1756: "I'm With Her"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Spaceman_Spiff
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Spaceman_Spiff » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:14 am UTC

Sometimes people want to take a break from politics and be able to enjoy something with people who don't share their political views. No matter what people believe, they should be able to enjoy non-political websites, sports, television, products, and all of the other things that make life better. I am glad that this is a country where politics and tribalism can be left aside most of the time. Reading XKCD is something I and many other people enjoy and that is a big contribution that Randall has made to the world. A blatantly political comic like this makes me enjoy the site less and if it continues, my enjoyment of the site may drop to where I don't visit anymore. Many people (especially actors and musicians) who create things don't seem to fully appreciate what they create and the joy that it brings people. They value politics over their own creation, so ironically they devalue the good that they do in exchange for the less valuable political advocacy. I don't want politics to permeate everything in the country. It is sad and disappointing to see things like this, and it is increasingly common.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1051
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:14 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:If you think Clinton's fairly modest proposals on Syria and Russia are like Kim Jong-un's, that's outlandish and offensive to both the people suffering from the human rights violations at the hands of Russia and its allies, and to the people Kim oppresses and openly threatens with nuclear attack. And if you don't see a parallel between giving up the Sudetenland and giving up Crimea, I don't know what to say.

I think a closer historical analogy for Crimea would be Alsace-Lorraine, though of course that's not perfect. The situation in Ukraine is a much bigger mess than we seem to admit over here in the US; what is happening over there isn't so much about human rights and self-determination as much as it is another stupid great power great game, where Russia has said "if you are going to take Ukraine you can't have our most important southern naval base".

Syria is another mess entirely but it's midnight and I'm voting in the morning so I'll leave it at that.

Velo Steve
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Velo Steve » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:26 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:Can someone explain to me the appeal behind either third party candidate?
...

Either? Depending on your state, you may have a very different number of choices. For better or worse, the options include:
[1]You can only vote for candidates printed on your state's ballot.
[2]You can also write in "approved" candidates, but any other name will be ignored.
[3]You can write in anyone you want.

For example, California has Trump, Johnson, Stein, Clinton, and La Riva printed on the ballot. There are five more approved write-in candidates, including Evan McMullin and Bernie Sanders. It's a bit of an odd process. It only takes 55 signatures to get on the ballot, but there must be at least some other rules, or we'd probably have Mickey Mouse on the list. Sanders apparently doesn't want to be included, but it's not up to him!

Bottom line: depending on your state you may able to write in the smartest, most qualified, most moral , most "thinks like I do" person you can think of.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Xeio » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:26 am UTC

Image

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:48 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:
omgryebread wrote:You think Gary Johnson is the one to help American democracy? Well do you think money in politics is a problem? Because Gary Johnson doesn't, he supports the Citizens United decision.


I won't speak to whether Gary Johnson thinks money in politics is a problem, because I have no clue.
Ignoring the other positions you talked about, its pretty easy to find Johnson on campaign finance.


I wasn't referring to Johnson's position on campaign finance restrictions. You made an assertion about whether he "think[s] money in politics is a problem." This is a related, but separate issue, one which I haven't seen any direct comments. The quotes you posted point out that Johnson thinks campaign finance reform (in the form of donation limits) seem good in theory but create a separate set of problems. Personally, I completely disagree with Johnson's reasoning (yes, being beholden to millions of $1000 dollar donors theoretically make you beholden to millions of different people and positions, but in practice, being beholden to millions means being beholden to none of them.) I'm asking for something that points to him saying, "Money in politics is a great thing, that helps our country in the end," or at the very least, "Money in politics isn't good, but it's harmless." Which is the position you attributed to him. So far everything you have posted have been consistent with what I believe--which is that Johnson specifically finds issue with proposed and previously passed campaign finance reform, but has not explicitly stated a position on whether money in politics is a problem or not.

Actually, from all of your posts, I think you have a general tendency to conflate "does not think government is the best solution"/"does not think the Constitution permits government to solve this"/"does not think this specific government solution works"/"does not think the downside of this solution is justified" with "does not think this problem exists."

He also opposes public financing of campaigns (including the Libertarian Party if they were to reach 5%.)


I'm of a mixed position on this myself. Ideologically speaking, I'm not a fan of public funding of campaigns. Pragmatically speaking, this is one of those situations where the problem to be solved might be worse than the side-effects of the government solution, and having the Libertarians accept the financing--and implicit legitimizing endorsement--may be more important than ideological purity.

That's a rather vague, general statement lacking any particularity. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't think the Constitution allows us any effective way to stop it, (Commerce Clause, she's a real witch.) Or if he simply disagrees with all of the specific plans that have been proposed to deal with the problem, either because he thinks they won't work or because he thinks the costs are too high. Or maybe, like me, he believes that the free market won't provide a solution soon enough, and that government action is necessary, but any attempt to act unilaterally will fail (because no other countries stand with us) and put us at an economic and military disadvantage (because other countries don't have their hands tied.)


I don't particularly understand how you could think something is a problem, but not try to find a solution.


