1756: "I'm With Her"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

ECK138
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:38 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ECK138 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:26 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
radidoo200 wrote:Really? You could have used your power to promote a 3rd party (any third party!) making a push to actually change this broken 2-party system. And instead you give us a boring endorsement for the usual lesser of two evils? Sad, sad, sad.

Calling the first woman president, a 40-year vetaran of law and politics, who has been under a slime attack by the GOP and authoritarian wannabees for her entire career, "lesser" than the orange oilslick The Donald in any sense is ridiculous.

If she was evil, she wouldn't be the lesser of two evils. She's be Satan's boss.

I may not agree with her on many things, but she's one badass woman.


Remember the time the guy who did the smear job on Anita Hill for the right-wing American Spectator Magazine was given an advance to write a hatchet book on Hillary Clinton?

He ended up founding Media Matters.

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
cupric wrote:It's a grim business, when either a womanizing con man or a career criminal is going to be the next POTUS ... This is not even coherent political commentary. It's just virtue signalling ...
Signalling virtue by declaring support for a career criminal?

Please return yourself to the maintenance depot to have your screws reinserted and correctly tightened.


Well obviously he's not virtue signalling to me.

It's virtue signalling to those who:

a) think Hillary Clinton is just great
b) concede that she's a crook, or at least flawed, but will vote for her anyway because they expect she will be a reliable progressive

I don't know which of those opinions Randall holds, and don't have a problem with it either way. (Okay, I have a partial problem with option a, which in my opinion borders on delusion, but still doesn't make someone who believes it a bad person.)

What's disappointing is that he certainly knows that his endorsement of Hillary Clinton will change zero minds. He's apparently doing it just to show publicly that he's one of the "good" people who hold a certain set of beliefs.

I expected much better from Randall. I'm still unclear as to why he thought this was a good idea. I hope he makes a blog entry or some other public comment to explain his thinking.

Unless of course, he's a closet Trump supporter, and this is a false-flag operation to motivate Hillary haters to get to the polls. In which case it appears to be working.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

If I had to hazard a guess, I would feel pretty safe presuming Randall is at the very least anti-Trump.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Xeio » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.
It's only 11 with the electoral college (since electors are assigned based on population), so I'm not sure how what you're saying changes anything.

And... actually, because of the way we assign electors, it only takes 50%+1 vote in each of the states, so the current system could elect a president with around 25% of the country's vote (or less, given FPTP and multiple parties).
Last edited by Xeio on Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:42 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

cphite
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
cphite wrote:
yawningdog wrote:Very disappointed that Randall would offer campaign support to an unindicted felon.


That's actually a pretty vague statement considering...


... that yawningdog has not made it clear whether "unindicted" in this case is meant to mean "someone who has never been formally charged with any serious crime" or "someone who has never been formally charged with any crime."


Actually I was referring to the fact that both candidates have been under investigation for serious crimes.

Either way, we can presume that yawningdog would also be made rather unhappy by the endorsement of Malala Yousufzai implicit in Jon Stewart's opening to The Daily Show after the Charleston shooting.


Some people will find something to be unhappy about all the f'king time, no matter what.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:46 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:[voting third party] drives the most-similar major party the other direction, politically speaking.

So a "successful" Green Party with 5% matching funds would still not win many elections, and never the presidency, but it would push the entire Democratic party to the right to try to capture more of the middle in response. It defeats its own purpose.

Can you elaborate by what mechanism this supposedly happens? It seems to make more sense that a moderate-left party would shift further left to try to recapture votes being lost to a smaller, more-easily-defeated further-left party, than to move further right and try to capture votes from the larger, harder-to-fight moderate-right party. Within the Democratic primary this year, we've already seen that in action; the threat posed by Sanders forced Clinton to adopt more of his positions to capture people who otherwise wouldn't have voted for her.

And we've seen it in the opposite direction for a generation or two in the overall political demographics; far-left positions have basically fallen almost completely silent since the Cold War, while the far-right is unafraid to shout their brand of crazy, so the moderate-right has shifted further and further right to capture more and more of that vocal far-right, and the moderate-left has gotten more and more rightist in response (with no leftward pressure from any far-left demographic to try to capture, but rightward pressure as the "moderate center" shifts further right and that's where the undecided voters now lie), to the point that on an international view America now has a center-right party and far-right party, and virtually no left to speak of.

