1756: "I'm With Her"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I think people ignore that a major reason for opposing a switch in our voting system is that FPTP isn't as terrible as its made out to be. Or rather, the other solutions aren't so amazing.

Not all the other solutions are so amazing, and you demonstrated why IRV has faults, which is why Condorcet methods exist, and are basically mathematically proven to be as fair of a voting system as you could possibly have, so I see no excuse (besides the obvious political obstructionism) as to why all elections since the goddamn 18th century when this was invented haven't used them.
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)

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby mhelvens » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:36 pm UTC

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

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


There's a difference between seeking power as a means to an end and wanting power for its own sake. Hillary has given every outward sign of being in the second camp. When her current policy positions are no longer to her advantage, she'll change them, and then deny that she ever held a different position in the first place.

There are also politicians who have good ideas, and seek higher office so they'll be in a better position to improve people's lives. I believe this to be true of Bernie Sanders, for example. You need only look at his history. He supported gay marriage before it was popular. Hillary is not like that.

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


It's a concession to people considering a Trump vote. I want to make it clear that I'm not ignoring Hillary's obvious failings. But you could triple those failings and Trump would still be a worse choice. Trump is power-hungry too, no doubt. But in his list of bad qualities, it wouldn't even crack the top ten.
Last edited by mhelvens on Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

Netreker0 wrote:Cupric, as for your problem with "I'm with Her," all I can ask is: seriously? It's a nice button sized way to express your candidate preference, in the tradition of "I Like Ike" and "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too." It doesn't purport to articulate any policies or aspirations, it doesn't contain anything that even pretends to be a persuasive argument. It just gives people a way to express their decision and to stand by it.



In one sense you're completely right. Why should I get so overwrought over the moral equivalent of a yard sign?

The reason I keep hammering on this is that too many people are treating Hillary as an imperfect but perfectly reasonable candidate. She isn't.

An "I Like Ike" button is fun because Eisenhower is generally remembered as an effective and responsible president. A Nixon campaign button, in contrast, is somewhere between ironic and creepy, because of the kind of person he would eventually be revealed to be.

Hillary Clinton's ethics make Richard Nixon look like a boy scout, and if Randall doesn't see that he ought to. He made clear eight years ago that he knew Hillary had serious issues, and everything we've learned about her since then is much worse.

I've had nothing but contempt for Hillary Clinton since her Vast Right Wing Conspiracy days, but even I was shocked at the corrupt relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Someone as smart and well informed as Randall has no excuse for not recognizing how serious this is.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby mhelvens » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:53 pm UTC

cupric wrote:The reason I keep hammering on this is that too many people are treating Hillary as an imperfect but perfectly reasonable candidate. She isn't.


Imperfect is putting it lightly. She's a horrible candidate. And yet, Trump is much, much worse.

I believe what you're seeing are people who are so worried about a possible Trump presidency that they'll sacrifice some of their intellectual integrity to avoid it, and talk Hillary up in public discourse. I can understand their point of view.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

cupric wrote:... the corrupt relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

This isn't actually a thing.

I mean, sure. She could have done a better job with appearances. But if one looks at the actual examples of so-called corruption, they're really pathetic and flimsy.

dlep
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby dlep » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:15 pm UTC

drazen wrote: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.


Funny, your solution doesn't actually seem to have anything to do with the problem you mentioned. Even states like Texas have large urban centers. Unless your solution is to have the urban areas all be either their own countries or a single country in pieces embedded in the rural country? (And if that's your solution, I'm worried for you. It really, really wouldn't work well for either country.)

Alternatively, you could try accepting that a nation consists of people who don't always agree with each other, but still have to come up with solutions together, and that the way to accomplish this without completely ignoring the needs of a minority is to have the majority not have too easy of a time riding roughshod, and have the minority able to make its case to the majority.

penguin42
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:19 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby penguin42 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

Came here to gawk silently at political drama, but you had to go and insult IRV.

omgryebread wrote:First round of IRV, Alice is eliminated. In the second round, her votes go to Bob and he wins. Sounds okay, right? Exactly what we want! But wait a minute. If the election were Alice vs. Bob, she would win. If the election were Alice vs. Claire, she'd win. So we get a situation where despite the fact that more voters prefer Alice to either other candidate, she loses the election.