No, what you don't understand is my position. I don't "think something is a problem, but not try to find a solution." As a matter of fact, neither do many other people who you have most likely dismissed as "not trying to find a solution." Government and the free market (your definition of the free market, which seems to imply a ruthless, apolitical system of buyers and sellers) aren't the only possible source of a solution. But beyond that, please reread the last part of what you quoted: I specifically outlined why I felt unilateral government action wasn't enough. That is my problem with the vast majority of previous climate change legislation--they've almost all been unilateral. When the EPA mandates something like limits on lead pollution, we (as a nation) bear the costs, but we (as a nation) also exclusively internalize the benefit. When we unilaterally reduce carbon emissions, we're doing something at great cost that benefits the planet as a whole, while others free-ride and get an economic advantage by not doing their share, and then we buy their cheaper products--which ultimately means that our consumption does continue to contribute climate change, indirectly.

Now, if we put on our logic hats, I think it's pretty clear that there's a class of government action I think would be effective--multilateral government action. So long as the biggest producers are on board, there is enforcement to prevent cheating, and non-signatories are treated in a manner that offsets their economic advantage from non-compliance, then I think we could potentially have a workable solution. And I think that as long as the next President or the next Congress doesn't remove us from the Paris Accords, then I think one day people will see that Obama's role in the Accords was probably his single most important act as President.

The free market is not "not providing a solution soon enough" it's actively working against finding a solution.


Once again, I have trouble because your idea of the free market seems to be not only evil, ruthless, avaricious, and apolitical, but also monolithic. Yes, there are some strong private actors putting a lot of money into denying climate change. But there are also a bunch of private actors putting a lot into climate change solutions, such as renewable energy. For some, it's a gamble, with a goal of a big win. Like many businesses, they're betting on a future outcome--that geopolitics, natural disaster, or other developments will make fossil fuels scarce or expensive, that government regulation will change the market landscape to favor renewable energy, or that all the funding they put into research will find some breakthrough that will make renewable energy economically competitive even without a major change in the market.

For others, they see a more immediate benefit. Remember how I said your idea of the free market was apolitical, concerned with a very limited conception of rational self-interest? The real free market is not. Even neglecting government regulation, the market is swayed by the whims and preferences of the market participants--a.k.a., normal people like you and me, who ARE political, who ARE irrational, who are willing to leave money on the table for a product that's well marketed or makes them feel good, or to support a company that they think is helping to save the world. Even when going green is substantially more costly, companies are going green for the same reason they spend millions on 30 seconds of Super Bowl advertising--they think it will generate goodwill that will tangibly benefit them.

Also, in many parts of Europe and Asia--where fossil fuels aren't as cheap as they are in the United States--low carbon energy (including both traditional "green" renewables, but also nuclear) have been a greater part of the market for much longer. Those segments of the free market certainly haven't been "actively resisting solutions," because to them, a better solution means more profits.

So to recap, you're telling us that because a candidate only imperfectly follows principles we agree with, we should instead vote for a candidate who imperfectly follows an entirely different set of principles... in order to, what, punish him?


I'm not telling you to vote for anyone. I'm just saying that if Clinton and Trump are terrible candidates, (Trump is, and I'm willing to concede that there are legitimate arguments against Clinton), then I don't understand how people can think that Johnson or Stein are good candidates. You answered my question a bit. I don't agree with your decision to vote for Johnson, but your rationale makes sense.

Netreker0 wrote:And a false dilemma fallacy, what a surprise. There's a tremendous space between being a Neville Chamberlain and being a Kim Jong Un. I would like a President who is somewhere in that space, preferably fairly far from either extreme.

If you think Clinton's fairly modest proposals on Syria and Russia are like Kim Jong-un's, that's outlandish and offensive to both the people suffering from the human rights violations at the hands of Russia and its allies, and to the people Kim oppresses and openly threatens with nuclear attack.

No, I don't think Clinton is like Kim Jong Un. And I'm not sure you think I do either, but saying that so did made a great segue for that righteous indignation and appeal to emotion, so I can't blame you for that I suppose.

And if you don't see a parallel between giving up the Sudetenland and giving up Crimea, I don't know what to say.


I'm at a loss at this point. Can you please more clearly articulate what you thought I said? And for that matter, what you think you said?

This is how I read things: Covane said saber rattling for its own sake (i.e., the Kim Jong Un position) is bad, and reading between the lines I think he was talking about Trump. You responded,
Yeah, I mean giving up sections of Eastern European countries to tyrants has always been a solid foreign policy.
This is the Neville Chamberlain position. I called you out because way you presented it was an example of the false dilemma fallacy, and kind of a borderline strawman argument. You disagreed with his criticism, and rather than attack it on the merits, you implied that he must necessarily hold the opposite extreme position, and attacked that position.

So, I called your strawman argument (about giving up sections of Eastern European countries) the Neville Chamberlain position. (Apparently I was too subtle?) If you don't understand that not only do I see the parallel between giving up Sudentenland and giving up Crimea, but I was the one who freakin' brought it up. then I think you might be too tired or distracted to continue this conversation tonight.

I hope that's not the case. It's been a fun discussion. We obviously disagree, but you've been pretty civil and thoughtful. (Except for that last bit, which seems like 5 a.m. syndrome. Which is understandable, we've all been there.)

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:10 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:But you know what? All that, technically true as it might be, still doesn't make the shit-on-shit sandwich a more appealing alternative. I'm sad that plain ham and mild cheddar was the most exciting prospect we've seen here in a while and we couldn't even get that over stale baloney, but no fucking way am I eating three kinds of shit on shit with a side of shit instead.

Well, that was a fun journey that had me laughing. Sadly, not true enough. It's food, not shit... Your ideal sandwich is something I don't even dream of. Fancy. I think the lowest sandwich is even lower than what you said: a mayonnaise sandwich. Seriously, people have eaten that and called it a sandwich. It's not shit but it's not really a sandwich either. Maybe one or both of the candidates are that. Maybe. I just don't see the point in the shit sandwich analogy.