ETA a personal anecdote: I favor the Green platform over the Democrat platform, but of course am disappointed that the party whose platform I most favor has basically no chance of winning. I almost always vote third party (usually but not always Green), but if the closest of the two major parties started shifting even a little bit more in my favored direction, I'd likely vote for them to reward that behavior. If Sanders had won the Democratic primary I would have voted for a major-party candidate for the first time in my life. Most of the third-party voters I know think similarly; a lot of Greens seem to be disappointed Democrats, a lot of Libertarians would happily vote Republican if only they would deemphasize the social-conservative stuff, etc. There are votes to be captured there out there, and it seems it would be a lot easier to capture the votes of those who already wish they could vote for your party if only it weren't quite so unconscionable, than it is to capture the votes of people who aren't sure if they'd prefer your party over your biggest rival.
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Pyrite
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:44 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pyrite » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:46 pm UTC

I wasn't a fan of Hillary, but I ended up voting for her because she was the only candidate on the ballot who convinced me that she could actually do the job.

Sorry third party voters, but I'm not going to vote third party purely out of principle, I've got to be convinced by the candidates (which I recognize is unlikely because real candidates see the writing on the wall and back one of the big two.

Tallest Skil
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Tallest Skil » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

SerialTroll wrote:Uh on, Trump supporter is about to cry. Please, someone, hand slinches a hanky.


At least your username is fitting. How much were you paid? After all, we know she has paid people to shill for her.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
HES wrote:
darthmark wrote:Not American here, but I always thought anti-H posters were legit trolls. Surprised to find posts above with so much vitriol against her.

I think that's something that many Not American observers have been underestimating - a lot of Americans really, really hate Hillary.

Why?

Well, it's a combination of factors, really. She's been so relentlessly attacked for so long now that a lot of people assume that there must be a reason. The forced smoke has lead to assumptions of fire. In fairness, she doesn't help matters. The Clintons pretty clearly started assuming a while ago that they were going to be attacked no matter what they did, so there was no sense in worrying about optics. It makes them all the easier to attack.

Plus she has a vagina.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Plus she has a vagina.


Wait. What?!

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

Since we're on the topic anyway: how do the party programmes look compared to the things the leaders faces of those parties advocate? Does the democratic party stand for e.g. equality (and what kind?) and does the republican party stand for e.g. stricter immigration policies? (one is pandering to hippies and hipsters with equal treatment, while the other is pandering to hillbillies with deporting mexicans; that much I've heard, so these are the best examples I could think of)

PinkShinyRose wrote:ETA for your salvation: 2 days.

I sure hope so. Or at least I hope the aftershocks/inauguration stuff lasts only a week.
...oh wait, do we get more pietendebat if the election news dies down too quickly? In that case: long live the next president of the united states and let them be controversial from day one until December 4th. :twisted:


Sableagle wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:I see Randall also has a troubling lack of integrity.

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/

I know election campaigns can feel eternal, but I'm pretty sure the election in question happened that year, there's been another one since and this year's is a different one again. You may have noticed that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is running for election as the next PotUS this time. That could be considered a clue. You don't have to consider it a clue, of course. I can't make you consider anything.

Vir4030 should clarify whether they're questioning Randall's integrity because he spoke out against Clinton in a past election because of her lack of political transparency or because of something else. In the mean time, consider that interpretation of Vir's post, next to the interpretation you've commented on.

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.


This isn't true, because those nine states might only average say 54% of their voters toward the winner of those states (~27% of the total). The other 46% of those votes (~23% of the total) would contribute to other candidates, who may easily have large enough backings in smaller states to win the popular vote.

The electoral college, as it is today, actually causes the problem you describe because nearly all states give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state. Of course they do... they want to give as much power to the voice of their people, but in aggregate it has the opposite effect by causing a very small number of moderate states to become the swing states that actually matter in the election.

The change you described earlier is definitely better though. I would support it, though ultimately I would prefer a non-FPTP popular voting system.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:08 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:Since we're on the topic anyway: how do the party programmes look compared to the things the leaders faces of those parties advocate? Does the democratic party stand for e.g. equality (and what kind?) and does the republican party stand for e.g. stricter immigration policies? (one is pandering to hippies and hipsters with equal treatment, while the other is pandering to hillbillies with deporting mexicans; that much I've heard, so these are the best examples I could think of)