So? IRV favors candidates who get more 1st-place votes over something like Condorcet, which only looks at pairwise. Some people think that's a feature, not a bug.

omgryebread wrote:In this case, Claire is eliminated in the first round, and Alice wins the second. All I did was take votes away from Claire and give them to Bob, yet that actually made him lose.


IRV can have apparently odd behavior in carefully constructed edge cases, and mathematical people like to make a lot of noise about them. But it would be hard to see that behavior in real-world political preferences. Why would 1/3 of C voters (who list B last place) change their voting preference to B first place? It causes this odd result because it causes C to be knocked out, and all those votes then get assigned to A.

Not also that any "flaw" IRV has is also present in standard Runoff-voting, a widely used, well understood and uncontroversial system.

omgryebread wrote:A situation like this happened in Burlington, Vermont in 2009, which led to the city actually repealing IRV.


Completely misleading. "A situation like this" did not happen. What happened was the vote was split between a Republican, a Democrat and a Progressive. The Republican had the most 1st place votes. But when the Democrat was eliminated from the runoff, the Progressive ended up winning. (Condorcet had the Democrat winning... but only FPTP would pick the Republican). This is exactly how IRV *should* work. But the Republican candidate made a big fuss about it and was able to get it overturned due to people not understanding the first place winner not actually winning (which is the whole point of moving beyond FPTP).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:47 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I believe the confederacy was defeated.
Yeah, but the concept lives on. We are the United States of America. We have a stronger federal government than the confederacy, but states were not dissolved.

Thesh wrote:...That's not how I count it, that's how the term is defined - and that's what STV does, it minimizes wasted votes by assigning excess votes to lower ranked candidates, and reassigning votes for candidates that lose....
Thanks for the explication. I see what you're saying now, and agree about putting wasted votes to use by abandoning FPTP.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:33 am UTC

mhelvens wrote:
And yet, Trump is much, much worse.


I just don't see how that's true.

Trump is childish, an egotist, a liar, a sexual harasser, a con artist, and deliberately ignorant.

Hillary is a warmonger, irrationally desperate for money, corrupt, violently angry, a heavy drinker, not merely a liar but tells transparent lies when she'd be better off with the truth, a potential blackmail target, and has made a disaster of every major issue she faced as Secretary of State.

On the plus side, Trump is a world class negotiator (the upside of being a con man and a liar), skeptical of military adventurism, doesn't drink, and has shown he can set his childishness and ego aside sometimes.

Hillary's main strengths as I see them are command of the issues and her work ethic.

Looking at these lists, I can see how someone could judge it either way, but I just don't see how it's as one-sided as you claim.

Unless it's because Hillary is a reasonably reliable progressive, and that causes some people to ignore almost everything else.

But even there, Trump is certainly not averse to big government spending. About the only thing traditionally conservative about him is his opposition to immigration, and he's made it pretty clear that his "build a wall and deport 'em all" talk was a bait-and-switch to help get the Republican nomination.

So I guess I still don't get it. Why is Trump the devil? Is it ultimately because he appeals to working class whites and other deplorables?

JudeMorrigan wrote:
cupric wrote:... the corrupt relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

This isn't actually a thing.

I mean, sure. She could have done a better job with appearances. But if one looks at the actual examples of so-called corruption, they're really pathetic and flimsy.


It's unproven (and inherently unproveable) whether the Clinton State Department actually provided favorable deals to various foreign companies and governments who made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

What is beyond doubt it that those donors thought they were buying favorable treatment. The only remotely ethical thing for the Clinton Foundation to do would be to decline those donations, and point those donors towards other charitable organizations which didn't have a conflict of interest. Anything else implicitly tells the donors that this is a pay-to-play deal.

Hillary Clinton got rich by using her position as Secretary of State. That is objectively true. Saying that this was only "appearances" means that those donors got ripped off, and were paying for things that would have happened anyway. That is not actually an argument in Hillary Clinton's favor.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:55 am UTC

cupric wrote:So I guess I still don't get it. Why is Trump the devil?
Because Trump's ego is so much in the way. He is devoted to only one thing: Trump. He wins by destroying whatever is in his way. If elected president, the United States will be in his way, the same way the Republican Party was in his way.