Covane wrote:the myth of qualification needs to be thrown out

no one is qualified to be president. I mean that in practical contemporary terms and in abstract. No one since Eisenhower has been professionally qualified to run the country, and I don't know if any human being has ever been abstractly qualified to hold that amount of power. Maybe Feynman, Oppenheimer, et al.


anyone rattling sabers at Russia isn't fit to hold the power of nukes, that's for sure.

I mostly agree with you and thank you for bringing that up. Just, why are you only mentioning people involved in mass destruction? We need our president to be able to sympathize domestically, too, not just have a head start on being a hawk. Commander-in-chief is only one hat the president wears.
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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:19 am UTC

Velo Steve wrote:It only takes 55 signatures to get on the ballot, but there must be at least some other rules, or we'd probably have Mickey Mouse on the list. Sanders apparently doesn't want to be included, but it's not up to him!


California has 55 electoral votes, but it takes the signatures of 1% of the population to get on the ballot as an independent - if you are the nominee of a political party that is recognized in the state, then you don't have to get signatures.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

WontonSoup
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:05 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby WontonSoup » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:41 am UTC

Wow, bravo, Randall. I was not expecting that. I'm sure that took some courage, and don't let the people flaming you for it in this thread discourage you. You did the right thing.

Takigama
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:03 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Takigama » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:15 am UTC

While I respect that its randalls comic and he's fine to do with it as he wishes, I (like many others apparently) am very disappointed that he did decided to go down the path he has.

People come here for the things xkcd was, and its right there on the front page:

A webcomic of romance,
sarcasm, math, and language

Today's is none of those things, but lately it feels like xkcd is perhaps lacking some of the wit or insight-fullness that is normally here and to be fair it must be hard to come up with something 3 days a week. But endorsing a candidate for the US election? Not being someone who is really paying attention (or a citizen/someone living in the US) it was extremely disappointing for the simple reason that i look forward to going home from work on monday and waiting for xkcd's latest bit of awesome (in Australia it usually comes out monday night).

Just something to consider though; http://xkcd.com/556/ (2009) vs http://xkcd.com/1732/ (2016)

EDIT:
On a side note, what I am looking forward to is other web comics poking fun at randall (as he has done in the past) for his choice of comic today... eg: https://xkcd.com/157/

User avatar
zjxs
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:04 am UTC
Location: Te Ao

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby zjxs » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:55 am UTC

romance,
sarcasm, math, and language


Choosing the next President will have a substantial effect on all of those things, and will also affect science, rationality, wit, and kindness.

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 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:58 am UTC

HelloMail wrote:I have no problem with the importance of the election, or even that he voiced his opinion, it's simply how he did that I have a bit of a disagreement with. I don't have any particular person I am rooting for. Even if he had said 'Make America Great Again', I would still feel the same way.

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:Sometimes people want to take a break from politics and be able to enjoy something with people who don't share their political views. No matter what people believe, they should be able to enjoy non-political websites, sports, television, products, and all of the other things that make life better. I am glad that this is a country where politics and tribalism can be left aside most of the time. Reading XKCD is something I and many other people enjoy and that is a big contribution that Randall has made to the world. A blatantly political comic like this makes me enjoy the site less and if it continues, my enjoyment of the site may drop to where I don't visit anymore. Many people (especially actors and musicians) who create things don't seem to fully appreciate what they create and the joy that it brings people. They value politics over their own creation, so ironically they devalue the good that they do in exchange for the less valuable political advocacy. I don't want politics to permeate everything in the country. It is sad and disappointing to see things like this, and it is increasingly common.


Chain reply to you both. Do either of you know what happened to entertainment channels during September 11, 2001? They all switched to news coverage for nearly three days. Almost every channel save for a few, most of which were running programs for the youngest of children. So, like, this ain't a kids comic. The time calls for this kind of action (Randall believed) and that's perfectly fine because we're not babies. We can handle one single comic featuring a direct endorsement of one of the candidates. Back to your regularly scheduled comic in a couple days (if not, eh, we'll talk then) or a week.

Why is it okay if this is done in a comic? Why not a blog or a tweet? Why not leave politics to the politicians? Oh, boy....that last part. Career politicians. Aren't we all supposed to hate that? Trump supporters want him because he's not....but then neither is Randall. So Trump can run for president but Randall can't publicly support a candidate for president?

Politicians are supposed to be citizens. But what do we normally get? Career politicians or celebrities (including relatives of both). So that's it. But the same goes for our political commentary....except celebs are not as welcome. Why not? Something about "now I can't be entertained because I know you're a vile human being who supports what I oppose". How do you people get along with relatives with opposing political views? Go right to disowning them? ;)

My point is that everyone should be sharing their views (if they feel comfortable) but really we're only going to listen to other politicians (meh) and celebrities. I used to hate hearing a celeb endorsement. Not because it ever affected my enjoyment of their art (think Schwarzenegger) but because I thought "why should we listen to you?" The answer is that we don't have to listen to them but it's one of the many opinions that we should take into consideration. Listen, discuss, learn. No reason to segregate by person.

Anyways, back to Randall. Is he known for public speaking? He's done it but I've never been enthralled by his delivery. No, it's his comics that he connects to his audience with. Therefore that's what he should use. What was wrong with his tempered endorsement? I usually dislike the preachy comics. That would have made me annoyed right along with some of you. This was simply his stance, no putting down. I think it was well done. People will read into it what they will (as they have), just as they may have done with an op-ed piece.

