a personal agenda, and I'm *sure* that Clinton only supported the bill because he needed to appease the others. Say what you will, he was forced into that position.

Also, how can Dole back up that suddenly the economy is bad, when before he was running he said it was in the best shape ever?

Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that Dole continues to promise all of the tax cuts, but he won't say how he's going to pay for them?

Leslie Malter wrote:

Doesn't it bother you at all that the Clinton administration has been plagued by scandal after scandal? Doesn't it bother you at all that Clinton exchanged favors for an illegal campaign contribution from Indonesia, a nation reknown for egregious violations of human rights? Doesn't it bother you at all that, on the brink of the second millenium, we have a leader who simply does not tell the truth, a leader who floats Tomahawk cruise missiles as an offensive on the electorate, a leader whose righthand man and lifelong cronie mysteriously winds up dead in the middle of nowhere, a leader directly involved in illegal business practices, a leader who would not take the witness stand live but insisted on doing it via closed circuit television, a leader who felt he should have the questions ahead of time, a leader who will not rule out a pardon for perjury in this matter?

I am absolutely astonished by the gullibility and manipulability of the American people.

SKUG wrote:

You are right SKUG.

wait, is this alt.tv.seinfeld.election?

Doesn't it bother you that most of this is pure heresay? Doesn't it bother you that Dole lied about his campaign tactics?

I'm not saying that Clinton has all the right ideas, but he sure has the ideas for the future while Dole has no vision.

SKUG wrote in article ...

all of

	I am "absolutely astonished" by the same tired "character" mantras that
the Dole-aholics trot out for these discussions.Clinging to the unfounded
innuendos that the President's enemies spread around, since they have no
real arguments against a booming economy, all-time low unemployment, Wall
Street record-braking levels, and the irrefutable(by anyone who is willing
to be objective) FACT that everyday life in this country is far better than
it was four years ago, and will continue to improve under this
administration...
	Oh by the way "Loser Boy"(as in, your precious candidate will be one, come
November), how charmingly hypocritical of you to rail against the idea of
presidential pardons...ask your candidate who was the foremost proponent of
one for Casper Weinburger...

Please address your obligatory vitriolic response toward the cyber-void, as this is alt.tv.seinfeld, and my next transmission will deal with matters which carry much more weight, such as "Elaine's New-Do..."

HF

highflag wrote:

Again I must reply to this nonsense. There is a FUNDAMENTAL distinction between Dole's support of the Weinburger pardon and a possible McDougal pardon. Dole did not support the pardon of Weinburger to avoid implication; this is the only explanation for a pardon of McDougal and her perjury. If you cannot recognize an essential difference, you are a blind fool.

Lets see...I wrote...blah...blah...blah...Clinton

Please address your obligatory vitriolic response toward the cyber-void,as this is alt.tv.seinfeld, and my next transmission will deal with matters which carry much more weight, such as "Elaine's New-Do..."

HF

...Yadda...Yadda...Yadda...ho hum...Dole

Thanks for being one who can be counted on...so I like Elaine's new hair-do...how 'bout you SKUGGIE ???

HF

highflag wrote:

Anyone who has the slightest clue about economics realizes that the economy moves in cycles from bust to boom and back again. For years, macroeconomists have tried to determine the cause of these cyclical trends; thus far, they have failed. And you're going to tell me the latest boom trend is a result of Clinton's policies. Perhaps you could point to a specific example of this relationship; then again, perhaps you can't.

Casper Weinburger was a high-ranking official in the federal government. Susan McDougal (sp?) was involved in Whitewater, a *** private *** business scandal. It should come as no surpise to any of us that someone whose harshest label is "loser boy" (what? is your philosphy of life based on Ace Ventura movies?) compares an Arkansas real estate deal to national defense.

Are you are idiots???????????

This is at.tv.seinfeld, not alt.politics.no.one.here.cares

Take this dicussion elsewhere!!!

On that note, I can't wait till tonite's ep. Five more minutes!!

Matt

Where have you been? Dole has voted and sponsored most of(if not all) of the major tax hikes in the past 15 years. Now, he wants to cut taxes? How could you believe that? As for political favors, how 'bout Dole and: liquor, tobacco...shall I continue here? Did you know that Dole was flat broke (or close to it) when he entered Congress way back in the '60s? Yet he is now a millionaire? How did he do it? With Congressional perks and voting for business interests, using tax loop holes available only to members of Congress...while not illegal, it certainly is shady! (check the Wall Street Journal of either this week or last week for the exact details of this story). As for pardons, Dole supported Bush's pardon of Casper Weinberger (Iran-Contra), yet now complains about Clinton's potential pardon(s). If Clinton were to pardon, why hasn't he done it by now? If he had (has) something to hide, why didn't he pardon long ago? The only incentive is perhaps re-election, but that's inevitable. While Clinton may not be clean, neither is Dole. But you should remember the tired old saying about people who live in glass houses...

As for Kemp, this man did NOT like Dole before he was named to the ticket, now he has reversed every possible position so that he can run with Dole. Doesn't that tell you something about his character?

In article , [email] says...

Interesting can of worms you've opened, Justin. Actually, I'm going to do a write-in vote for Kramer. Then, we'll all be falling a__backwards into money! :)

B.t.w., didn't you say a while back you are 16 years old? If so, then how are you going to be able to vote, in the first place? If you are old enough to vote, and I'm confusing you with someone else, I apologize for the mistake.

Curiously yours, -tim :)

Try doing what that kid in "Breakfast Club" did - get a fake ID.

    d;)

...

Okay, I'm confused about two things: 1). Isn't this newsgroup alt.tv.seinfeld? Can we save the political talk for another newsgroup?