There is a non-negligible chance that under Trump we could unwittingly become a fascist dictatorship. No other candidate has ever been like that. That's why he's "the devil".

As to why he's the absolute worst candidate, I could go on for many pages. Start by watching the three presidential debates - it should be obvious. But it no longer matters. One way or another, it's pretty much over. Tomorrow we'll wake up and decide whether that was a good idea or not.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:35 am UTC

It's too late to affect anybody's opinion, so let me rant a moment.

cupric wrote:Hillary is a warmonger, irrationally desperate for money, corrupt, violently angry, a heavy drinker, not merely a liar but tells transparent lies when she'd be better off with the truth, a potential blackmail target, and has made a disaster of every major issue she faced as Secretary of State.
Really?
Warmonger: maybe. More of a hawk than her boss, has had to deal with multiple international conflicts (the likes of which I wouldn't trust Trump as far as I could throw him) and has not acted where she could (perhaps should) have.
Desparate for money: Compared with Trump, that's a laugh.
Corrupt: No proof of that that has survived analysis, whilst Trump has refusec to be analysed so closely.
Violently angry: ??? (Trump publicly lashes out, OTOH.)
Heavy drinker: I know nothing of either candidate's drinking habits, no comment.
Liar of transparent lies: "I did not say that" "I did not support that" "She will let in <more people than there are in the entire Americas> in one week". <- all Trump. How do you know if Trump is lying? His lips are moving.
A potential blackmail target: With what? Compared with the high likelihood that Russia has material on Trump, especially.
A disaster of every major issue: Arguable, if you want to go blow-to-blow, but appears to have done very much more good than not, whilst 'superb businessman' Trump has had no political influence (that he admits) and in his chosen field has had failures left right and centre (TrumpMortgage, TrumpFinancial, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Trump Shuttle, GoTrump.com, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Taj, Trump Castle, Trump Plaza, Trump Dubai, Trump University, Trump Toronto, Trump Hollywood, USFL, and many more) has lost so much money that he avoids (if not evades) tax, received (often illegally!) many millions of 'top up' funds from his father to offset his losses, as well as a mere $1mil trust fund and multi-million starter loans and transferals of businesses into his name. If Trump had invested his money in a regular investment account he would be richer now than he is, he would never have defaulted so much, he would not have refused to pay contractors, he probably wouldn't have had to defend against so many lawsuits nor launch so many of his own upon vulnerable targets, would not have had to stall the courts whilst he deliberately destroyed financial paperwork that had been subpoenaed...

Oh, in how many different aspects is Trump unsuitable? Let me count the ways... Clinton's not perfect, but can you really consider Trump any more suitable as POTUS as a sack of half-rabid chipmonks in a rapidly rolling barrel?

Sheesh, it's not my country, but it's my planet and whilst normally I'd try to keep my words sweet, lest I have to eat them at some time in the future, please can I not take part in the double-blind experiment where I end up having to take the Trump presidency. I'm willing to try the Clinton dose, given that's the only other choice, but if I find myself in the Trump universe I'm going to complain about this particular quantum leap down the route of probability...

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Flumble » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:20 am UTC

ucim wrote:There is a non-negligible chance that under Trump we could unwittingly become a fascist dictatorship.

Oh wow. I thought my roommates* were being irrational for fearing Trump getting direct access to the nuclear arsenal, but you seem to fear for an actual dictatorship.

In short: that chance is negligible. For the longer response, I'll refer to Grey's (currently) newest videos in which he explains how, in general, the distribution of power happens. In the case of the USA there are simply too many players with power (and quite a few are more powerful than the president) competing and too many laws (and adherence to them) for the US to become a dictatorship. In 4 years time there will be elections again and 4 years after that and so on and so forth. And because the US sticks to FPTP voting, it will keep being between two parties.


This whole thing makes me glad actually that we have a constitutional monarchy: we have a person whose lifelong job it is to represent our country in foreign relations (without any meaningful power, so the king/queen better represent us decently or we'll convert to a republic!) no matter who the prime minister is. Whether it's a cunt like Trump or a wanker like Mark Rutte, we'll have Willy_1967 as the face of our diplomacy (and of course a legion of diplomats, like all countries, but they're invisible to the people).


*also dutch, but they watch too much Last Week Tonight and think they need to have an (uninformed) opinion on the matter :roll:

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:32 am UTC

Flumble wrote:you seem to fear for an actual dictatorship.
In short: that chance is negligible.