In terms of how it affects his oeuvre...it doesn't really, not much more than the early real life drawings or the ones that were actually just web games. It's a thing that happened at that moment or on that day. Collectively the comic is still about Cueball or Black Hat or whomever. If the comic was serial with an arc, an interruption, even non-political, would be annoying. Thankfully, this is a one-off.

I didn't get the comic last week, btw, but just moved on...and pretty much forgot that it didn't do anything for me (not even to motivate me to look up the explanation). This comic can be that for you guys....if you haven't let the political climate poison your ability to.
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.

teelo
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby teelo » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:59 am UTC

VOTE TRUMP (the Hearthstone Streamer) FOR PRESIDENT 2016

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:13 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
somitomi wrote:How about people more or less uninvolved in the issue (as much as such is possible in this case) complaining about missing their prescribed dose of entertainment?
A "prescribed dose" is the amount of medicine that a doctor has told a patient they need to take for some valid medical reason. As much as I think entertainment is important for mental health, I don't think any MD has prescribed 3 updates of xkcd a week to be taken every other weekday.
...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no particular right to have a Monday xkcd update. Randall seems to clearly feel that getting this message up is more important than relaying a joke about dinosaurs, and I'm inclined to agree. No, it's not important to everyone, since there are non-Americans, but I don't think I can complain about this comic just because I don't know HTML and can't understand it.


I know what "prescribed dose" is, it was intended to be a... uhm... what's that funny word? "joke", that's it.
While there is no obligation for Randall to make a comic for Monday (or at any time at all), I still am unhappy about it missing.Analogies are a big thing here, so here's my take: If I run to the tram stop and just misss the tram, I'm unhappy about that too. Even though 5 minutes of waiting isn't going to hurt me, and the tram driver doesn't have to wait for anyone (in fact, he has to be on schedule). That doesn't stop me from saying "Damn it".
Image
they/them/theirs = he/him/his ❖ If you want to use something else out of dadaist spite, I won't mind.
✆ Hello? This is Forum Games Discord, what is your emergency?

Takigama
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:03 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Takigama » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:33 am UTC

zjxs wrote:
romance,
sarcasm, math, and language


Choosing the next President will have a substantial effect on all of those things, and will also affect science, rationality, wit, and kindness.


Thats a very poor argument as im sure your well aware - the comic is none of those things, its an advert for a candidate - and I come to xkcd for sometihng to make me laugh, think, etc etc... this is a good recent example: http://xkcd.com/1747/ of something fairly thought provoking. The reality is you can go many (probably millions) of places to get an opinion on the election and I dont go to any of them.

On top of that, there were so many ways of expressing his opinion without degrading his comic to do it, IMHO, thats what he's done here. It would have been so much more in line with what i'd expect from him if he'd done a comic that was a really smart take on so many other aspects of the politics that could have been so much more interesting, thought provoking, smart, wity, etc etc.

To put it simply, this comic fails in every important aspect which makes xkcd unique and interesting.

xtifr
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby xtifr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:48 am UTC

So when his loved ones are sick, it's ok for him to post a non-funny cartoon about cancer, but when he thinks his entire country is in danger, he's not allowed to post about that? Sheesh.

Ok. Everyone who's mad about this comic, line up over there, and we'll issue you your money back in triplicate.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Murderbot
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:29 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Murderbot » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:28 am UTC

Reka wrote:For those outside the US who have no idea what to make of this, (1) be very, very thankful...

No thanks.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby markfiend » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:01 pm UTC

I wish I had a vote. It would be going to Hilary Clinton.

Realistically, only Trump and Clinton stand any chance of being elected. Voting for a third-party candidate might give you a warm glow of ideological purity, but it's going to do no good at all in preventing the worst world-wide disaster since Hitler's rise to power. (Yeah yeah Godwin's Law, but justified in that Trump is a literal fascist.)

The consequences of a Trump presidency would be catastrophic. The thought of a man of his temperament with his finger on the nuclear trigger chills me to the bone. Please. Think about your decision, Americans.
Attoc dna Sublab evol eht teews secoiv fo eht slrug
pronouns: he/him/his

Spaceman_Spiff
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Spaceman_Spiff » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:45 pm UTC

azule wrote:(long quote removed)


I didn't completely follow that stream-of-consciousness post. I don't want everything to devolve into tribes, where Republicans only listen to and support other Republicans and Democrats only listen to and support other Democrats. We should be able to all enjoy the same things together. By publicly choosing sides, we diminish that social cohesion and eliminate one more refuge from politics. I know websites where the commenters just insult the other political side and drive away anyone who disagrees. That starts with things like this. One comic isn't going to ruin the site, but each time lowers the bar for making another one. Some people will leave, but some of the ones that stay will want more political comics. Fox News and MSNBC didn't start as polarized as they are. They got that way by driving away the people who disagree, which led them to becoming more polarized, which led to driving away more people. Once you start down that road, it is hard to go back.

smittythepirate
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby smittythepirate » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:58 pm UTC

zjxs wrote:
romance,
sarcasm, math, and language


Choosing the next President will have a substantial effect on all of those things, and will also affect science, rationality, wit, and kindness.


The next President will have no effect on this, the same as every President previously.