More or less. At least, the official Democratic Party platform lines up pretty well with Clinton's rhetoric. The official Republican Party platform is about the kind of stuff you'd probably expect Trump and his supporters to agree with, but the emphasis in what they talk about is different, with the official platform containing more vestiges of the older Republican Party issues about government structure (strict constitutional literalism, states' rights / federalism, lassie-faire economic policies, etc) and less emphasis on keeping the Mexicans/Muslims/etc out of the country, which seems to be Trump's biggest talking point. Although literally the very first line of the official platform preamble is about American Exceptionalism, which can be kind of a dog-whistle for that sort of thing too, but can also mean a lot more than that.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Campaigning or voting for a third-party presidential candidate to protest the two-party system seems akin to refusing to tip to protest the sub-minimum wage for waitstaff: It won't do anything to bring about the change you claim to want, and in the meantime hurts people or causes you claim to care about.

Also, voting for Clinton isn't necessarily strategic of lesser-evil voting, even for people who have serious problems with her. Of the four presidential candidates on my ballot, I strongly believe Clinton would make the best POTUS. I stand by my primary-season belief that Sanders would have been a better option, but Sanders isn't running any more, and I strongly disagree with a lot of the positions of the only other candidate with any political experience, so I wasn't about to vote for him in any case.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PeteP » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

Tallest Skil wrote:
SerialTroll wrote:Uh on, Trump supporter is about to cry. Please, someone, hand slinches a hanky.


At least your username is fitting. How much were you paid? After all, we know she has paid people to shill for her.

<rant>God you "everyone pro clinton is a shill" people are so pathetic. I mean you would have to be stupid to actually believe that low level mocking on a medium-small sized forum would be an efficient use of time for hypothetical shills. (If you actually wanted to influence opinions by engaging as a normal user (instead of making websites/videos etc) you would probably focus on things like a)spreading rumors or negative talking points about the other candidate because others will spread them further for you, though for trump there is enough real information to spread so rumors aren't really necessary. b) alternatively debunking attacks against your candidate, spreading links to something succinct debunking it might be time efficient, not sure. etc.) Anyway serialtroll being a shill because he is mocking someone would obviously stupid to believe because that would be a waste of time. So I can only assume you don't truly believe that and are just thinking you can score points by accusing them and in more general cases when people actually make statements instead of just mocking because declaring others shills allows you to just ignore anything they say. </rant>

cupric
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Reka wrote:(1) be very, very thankful

Except don't. (1) Randall is mostly preaching to the choir, (2) he could've easily placed this "comic" above an actual comic (or as a header above all comics) and (3) he could've placed the useful information without siding with one particular candidate.
...and he could've turned the URLs into clickable links (using an image map as in, for example, the museum).


Exactly.

Nobody reads xkcd for the politics.

Randall himself seems to realize that Hillary Clinton is not much of a candidate:

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/

I find her basic lack of integrity troubling, and I think as president she would continue fighting to maintain the status quo. It’s vital that we start the work of picking up the messes left by the irresponsible governance of the current administration, and, as they say, you don’t get out of a mess with the same kind of thinking that got you in.


So why withhold a real comic while simultaneously wasting everyone's time with this silly "hooray for our side" post?

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SerialTroll » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:13 pm UTC

Tallest Skil wrote:
SerialTroll wrote:Uh on, Trump supporter is about to cry. Please, someone, hand slinches a hanky.


At least your username is fitting. How much were you paid? After all, we know she has paid people to shill for her.


I fart in your general direction.

Houston2010
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Houston2010 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:15 pm UTC

I just registered now so that I could say, "I'm not."

And those of you who are, just realize, you own whatever happens, because we all know what we're gonna get with her. No excuses.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

cupric wrote:What's disappointing is that he certainly knows that his endorsement of Hillary Clinton will change zero minds.

How so?

The idea that your peer group and people you look up to supports X can cause you to actually wait in that 3 hour long election lineup that your state reps have decided is the best way to swing the election.

About half the text is about GOTV.

And it might convince a marginal Hillary supporter to vote for her. Analysis has shown that the dedicated GOP members haven't been significantly swayed away from voting for perverted sociopathic authoritarian con man. As far as they seem to be concerned, that is exactly what they want in a president.

Thus, it is true that it is unlikely that an XKCD endorsement will swing them. But a large percentage of them are dieing of old age each year; the question is, can the US be saved in the medium term?

Props to Utah if they reject him.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby SerialTroll » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

I will be voting for Hillary. I really don't like that she is the Democratic candidate, but sadly she is the best option of the Big Two or Little Two candidates.