No, it is not negligible. I'd put it at 10%. Yes, we have all this balance of power stuff, but I also watched Trump come from nowhere and defy all odds, becoming the actual Republican nominee for president all while demonstrating his incompetence, drawing instead on the wellsprings of hate. That is extremely powerful. He defied pretty much everything and still got in. I don't know how, but whatever mojo he's using, if elected it will continue, and he could become the Supreme Leader.

There may not be another election.

I'd like to think that the country is robust enough to ward it off, but if that were true, I would have expected it to ward him off long before the nomination. Since that didn't happen, if he gets elected, all bets are off.

The parallels to 1930 Germany, while not exact, are just too close.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:46 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Flumble wrote:you seem to fear for an actual dictatorship.
In short: that chance is negligible.

No, it is not negligible. I'd put it at 10%. Yes, we have all this balance of power stuff, but I also watched Trump come from nowhere and defy all odds, becoming the actual Republican nominee for president all while demonstrating his incompetence, drawing instead on the wellsprings of hate. That is extremely powerful. He defied pretty much everything and still got in. I don't know how, but whatever mojo he's using, if elected it will continue, and he could become the Supreme Leader.

There may not be another election.

I'd like to think that the country is robust enough to ward it off, but if that were true, I would have expected it to ward him off long before the nomination. Since that didn't happen, if he gets elected, all bets are off.

The parallels to 1930 Germany, while not exact, are just too close.


I severely doubt we will have a dictatorship in 4 years or even 8 years.

The mojo is rather simple: Clinton was not a very good candidate for the Democrats.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby ucim » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:53 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The mojo is rather simple: Clinton was not a very good candidate for the Democrats.
No, that's not the mojo.

First, it did not apply at all during the primaries. Second, winning against a "not very good" one does not count as mojo. It requires mojo.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby cupric » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:42 am UTC

EDIT:

This post originally contained a joke that was intended to be good-natured humor.

I have removed it because I do not want to appear to be in sympathy with the two s**t-stains whose posts appear directly below this one.
Last edited by cupric on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:11 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

PopsiclePete
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:22 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby PopsiclePete » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:30 am UTC

Randall on suicide watch

bokske
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:45 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bokske » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:47 am UTC

Eat that, Randall Munroe - joke #1756 is on you.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:02 am UTC

The joke's on the US. Upon the Americas. Upon the world. Good luck.

GuySamson
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:51 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby GuySamson » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:10 am UTC

>In politics for over 30 years. Experience as Senator, First Lady, and Secretary of State.
>Get the primaries handed to you on a silver platter. Your 'opponent' defends you on stage from questions about your behavior.
>Face a Republican candidate with no political experience who is hated by more than half the country.
>Have nearly the entire corporate media apparatus slander your opposition from day 1 of the primaries. Call him 'Hitler' and a 'clown'.
>Send the sitting and former POTUS out campaigning.
>Inherit the outstanding campaign infrastructure of said POTUS.
>Spend untold millions on shills to influence public discourse online. Not to mention the endless parade of television ads.
>Play the woman's card at every opportunity.
>Get your shit pushed in by a real estate celebrity named Donald Trump. Lose the presidency, fail to regain the house or senate, and lose up to 3 supreme court appointments.

You sure know how to pick 'em, Randall.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:33 am UTC

Go back to 4chan you worthless waste of oxygen.
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)

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby CharlieP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:01 am UTC

Oh, Americans.

I'm not angry, I'm just very disappointed in you.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby somitomi » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:12 am UTC

markfiend wrote:
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.

Refusing to take a political stance, and not talking about your political stance unless asked aren't the same.
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord ◯‐◯―

sotanaht
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:30 am UTC

mhelvens wrote:
cupric wrote:The reason I keep hammering on this is that too many people are treating Hillary as an imperfect but perfectly reasonable candidate. She isn't.


Imperfect is putting it lightly. She's a horrible candidate. And yet, Trump is much, much worse.

I believe what you're seeing are people who are so worried about a possible Trump presidency that they'll sacrifice some of their intellectual integrity to avoid it, and talk Hillary up in public discourse. I can understand their point of view.