2). Justin, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you something like 15 years old? If so, just how do you intend to vote? Also, what taxes do you have that you want lowered?

Just wondering...

Justin,

I will ignore the fact that recently you wrote that you are 15 years old and were looking for teenage girls who like Seinfeld. Last time I looked, voting age was 18, minimum. Also, I'm curious what kind of money a 15 year-old earns that you would be worried about taxes.

Despite all that, don't count on Dole to lower your taxes. Even a 15% across-the-board cut over three years wouldn't undo Clinton's massive, historic 1993 tax increase. They are BOTH out to screw us, the American taxpayers. Dole says the big difference between him and Clinton is that Clinton wants to increase government 20% over six years and Dole wants to increase government 14% over six years--in other words, Clinton will increase government 3.33% per year and Dole will increase government 2.33% a year...a ONE PERCENT DIFFERENCE in increasing government! Big whoop!

I would encourage you and anyone else who is looking for an alternative to vote for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. Mr. Browne is on the ballot in all 50 states and has made an offer to the American people...would you give up your favorite government program if it meant that you would never have to pay federal income tax again for the rest of your life? I can't imagine any taxpayer saying "No" to that question or any tax-TAKER saying "Yes" to that question.

I also encourage anyone reading this to read Harry Browne's latest book, "Why Government Doesn't Work," a wonderfully-written blueprint for getting government out of the lives and pockets of hard-working, law-abiding Americans.

Lee Salem wrote:

I will answer you honestly, I am 15 and can't vote and don't pay much taxes. But nevertheless I do care about this country. I like Harry Browne, but I would rather Perot be president. Of course Perot has no chance of winning because Americans are a bunch of stareotypical, shallow, ingrates who can't see through the media's false assumptions about Perot. Perot knows the issues and understands bussiness very well. Dole is the only one who has a chance at beating Clinton though, so I'll endorse him for now.

Justin, Dole has no chance. Fortunately Perot has less chance that that. You think things are bad now in Washington, just elect a mini-dictator like Ross Perot.

Is good that you are interested in politics. It's sad that you have such a cynical view of America.

Joel

Don't worry, Justin will change his opinion of the federal government. Why even Terry Nichols, that right-wing nut, applied for federal emergency assistance when his land got flooded.

Well, since every one else has, I'll throw my 2 cents worth in. Clinton is a lying, cheating, immoral man who isn't worthy of representing this country. No wonder the country is going down the tubes so fast--look at our leader! How many scandals are there now? Let's see, there's Indonesia, FBI, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, White House travel office firings, etc.--the list goes on and on. Not to mention he was a draft-dodging, pot-smoking adulterer prior to becoming the President. What's the worst thing about Dole's character that people can come up with--he divorced his first wife? Big deal, at least he's shown that he cares about this country and he almost lost his life fighting for it in WWII. Dole is a much better man for this country and I definitely plan to vote for him on Nov. 5th!

{snip snip snip}

I don't think it will take a major even, he's already stated that 'he will vote for Dole' and 'he wants to lower his taxes!' He subsequently has to admit that he is only 15 and doesn't pay much in taxes.

Joel Reid wrote:

Ross Perot a mini-dictator? What about Bill Clinton the one world government enforcer, solcialist liar? My claim is just as assuming as yours.

Justin,

I appreciate your candor in your reply. It is indeed encouraging that some teenagers today DO care about the country and not just about Madonna and other shallow celebrities. I commend you for your concern.

I would ask you to take another look at Mr. Perot. He is just another guy who thinks that government can work with the "right" person running it, namely him. The fact is, government cannot be run like a business, because it has no "customers," "products," or profit motive. It is total coercion. Do this because we think it's good for you...Give us money because we know better than you how to spend it...and on and on. Meanwhile, we have a $5 TRILLION debt with no end in sight as government grows and grows.

Perot advocates higher and higher taxes and other massive government interventions. In 1992, he advocated a $1 per gallon gasoline tax. If we were ever unfortunate enough to have him as president, he would be a dictator. Read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work," you will find it very enlightening! :-)

Regards, Lee

we

While not a supporter of Perot, his tax on gasoline was aimed at the following: our high dependence on imported oil, decreasing the amount of people using a scarce resource, it could encourage more car-pooling, buses, etc...

The gas tax could have also been used to pay down the debt, while it would hurt everyone at first, it could have turned into a "sin tax" (user tax) and only hurt those that had to use their cars for everything.

Sorry, but I don't consider driving a car to be a "sin!"

I am also 15 years old living in NYC. I find that REpublicans are especially complete hypocryts. Take family values. Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich always talk about family values and how divorce is bad and things like that. What they fail to mention is that NEwt Gingrich dumped his wife when she was diagnosed with cancer. Bob Dole whose first wife who was his nurse from the early days of his war injuries up until he was in the senate got dumped for a rich conservative politically exceptable wife. Also Bob Dole always talks about cleaning up Hollywood but fails to mention Arnold Schwarznegger films who is an arch Republican. Of course Bob Dole has never seen Pulp Fiction or listened to Nine Inch Nails, but publically lambasts it saying it is evil. Bob Dole also talks about Clintion possibly giving a pardon to his White Water friends but fails to mention that he was the one of the major people to help get the people of the Iran Contra Afair of from trouble. Bob Dole and other Republicans also talk about Bill Clinton smoking pot in the 70's. Honestly if someone smoked pot when they were young ( i don't) what is the big deal. If he used heroin or coke then it would be a big deal, but pot is not a horrible substance. Oh well Bob dole is just a pathetic looser and will not win the election THATS MY TWO CENTS!!

Chicken Hawk

Ron

If someone puts a gun in your hand and says go shoot those people over there, it doesn't make you a bad person to say NO! Why do you find shooting Vietnamese so heroic?

Ron