Saying that this is the most important election is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The same thing is said every 4 years and nothing positive really comes from the party that is elected. Sure you can possibly get a couple major changes passed but with Capital Hill always in grid lock no real progress can be made. Senators and Representatives are elected and stay in the position for way too long, special interest groups can basically pay for votes, and thinking your vote matters is just propaganda to get people to show up.

Either way Hillary in office isn't going to start a magical revolution that people are expecting, and voting for Trump isn't going to start a nuclear war as previous people have mentioned...

---------------------------

As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

Image
Last edited by smittythepirate on Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby markfiend » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:one more refuge from politics

Ain't no such animal.

Refusing to take a political stance is in itself a political stance.
Attoc dna Sublab evol eht teews secoiv fo eht slrug
pronouns: he/him/his

peregrine_crow
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby peregrine_crow » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:19 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
J L wrote:Striking a blow for multiparty systems: In Germany, we've been having a rather stable 5-6 party system for the last couple of decades. Recently, it has been fragmenting a bit, but it's still overseeable. And it works reasonably well. There's an electoral threshold of 5% of the popular vote a party has to reach in order to be taken "seriously", and as for outright fascist parties: well, you're not allowed to have those. Right-wing populists, sure, but you can't run a party the Federal Constitutional Court finds to be inherently unconstitutional. I know this collides with US interpretation of free speech, but we had our experiences with parties advocating and executing mass murder, so no. As a a result, about 60-80% of our parties tend to consist of grown-up politicians you can more or less entrust with running a country, even if you hate them, and no matter which coalition. And you can happily vote your conscience instead of the lesser of evils, and find yourself somewhat represented. Of course it's still frustrating as hell, but that's probably democracy.

Vouching for this too. In the Netherlands we've had a multi-party setup since time immemorial (with proportional representation since 1919) with a poisson distribution of votes to different parties, resulting in about ~10 parties with at least one seat but a majority coalition* of 2-4 parties.
One advantage is that you (may) start out voting for whichever party you like most and after the election the largest parties will have to negotiate and compromise to get a majority rule —the voter doesn't have to select a prepackaged deal. The parallel disadvantage is that you don't know if and what positions your favourite party will give up to get that majority rule.

One more advantage to proportional representation is that it provides an incentive to keep things civil during the election period, because you have to form a coalition with someone after the election is over and (at least in theory) there are limits to the extend you can throw poop at the people you might have to work with for the next four years. Also, and maybe more importantly, pulling another party down at a cost to your own credibility is no longer a valid strategy.

There are of course, downsides as well. As mentioned you give more niche ideas a bigger podium which isn't always beneficial to a country (we're having our own problems with idiots of the "build a wall" variety here in the Netherlands) and you also run the risk of not being able to form a government after an election if the political landscape becomes too splintered.

Still, I think the larger set of options for the voter as well as the more civil political discourse is well worth those downsides.
Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed.

drazen
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:27 pm UTC

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.


Hear, hear. To those who say a 3rd party is a waste, my core issues are hard-line support of 1A, 2A, and 4A and hard-line opposition to 16A and government compulsion.

First, based not on campaign rhetoric, but the actual historical actions of Clinton and Trump, I'm not with either of them, as they both suck on 1A and 4A, Trump can't be trusted on 2A (or anything), and neither will do much about 16A or compulsion, or at least nothing in the direction I'd want. So it's basically a wash.

Second, I live in a blue state so it doesn't matter anyway. Since the Republican Party here is essentially moribund, I voted for Johnson to get the LP on the ballot. They should get access and run candidates in 2018 and 2020. Except for president and state rep, all the non-ballot-question races where I live were uncontested. I would at least like to see another choice on the ballot. Voting third party accomplishes that with no immediate down-side and a huge long-term up-side. Plus the crappy candidates get that much less of a mandate no matter who wins - hooray.

Thus, I'm with neither of them. The last time I did an issue scoring site I got Johnson ~95%, Trump ~70%, Stein 20%, and Clinton 10%.

....

As for the electoral college, abolishing it is stupid. It just means that instead of four states, twenty cities will decide the election. The end result will be more polarization between urban and suburban/rural than ever before. A better solution would be for the country to just break up and be done with it already. The USA is basically a bad marriage, and 60 million people pushing around 50 million people based on a national poll is a stupid, evil system. When Hillary says "stronger together," my response is, "IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES." Too many people want diametrically opposed things for the USA to sustain itself. The idea that secession or breaking up the Republic is awful or pro-Confederate is a stupid, irrational, overly emotional reaction; it is the most rational decision since the sides hate each other anyway. Other countries do it all the damn time, and the world doesn't freaking end. Stop trying to make everyone get along, it's not going to happen. At best it'll be the corrupt crap we have now where the people get screwed in favor of the elite, and at worst (I'm projecting long-term) it'll be another Iraq or Syria. Or maybe just Russia, but that would still suck.

My way makes 110+ million people all happy, democracy, especially first-past-the-post democracy, makes 50+ million miserable.

....

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:50 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:That's a rather vague, general statement lacking any particularity. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't think the Constitution allows us any effective way to stop it, (Commerce Clause, she's a real witch.) Or if he simply disagrees with all of the specific plans that have been proposed to deal with the problem, either because he thinks they won't work or because he thinks the costs are too high.

He is on record saying that "in the long run, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, so global warming is unavoidable".

Because in five billion years the Earth will be cooked, so what's the point in dealing with it now.

Don't try apologism if you don't know what your sacred cow actually said.