Having said that, it is interesting to read Randall say:

"Clinton has done nothing of the sort, and when questioned seems baffled that anyone would have a problem with what is, by any reasonable standard, bribery. I find her basic lack of integrity troubling, and I think as president she would continue fighting to maintain the status quo.


And then he makes a comic saying "I'm with her". I may be voting for her, but I am not with her. We need a change in this country fundamentally. Clinton is not that fundamental change.. in fact I agree with Randall when he says "she would continue fighting to maintain the status quo:.

So, I believe Clinton will be the best President of the four and that makes me sad.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ivnja » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:When Nader threw the election to Bush (and yes, it's clear that's what happened) a LOT of smart people cried out for ranked balloting. Most voters still never even heard of it. We can't make the change from that direction.

If you want a more diverse political ecosystem, advocate at the local and state level for ranked balloting

Maine is voting tomorrow on whether to be the first state to move to ranked choice voting for Governor, US Senate and Representative, and state senate and rep races, so we'll hopefully prove a useful test case.

IdahoEv wrote:Another note on a multiparty system. There's no guarantee it's really what you want. Maybe it will help but consider: legitimizing the Green and Libertarian parties ALSO means opening the door for legitimized white nationalist and fascist parties. And if you don't think those would win seats in today's climate, you haven't been paying attention to the sociopolitical drivers of Trump's success. Many European nations have systems that allow for multiple stable parties ... and they have many of the same problems we do, except with explicitly racist parties winning seats and being entites the government is forced to take seriously. I'm not certain that's worth it.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea that we should try to limit participation of different political parties (either actively, or by just not supporting changes that would disrupt the two-party status quo) just because we don't like what some other parties might say or do. Plus you might argue this election that that's basically backfired, since instead of having a nationalist party running the "build a wall" candidate, the segment of the Republican base most sympathetic to those views managed to take control of the GOP, and moderate Republicans don't really have a voice in this election.
Hi you.
she/her

radidoo200
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby radidoo200 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:( lots of well reasoned stuff that I may not have totally followed, but think I get the gist of )


Thank you for that, I admit I had to look up "FPTP", but I think I follow you now. Very well, it is what it is. I'm also frustrated at the fact that I live in CA, so it really doesn't matter who I vote for, my vote is going to Hillary (which I can live with, it just bothers me that it works that way).
Last edited by radidoo200 on Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xkcdfan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

jimmosk wrote:The "get a ride to the polls" link seems to be to a site that's just for people in one section of Nebraska!

Anyone know of a similar site that's good for all/more of the USA?

Lyft, Uber, Maven, and Zipcar are all offering discounts or free rides tomorrow: https://consumerist.com/2016/11/07/uber ... ction-day/

Weeks wrote:Thomas Jefferson

You mean the slave owner-slash-slave rapist?

Weeks wrote:Paul Washington

Ah, I'm sorry. I should have realized earlier that you were trolling. Nicely done.

Tallest Skil wrote:
SerialTroll wrote:Uh on, Trump supporter is about to cry. Please, someone, hand slinches a hanky.


At least your username is fitting. How much were you paid? After all, we know she has paid people to shill for her.

Why is it so unbelievable to you that people have political preferences and speak about them of their own free will? Is it only Trump supporters who are physically capable of talking about who they support without getting paid for it? Seriously, if Clinton is paying people to "shill" for her, then where the hell do I pick up my check?

Houston2010 wrote:I just registered now so that I could say, "I'm not."

And those of you who are, just realize, you own whatever happens, because we all know what we're gonna get with her. No excuses.

We get another four-year reprieve from a Republican president. Unironic thumbs-up from me.

User avatar
BlueNight
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:59 am UTC
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby BlueNight » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

cupric wrote:What's disappointing is that he certainly knows that his endorsement of Hillary Clinton will change zero minds. He's apparently doing it just to show publicly that he's one of the "good" people who hold a certain set of beliefs.


It feels like 1984-style insincere virtue-signaling, a pragmatic step in case the ruling elites' goons examine his site for signs he isn't a party loyalist.

I, for one, am glad to see Black Hat hanging out with the H> crew. He's CTR or part of Creamer's team for sure.
Last edited by BlueNight on Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

IdahoEv wrote:If you want a more diverse political ecosystem, advocate at the local and state level for ranked balloting, Condorcet scoring, and proportional representation in your local and state elections. If enough of that happens, it might slowly help pull the country towards those (admittedly better) voting systems. There's no chance of a national movement for ranked balloting or proportional representation being successful until a large number of local & state experiences with those systems make the american electorate more familiar with them.