Trump is merely inadequate. If you think he's going to be institutionalizing racism or something to that degree you are wrong. Hilary on the other hand is Evil. She would be using the pretense of a war with Russia that she herself created to strip away the first and second amendment and institute as much government control as possible.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:53 am UTC

sotanaht wrote:Hilary on the other hand is Evil. She would be using the pretense of a war with Russia that she herself created to strip away the first and second amendment and institute as much government control as possible.

This is *incredibly* stupid.

User avatar
shashwat986
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:15 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby shashwat986 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:08 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Image
Title-text: We can do this.


Well, sheeeeeeet
Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. It's either my mum or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Chan-Chu. But I think it's Colin -- Tim Vine

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Murderbot » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:02 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I keep seeing people seemingly misinterpreting Reka here. At least, I read them as saying "Be thankful that you are outside the US and don't have to directly deal with the consequences of this shit".

That makes sense. Although most of us have to deal with the consequences of slightly differently flavoured shit. Moreover, because the US are a world power, most of us get to deal with this shit as well.

squonk
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby squonk » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

You're with loser.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:23 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:Trump is merely inadequate. If you think he's going to be institutionalizing racism or something to that degree you are wrong.


I really hope you're right.

sotanaht wrote:Hilary on the other hand is Evil. She would be using the pretense of a war with Russia that she herself created to strip away the first and second amendment and institute as much government control as possible.


... But this doesn't give me a lot of faith in your judgement.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Reka » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:46 pm UTC

Murderbot wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I keep seeing people seemingly misinterpreting Reka here. At least, I read them as saying "Be thankful that you are outside the US and don't have to directly deal with the consequences of this shit".

That makes sense. Although most of us have to deal with the consequences of slightly differently flavoured shit. Moreover, because the US are a world power, most of us get to deal with this shit as well.

Pfhorrest's interpretation of my comment was correct: I meant that people outside the US should be thankful for the fact that they are outside the US. Yes, the election of that cretin will have worldwide repercussions, but just the fact that you could look at Monday's comic and not know what it was talking about is proof that you enjoy a certain level of separation from our brand of circus, and you should be thankful for that separation.

So now we have a president-elect who I know, with absolute certainty, would not respect me if he met me, because I'm an overweight woman. :cry:

Who was it that said something along the lines of "you can't go broke underestimating the idiocy of the American public"?

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:52 pm UTC

EDIT: Removed prior, omgryebread already handily rebutted it.

Also, the use of "sacred cow" as an insulting and derisive reference mocking the Hindu religion. It really demonstrates what cowards some people are, who would never use a term such as "n*gger rigged" (and would likely be the first to shame someone else for doing so) because there's a good chance a large minority group with a lot of political clout in this country would heap social scorn upon you (if not give you a sound thrashing.) But rather casually insulting an ethnic group with a small presence in our country and an even smaller amount of social and political influence? Sure, why not? After all, it's not about being respectful to other cultures and other peoples, so much as avoiding consequences for breaking certain social norms.

....are you not aware that Christians believe in Moses?

Hell, have you actually ever heard anyone be offended by the term "sacred cow"? Because I'm not willing to accept it's offensive from the claims of someone who is clearly not part of the group and using it as a gotcha, and the closest my research is finding is a Hindu explicitly stating that Hinduism isn't a formal religion that would get up in arms about that.

Kind of hard to believe you're being sincere.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:30 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Let's say we have 100 voters. Alice is running as the Democrat, Bob is a Green party candidate, and Claire is a Republican.

29 voters support Alice, then Bob, then Claire.
31 voters support Bob, then Alice, then Claire.
40 voters support Claire, then Alice, then Bob.

First round of IRV, Alice is eliminated. In the second round, her votes go to Bob and he wins. Sounds okay, right? Exactly what we want! But wait a minute. If the election were Alice vs. Bob, she would win. If the election were Alice vs. Claire, she'd win. So we get a situation where despite the fact that more voters prefer Alice to either other candidate, she loses the election. If Claire voters really hate Bob, they should strategically vote for Alice.

But there's more! Let's imagine that instead, we get:
29 voters support Alice, Bob, Claire.
31 support Bob, Alice, Claire.
12 support Bob, Claire, Alice.
28 support support Claire, Alice, Bob.