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:Sometimes people want to take a break from politics and be able to enjoy something with people who don't share their political views. No matter what people believe, they should be able to enjoy non-political websites, sports, television, products, and all of the other things that make life better. I am glad that this is a country where politics and tribalism can be left aside most of the time. Reading XKCD is something I and many other people enjoy and that is a big contribution that Randall has made to the world. A blatantly political comic like this makes me enjoy the site less and if it continues, my enjoyment of the site may drop to where I don't visit anymore. Many people (especially actors and musicians) who create things don't seem to fully appreciate what they create and the joy that it brings people. They value politics over their own creation, so ironically they devalue the good that they do in exchange for the less valuable political advocacy. I don't want politics to permeate everything in the country. It is sad and disappointing to see things like this, and it is increasingly common.

...so, it's wrong for creators to put purpose or meaning in their work, and they should restrain themselves to only including bland, pointless, opiate?

And you don't see the hypocrisy in you coming to the forums to publicly express your opinion about someone else choosing to publicly express their opinion?

drazen wrote:Hear, hear. To those who say a 3rd party is a waste, my core issues are hard-line support of 1A, 2A, and 4A and hard-line opposition to 16A and government compulsion.

It's not about ideology, it's about basic math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

The third parties aren't going to be able to accomplish anything unless they're actually poised to replace one of the two main parties. In order for third parties to be worth a damn, some serious groundwork needs to be done first, either in overtaking the larger, foundering party (Libertarian or Tea Party seem like they could consume the Republican party if they put the work in), or the system itself needs to be reformed.

My way makes 110+ million people all happy, democracy, especially first-past-the-post democracy, makes 50+ million miserable.

That's...jesus, no. Just look at Brexit. People are happy to wave the flag of seccession as a point of pride, but then get swallowed up when it actually starts happening because their lives are taken apart.

FPTP is shit, yes, but "everyone just splinter into countless city-states" is not a magic bandaid.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:13 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

DOUBLE REPLY
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:08 pm UTC

DOUBLE REPLY
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby pogrmman » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:16 pm UTC

I, too, am disappointed by this comic.
I came to xkcd yesterday expecting a comic that I thought would be a funny commentary on the election. I'm fed up with this election and wanted something funny. Realistically, I wasn't expecting a comic about anything other than the election, but I was hoping it was going to be some something interesting and funny, like having all the different characters talking about voting (black hat guy in particular).

While it's great that Randall is exercising his right to free speech and all and getting the word out about voting, it sucks that this was just an endorsement...

drazen wrote:I would at least like to see another choice on the ballot. Voting third party accomplishes that with no immediate down-side and a huge long-term up-side. Plus the crappy candidates get that much less of a mandate no matter who wins - hooray.


I, too used this mentality in this election. As somebody who voted in Texas, my vote doesn't matter a whole lot. In every race I picked the best candidate in my eyes. Sometimes it was a Democrat, othertimes, a Republican, othertimes a Libertarian, and othertimes, a Green. While all of those parties have ballot access in TX, it doesn't mean they have a chance. Out of the 20 statewide offices (governor, railroad comissioner, Supreme Court, and criminal appellate court), there is a single non-republican. He was elected as a republican, and became fed up with the party, so switched to the democrats.

So, my state government is a one-party state effectively. My local government isn't better -- we're basically a one party state for the democrats in everything that isn't gerrymandered.

This is why I supported some third party candidates -- I'm fed up with the system.

drazen wrote:Thus, I'm with neither of them. The last time I did an issue scoring site I got Johnson ~95%, Trump ~70%, Stein 20%, and Clinton 10%.


At least you support *somebody* -- for me, all four candidates weren't good. The last time I did one of those issues sites it was like Johnson: 40%, Stein: 35%, Clinton: 25%, Trump: 10%. I did end up voting, after I did a full round robin between all the candidates, where the winner of each matchup on the issues I care about won the match. I calculated an ELO rating for every candidate based off of their score in each round, and went for the one with the highest rating.

At least I had a preference in most non-presidential races.

drazen
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

He is on record saying that "in the long run, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, so global warming is unavoidable".
Because in five billion years the Earth will be cooked, so what's the point in dealing with it now.
Don't try apologism if you don't know what your sacred cow actually said.


I believe Johnson was cracking wise, and wasn't actually serious about that. But hey, gotta score your points somehow, I guess.

Just look at Brexit. People are happy to wave the flag of seccession as a point of pride, but then get swallowed up when it actually starts happening because their lives are taken apart.


Their lives are being taken apart by elites who punish them for not falling in line. The pound's recovering, life will go on, and they'll be better off.

Splintering is far better than forcing everyone together in a hodge-podge where millions are miserable.

We need a third house of Congress with proportional representation, but that'll never happen since the duopoly gets to hold power by keeping things as-is. Thus, secession over reconciliation. Anything to stick it to the central planners is A-OK in my book.

mhelvens
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:44 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby mhelvens » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

First of all, kudos to Randall! Not for knowing which candidate to support, but for actually doing something about it, despite knowing it would lose him some readers.

Trump is uninformed, unintelligent, bigoted, immature, selfish and dishonest, all in far greater measure than Hillary. Say what you want about the media, but Trump actually displays these qualities on video, time and time again.

Hillary is dishonest too, and selfish and power-hungry. But I'm convinced that at least she wouldn't run the country (or the planet) into the ground. Trump wants to default on the national debt. He doesn't believe in climate change. He doesn't know why the US has nuclear weapons ("If we have them, why not use them?"). He's just a terrible human being, and he displays it openly. He must be stopped.