Maine is voting on whether to try Ranked Choice (ballot question 5) tomorrow - hopefully it succeeds.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

Houston2010 wrote:I just registered now so that I could say, "I'm not."

And those of you who are, just realize, you own whatever happens, because we all know what we're gonna get with her. No excuses.

Except insofar as she's blocked by Republican obstructionism and snipe hunts, of course. I'm not going to blame her for *those*, even though of course they're going to be part of what we're going to get with her.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:52 pm UTC

I'm just stoked that I've been able to vote for the first female president.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby azule » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

Besides just getting right into a political discussion (unavoidable) I just wanted to say I'm happy to see Randall, creator of the OTC, siding with me but also that he is stating it as simply as possible (graphical over text, though). I'm happy there's no "joke" because really this election shouldn't be a joke. If you want to vote for Trump because he's "one of the boys" and has great memes to laugh at.... well, shit, I don't know what to say to you. Anyways, just saying we have to take this seriously.

I would also have been okay if today's comic was apolitical with a blog post instead. Whatever. (Just as long as he didn't endorse Trump...not that that would permanently affect my affection for the guy....maybe for year. ;))

Now, a few replies from reading only the first page. I'm worried I'd have too many replies that won't get read anyways, so I stop there.
tms wrote:The other letter would be quite dangerous, here.

The other letter would topple over. Might kill a Cueball or a Megan.

commodorejohn wrote:I wasn't going to vote for Clinton anyway, but now I additionally resent her for getting in the way of an actual new xkcd comic.

Did you blame Obama for the infogram comics in the past 8 years? Heh

cupric wrote:One of the reasons I've been such an xkcd fan for so long is that Randall is usually very good at avoiding this kind of childish crap, and not misusing the platform he has here.

Consider yourself dumped, Randall.
I don't know who you really are, but here I am, same person same account, stating my opinions on this comic without having to hide behind a fake account. It's not ironic to you that you are accusing him of being childish? He stated where he stood, didn't attack Trump and his transgressions...nothing else, not even an inappropriate and childish meta joke. Please reconsider how you view others if you think your reaction to this is anywhere close to making sense.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5431
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby doogly » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Campaigning or voting for a third-party presidential candidate to protest the two-party system seems akin to refusing to tip to protest the sub-minimum wage for waitstaff: It won't do anything to bring about the change you claim to want, and in the meantime hurts people or causes you claim to care about.

This is an extremely on point analogy.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:02 pm UTC

Houston2010 wrote:I just registered now so that I could say, "I'm not."

And those of you who are, just realize, you own whatever happens, because we all know what we're gonna get with her. No excuses.

For my unintended second post in this thread (nobody complained about my first, so I'm assuming you all agreed with me on that point) I feel compelled to say that I feel fairly safe knowing what we in the wider world would get with Hillary, but have absolutely no idea what'll happen with Trump. Best case scenario, he gets coccooned in the Oval Office, surrounded by cotton wool and given a fake Nuclear Football to play with whilst those people who actually know what they're doing get on with the running of your country in their traditional tug-of-war way, but minus the flaming barrels of pitch and table full of sharp implements nearby.

An external view. For hopeful consideration, but probably ignorable.

Fubushi
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:41 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Fubushi » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

I just wonder: Why is ponytail girl holding a Huggenreuthing Mark IV Mind Control Ray Projector?

Velo Steve
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Velo Steve » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

I'm with nobody, it seems. I went to a web site which purports to match your opinions on 20 questions to the statements of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, including those in the primaries. [Not naming the site just because I have no idea how scientific or biased it may be.]

My two closest matches were a Republican and a Democrat. My two worst matches were a Republican and a Democrat.

Is there anyone else out there who would be a Democrat if they wouldn't try to run your economic life or a Republican if they wouldn't try to run your personal life?


Oh well. I will vote, and I will respect the presidency even if I don't agree with the winner.

Stargazer71
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:I see Randall also has a troubling lack of integrity.

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/


I do find it mildly amusing how much Trump scares liberals into abandoning principles they formerly espoused:

I’m a political junkie, but I’ve largely kept that out of xkcd


Clinton has done nothing of the sort, and when questioned seems baffled that anyone would have a problem with what is, by any reasonable standard, bribery.