In this case, Claire is eliminated in the first round, and Alice wins the second. All I did was take votes away from Claire and give them to Bob, yet that actually made him lose.


The Schulze method may perform in the way you prefer. It would have Alice as the winner in both situations.

Whether it is preferable is really a judgment call. Alice is the least favored, and IRV ends her candidacy at that point (as does FPTP and runoff). Schulze continues by recognizing that other candidates are lower than her on most ballots. Alice is the least polarizing, and overall is favored more highly than the others... a quality I would prefer in an elected official, IMHO.

Test it and other methods online at http://www1.cse.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html. I've already run your two elections:

First election:

29:Alice>Bob>Claire
31:Bob>Alice>Claire
40:Claire>Alice>Bob

Second election:

29:Alice>Bob>Claire
31:Bob>Alice>Claire
12:Bob>Claire>Alice
28:Claire>Alice>Bob

drazen
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby drazen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:03 pm UTC

Alternatively, you could try accepting that a nation consists of people who don't always agree with each other, but still have to come up with solutions together, and that the way to accomplish this without completely ignoring the needs of a minority is to have the majority not have too easy of a time riding roughshod, and have the minority able to make its case to the majority.


That doesn't happen. A 5-4 Supreme Court, one way or the other, that refuses to adhere to any real principles, means a majority can easily run over a minority (or even the other way around). One example: it is peculiar that states are even allowed to have different gun laws, a 2A right, when we have the 14th amendment which should mean that all constitutional rights should apply equally across the country and be abridged by no state or local government (that was effectively what Heller was about). I can carry a handgun in NH or maybe even PA quite easily, but I can't even transport it through NJ under lock and key, let alone be armed there.

I do not think anyone is interested in coming up with "solutions together" anymore. They want their way. My solution, to break everything apart, is a way to give everyone what they want.

You do make a good point about the urban and rural divide. But that gap is growing rapidly. And the science even says that dense population centers affect your brain, possibly because your stress response is being triggered constantly.

Also, there are deep blue and deep red states that could secede quite easily (if there were not, there would be more than four swing states in most elections). Hillary won Massachusetts 61% - 33%. If we ever did split the country up, I'd likely have to move to take advantage of it. But it'd be worth it if it actually got a left-wing federal government to stop trying to strip away the rights that are actually useful to me.

A right-wing government generally strips rights away from other people, which is far from ideal, but I'm not going to eat any spinach like Hillary just to save other people while I get screwed. Neither do they, by the way, and I don't blame them. My point is just that compromise will not work here. Especially since most people think the compromise will be with evil, and will just push us in that direction down the line.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby bondsbw » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

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 think the end result would simply be that the politicians become more open about their true stance.

Most politicians recognize that being a major party candidate gives them a huge advantage. They include centrists, extremists, and every level between. We even see candidates run for the opposite party (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans) depending on how the local population tends to vote. The lines are so blurry that they have nearly ceased to exist... and in fact, the major parties have flipped on many issues since their inception.

A system with several parties is more likely to have candidates that closely align with the fundamental ideals of their party. No longer will you see a Bernie Sanders run as a Democrat; he might run for a Socialist Party, a better label for his ideals. That party will be more accepting of him as their candidate. In turn, voters will be better informed about his positions just by looking at party affiliation, and straight-party voters will more likely get a candidate who matches their values.

Besides, giving a tiny bit of legitimacy to extremism (which, like it or not, would be a true reflection of the tiny number of extremist voters) does not suddenly mean extremist measures and laws will result. The vast majority would still be effectively moderate and the extremists would tend to cancel each other out.

As it stands, FPTP just helped elect an extremist to the White House despite the relative centrism of the party in which he ran. I can't see much of a case for saying a multi-party system would be worse.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby orthogon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:10 pm UTC