There must be some fascinating psychological reasons why half the country just doesn't want to see this. I've made an honest effort to understand the other side of this argument. But it seems there is no real argument on the other side. From what I can tell, the people defending Trump are just uninformed and blindly following the guy who will 'shake things up' (because yeah, the current US political system does suck), and deeply afraid to admit they may be making a big mistake.

As for third party voters: You know that this election cannot be won by a third party candidate, but future elections may well be different. Which of the current two options is more likely to pave the way, and which is more likely to salt the earth?

User avatar
Febrion
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:27 pm UTC
Location: anchored

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Febrion » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:48 pm UTC

smittythepirate wrote:
zjxs wrote:
romance, sarcasm, math, and language


Choosing the next President will have a substantial effect on all of those things, and will also affect science, rationality, wit, and kindness.


The next President will have no effect on this, the same as every President previously.

Saying that this is the most important election is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The same thing is said every 4 years and nothing positive really comes from the party that is elected. Sure you can possibly get a couple major changes passed but with Capital Hill always in grid lock no real progress can be made. Senators and Representatives are elected and stay in the position for way too long, special interest groups can basically pay for votes, and thinking your vote matters is just propaganda to get people to show up.

Either way Hillary in office isn't going to start a magical revolution that people are expecting, and voting for Trump isn't going to start a nuclear war as previous people have mentioned...
<snip>

I wanted to say something like this, but couldn't word it better than you did. If people put 10% of the interest into state and local politics as they did into the presidential elections, maybe (hey, I can be an optimist if I want to) we could start seeing changes. Most people seem to be VERY misguided about what the president really can and can not do (both legally, and practically)
Temporal Knight Sir Junction, Lord of the Sawtooth Snap
Time flies like a River, sand flies like a Trebuchét

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...

almo
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:14 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby almo » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:06 pm UTC

Thanks Randall. While so many keep pushing the false equivalency, it's nice to see you're still sane.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby pogrmman » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:07 pm UTC

mhelvens wrote:First of all, kudos to Randall! Not for knowing which candidate to support, but for actually doing something about it, despite knowing it would lose him some readers.


He's not losing me as a reader, despite my being disappointed in it. Xkcd is too good for me not to read it. While I don't disagree with his endorsement, I was expecting something like this or this or this. That's the kind of stuff I come to xkcd for, not endorsements.

mhelvens wrote:As for third party voters: You know that this election cannot be won by a third party candidate, but future elections may well be different. Which of the current two options is more likely to pave the way, and which is more likely to salt the earth?


Yes, I do know this election won't be won by Johnson. Yes, I know that of the two major party candidates, Clinton is going to make it easier for third parties in the future than Trump will. Yes, I believe Clinton is vastly more qualified than Trump. However, I told myself years ago that I wasn't going to vote if I couldn't vote for somebody. I can't vote for either of the major party candidates. I just don't agree with them enough. I'm certainly not going to vote against people. Yes, I voted third party in one of the most solidly Republican states that there is. But, Johnson is the only candidate I can support. He's most certainly not a stellar candidate, and I'm not a big fan, but I could actually for for him because I align closely enough with him.

Also, considering that my county is widely regarded as a blueberry in a bowl of tomato soup, while a vote for Clinton would have some meaning, it's probably not going to swing the state total.

Up and down the ballot, I voted for the candidates I consider to be the best. That includes candidates of all four of the parties on the ballot in TX (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens). No party or candidate is perfect, which is why I spent hours researching each race. I wanted to be able to vote for people, and abstained from the races where I couldn't.

TL;DR: I voted third party for the president because I wouldn't be able to cast a vote for either Clinton or Trump.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:12 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...


Britain is longer - their last civil war was Cromwell's, and so they've got an additional two hundred years on the US.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

drazen
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

As for third party voters: You know that this election cannot be won by a third party candidate, but future elections may well be different. Which of the current two options is more likely to pave the way, and which is more likely to salt the earth?


To pave the way, the third parties need ballot access. This access is controlled by the two major parties. Voting third party opens up ballot access and funding for them, making it easier for them to get out there (especially in solid red or blue states where the opposition only offers token resistance). Neither Clinton nor Trump will help out third parties.

There must be some fascinating psychological reasons why half the country just doesn't want to see this. I've made an honest effort to understand the other side of this argument. But it seems there is no real argument on the other side. From what I can tell, the people defending Trump are just uninformed and blindly following the guy who will 'shake things up' (because yeah, the current US political system does suck), and deeply afraid to admit they may be making a big mistake.


Sanctimonious progressives have deeply underestimated just how truly reviled they are by millions. I am not a Trump voter (because I find him vile and untrustworthy; I am not a Clinton voter because I find her vile and while I think I know what she'll do, I want no part of the vast majority of it). But if my only two choices were rule by any "progressive" or the literal end of the world, and I were forced to choose, I'd consider the latter to be the less unappealing option. Thankfully, those were not the only two options on the ballot, so I voted my conscience (and for future ballot access).