I’m disabling comments because I don’t want xkcd to become a place for ongoing political argument, anger, and hurt feelings. The internet has enough political discussion threads


Frankly, for my 2c, it seems like the democrat party has just decided that winning elections is a lot easier if you make everything about your opponent's character (Basically the Willie Stark approach to government: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.") I dream of the day when this fails to work for them.

In the meantime, her serious lack of judgement when it comes to classified materials is a real thing. Her not giving a s*** about our borders being wide open is a real thing. Her colluding with the DNC to make sure that she got the nomination is a real thing.

I'm not with her. I'll take the loudmouth jerk with a few good ideas over her any day.
Last edited by Stargazer71 on Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

but Sanders isn't running any more

He might be, if he didn't have to deal with the spoiler effect.

Gary Johnson is in favor of ranked voting and the popular vote. I am voting for that third-party candidate specifically to help the cause I care about: real choice in elections.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Vir4030 wrote:
The electors are a fundamental part of our federal union. They help to weigh the results to share power between the people and the states. Without it, as few as nine states could decide the whole election on their own simply because they contain over half the population of the country.
It's only 11 with the electoral college (since electors are assigned based on population), so I'm not sure how what you're saying changes anything.

And... actually, because of the way we assign electors, it only takes 50%+1 vote in each of the states, so the current system could elect a president with around 25% of the country's vote (or less, given FPTP and multiple parties).


The math on this was done in FFT the other week, and Obama only needed 21.5% of the voters to win in 2012 - that is the wasted vote was 78.5%, meaning that there is a group of voters comprising 78.5% of everyone who voted in 2012 where it doesn't matter if any number of them stayed home or voted, the only way they could have changed the outcome is by changing their vote.
Last edited by Thesh on Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Stargazer71
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:29 pm UTC

Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?

I mean, is this supposed to help get the votes people who are too dumb to figure out that you just fill in the bubble next to the person you support?

It just seems strange, since I've been listening to a bunch of democrats claim that Hillary voters are "smarter" than Trump voters for a long time now.

IdahoEv
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:53 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby IdahoEv » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:Maine is voting tomorrow on whether to be the first state to move to ranked choice voting for Governor, US Senate and Representative, and state senate and rep races, so we'll hopefully prove a useful test case.


I'll be eagerly watching that! I personally prefer Condorcet methods over IRV methods but I think either would be an improvement. There are good arguments both ways.

ivnja wrote:I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea that we should try to limit participation of different political parties (either actively, or by just not supporting changes that would disrupt the two-party status quo) just because we don't like what some other parties might say or do. Plus you might argue this election that that's basically backfired, since instead of having a nationalist party running the "build a wall" candidate, the segment of the Republican base most sympathetic to those views managed to take control of the GOP, and moderate Republicans don't really have a voice in this election.


I'll admit my misgivings here are entirely circumstantial and don't have a good philosophical basis. But the overall groundswell of white nationalism we've seen lately is scaring the crap out of me.

FWIW I don't think moderate republicans have had a voice for a while, and that's to our country's detriment.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Quantized » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?

I mean, is this supposed to help get the votes people who are too dumb to figure out that you fill in the bubble next to the person you support?

It just seems strange, since I've been listening to a bunch of democrats claim that Hillary voters are "smarter" than Trump voters for a long time now.



When it says "Having trouble voting", it does not mean bubbling in your choice- it means if someone is having trouble getting their ballot it, getting to a voting location, or struggling with any of the other many parts of the voting process that may prove difficult for people across the country. It's not an insult, it's a very important piece of information that a lot of people could use.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?

I mean, is this supposed to help get the votes people who are too dumb to figure out that you just fill in the bubble next to the person you support?


Ooh, ooh! I know this one! That line's about ensuring access. Of course, had you bothered to look up the referenced information rather than make stupid assumptions, you might have known that too!

http://www.866ourvote.org/

IdahoEv
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:53 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby IdahoEv » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Also, am I the only one who notices how subtly insulting this comic is? "If you're having trouble voting, here's a phone number?" I mean seriously--what kind of half-way informed voter can claim that they are having trouble voting?


The kind who is being intimidated by outsiders trying to make them afraid to vote. Our country has a long history of trouble with that, and one of our candidates is literally encouraging his voters to lurk at polling places of people they don't trust.

The phone number Randall posted is for the national right to vote initiative, a watchdog agency that tries to make sure nobody is prevented from exercising their right to vote. http://www.866ourvote.org/


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon and 30 guests