I didn't see Randall complaining when third party candidates needed to reach 15% in polls they were NOT EVEN IN to get to the debates, or when those polls excluded 18-35 year olds entirely (I'm not in that group) despite their higher 3rd party support, or when those same polls only asked Republicans or Democrats their vote (gee, I wonder how many hard-line partisans will vote 3rd party?). When people say the system is rigged, that is the kind of thing they're talking about.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

How is it possible that the US —allegedly the best county in the world, always boasting that voting is not just a right but a duty (at least that's what I gathered from South Park), kind of developed at the very least— can't manage to make voting easy for every single citizen? Sure, here in the Netherlands there's always a village less than 20km away, but during an election nearly everyone can vote within 15 minutes of whatever they were doing (10,000 polling stations for 13,000,000 people) —at least, I've never seen a queue of more than 6 people in all the 2 elections I've joined.

Netreker0 wrote:Also, in many parts of Europe and Asia--where fossil fuels aren't as cheap as they are in the United States--low carbon energy (including both traditional "green" renewables, but also nuclear) have been a greater part of the market for much longer. Those segments of the free market certainly haven't been "actively resisting solutions," because to them, a better solution means more profits.

Ah, so you are aware that a lot of countries are further ahead with non-fossil* energy than the US.

From what I've heard it's actually been the US that has been pushing back multilateral initiatives for the past decades. And now you're telling me the US has done some unilateral initiatives too... rather than going with/pushing forward the multilateral ones? What's wrong with you people? :shock:

peregrine_crow wrote:...
As mentioned you give more niche ideas a bigger podium

Do you mean "bigger podium than in a two-party system"? Because I didn't mean/mention "a bigger podium than their proportional representation".
But yes, it is true that niche/extreme ideas get a larger podium than they proportionally have. Indeed, sometimes it's a bad thing, and sometimes it's a good thing. In any case they "can't possibly" get an absolute majority vote, so they'll have to compromise to join a coalition.


*I'm still very wary of what constitues "green" and "renewable", since all those minerals and metals used in e.g. solar panels and batteries require a lot of heavy industry and possibly destruction of nature to gather and process. And I have no clue how we're doing on recycling that stuff. (and of course nuclear fission is not an option in rational and advanced Europe because of a single accident with an old plant in earthquake-ridden Japan)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...


Britain is longer - their last civil war was Cromwell's, and so they've got an additional two hundred years on the US.


Partly my thoughts, but depending upon your interpretation of William III's bid to take over (528 years ago, last Saturday, more or less), it might be different. There's been also suggestions that various periods of widespread rioting count as a break in the 'peaceful' element, but by that standard at least the events surrounding the Seccession and Reconstruction might be termed a disqualifying blip. Not the actual Seccession, as we had ours with the Irish Free State paring off and that led to The Troubles, by way of some other markers, before or after, which some may count as a similar 'blip'. Which is why I was rather wondering as to the metric in use, and what thresholds must be passed under/never passed under for said "peaceful transition".

Idly, though. There are far bigger questions to ask, today, I was just piqued.

smittythepirate
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby smittythepirate » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:32 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
smittythepirate wrote:As a side note, this is how reddit handled the election announcement. It was pretty classy and probably a better way of spreading the message than how xkcd did.

"...the longest stretch of uninterupted peaceful transfers of power in the world."
By whose metric is that? Just curious. Must not include the ACW, or else it also allows other places more historic precedent...


Took me a while to find it but here was the research they used that was provided in the message.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... r_of_power

Honestly that would have made a thoughtful election xkcd comic while sending a subtle message.

User avatar
Ayelis
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:01 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Ayelis » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:40 pm UTC

cupric wrote:I wouldn't judge anybody for their vote.
[...]
Consider yourself dumped, Randall.


Well that escalated quickly.
--
Don't tase me bro!

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:48 pm UTC

smittythepirate wrote:Took me a while to find it but here was the research they used that was provided in the message.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... r_of_power

Honestly that would have made a thoughtful election xkcd comic while sending a subtle message.

Ah, the presentation of the text as an image, for reasons, did make me wonder if those were links or just highlights.
Swing Riots, then, and electoral reform? Do none of these count, and/or such as the 14th,17th, 22nd, 24th or 26th amendments, mayhap..? (Cross-comparison is a job for someone else.)

Still an idle question. I suspect there's no objective answer. I think I've just now doubled my intentionally(/intended to be) restrained contributions to the thread, in a slightly off-topic way that I never wanted to distract people with.

Keep Calm And Carry On Voting...

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

mhelvens wrote:Hillary is [...] power-hungry.

Nobody who doesn't work and want power will ever run for president of the USA and win.

Hell, 99% of people in state congresses are "power hungry", let alone state senate, governors, congress, or senate. Or even top positions in industry or government.

It takes a lot of work and effort to reach that point. If you do not want it, it is far far easier to say "no" to some huge task that is required for no good reason besides getting it.

There are going to be a few cases where someone "accidentally" gets elected or gets a pile of resources thrown at them. Like a lotto, or writes some relatively tiny app that makes billions, or whatever. If you look at how those people handle "power", it actually ends really poorly.

The people who are actively working to get power usually get power early on, and either screw up or not, and sometimes learn how to handle and use power without breaking everything. Ie, using power is hard, accidentally getting power doesn't give you the lower-power experience to get better at it when it matters less. If you accidentally get power, and accidentally don't screw it up, the odds you then accidentally get a pile more power is astronomical.

The chance, of someone capable of using power and gets it without actually working to get it, converges to zero long before you reach the astronomical heights of US president.

Every US president in history has wanted power. Even Washington, the one who was almost drafted; he lobbied and worked hard to gain military power and experience in his youth.

Why mention this specifically about Hillary? And not about every other president and presidential candidate?
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.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], PinkShinyRose and 35 guests