Upthread there was discussion of whether or not Randall ought to get involved with party politics like this. It seems to me that one feature of this year's turbulent events is that we've seen people who would normally see their field as somewhat orthogonal to politics - comedians, scientists, webcomic creators - becoming more outspoken politically. I think it's a lot to do with a complementary tendency on the part of politicians, because Science in particular has increasingly become a political issue. I'm thinking both of indirect effects, like that of EU membership on international scientific collaboration, and directly political scientific issues like Climate Change. It's hard to pretend that you're indifferent to politics when it directly impinges on your work, and when politicians say things like "I think the public has had enough of experts", that's a direct and personal attack that's very difficult to ignore. Lately I've been seeing people like Brian Cox and Ben Goldacre becoming increasingly open about which politicians they do and don't agree with. (It's partly the growth of social media which exposes more of people's private views, but I'm sure it's more than that.)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

cupric wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:Cupric, as for your problem with "I'm with Her," all I can ask is: seriously? It's a nice button sized way to express your candidate preference, in the tradition of "I Like Ike" and "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too." It doesn't purport to articulate any policies or aspirations, it doesn't contain anything that even pretends to be a persuasive argument. It just gives people a way to express their decision and to stand by it.



In one sense you're completely right. Why should I get so overwrought over the moral equivalent of a yard sign?

The reason I keep hammering on this is that too many people are treating Hillary as an imperfect but perfectly reasonable candidate. She isn't.


Is there a sense in which I'm wrong? I totally get that you have both a strong emotional and a strong rational aversion to Hillary. I actually agree with you on many points of the latter. And I completely understand the need to vent. The only point I was trying to make was that 1) you picked the most random thing to be emotionally triggered by and 2) once you got triggered, you focused all of your rage and criticism on the random thing you were triggered by, rather than all of the other, more substantive, more important concerns you have.

It just strikes me to be somewhat absurd, like if a woman spent her entire lunch hour getting cat-called on the street, working a job where she was repeatedly passed up for leadership positions in favor of less qualified male colleagues because "they seemed more leader-like," then gets sexually harassed by her boss, and then gets groped on the subway... and when she finally gets back to her apartment building, a man holds the door open for her, and she just lets him have it for five minutes about the implicit patriarchal misogyny of his behavior.


I've had nothing but contempt for Hillary Clinton since her Vast Right Wing Conspiracy days,

Yet you're okay with the Vast Liberal Conspiracy/Vast Mainstream Media Conspiracy/Vast International Jewish Banker and Hollywood Entertainer Conspiracy?

but even I was shocked at the corrupt relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Someone as smart and well informed as Randall has no excuse for not recognizing how serious this is.


Kind of a borderline strawman argument. Nothing from the comic, or for that matter the blag, indicates that Randall is blind to her faults. Far from it, he's been more candid in recognizing his pet candidate's serious flaws than, quite frankly, you.

Here's a few things to keep in mind: None of us have looked at all of the pertinent information. We simply don't have the time and attention. We are filtered by our own biases (for example, Donald Trump claimed Obama was rude and yelled at a Trump protester at a Clinton rally. A shocking portion of Trump followers still believe this is an accurate account of the facts, because they didn't have the time to watch the original video, even though Trump actually suggested they should.) We are filtered by media biases of what's interesting or salacious. For example, the Lewinski scandal pretty much supplanted the news about some of Bill Clinton's worst policy decisions, whereas in a more normal news cycle, there may have been more scrutiny about things like his choice not to aggressive pursue Al Qaeda. Sometimes, we simply don't have the training or knowledge to search logically and interpret what we find properly. Most of us rely on secondary or tertiary sources for what we take as "knowledge," and even when we do our due diligence to ensure that our sources are credible and unbiased, we're ultimately trusting a third party to keep us informed.

What passes for well-informed (and by that, I mean what is substantially above both the mean and the median if you could quantify "well-informedness") is that you read the stuff in your facebook news feed or the Drudge Report or Huffington Post, and you actually take the time to check whether it's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. If you're weighing a bigger issue, you search for everything related to that person or issue, and hopefully you find a decent fraction of what's out there, and that information is reasonably reliable. Most likely, you will hit walls, and you're forced to speculate: Is that sealed juvenile record something serious or just childhood indiscretions? Did this sealed settlement happen because there was actual sexual harassment that someone wanted covered up, or because a politician recognized that paying a liar hush money to go away would ultimately cost less than fighting false accusations?

If you want to disagree with Randall's conclusions or his reasoning in weighing and comparing each candidate's respective faults, I can respect that. I even disagree with it to some extent. However, to conclude that simply because his opinion differs from yours, he must have been uninformed or not bothering borders on being dismissive and condescending. I find this somewhat ironic, because one of the Trump supporters' grievances I agree withis that their opponents and even people in the mainstream GOP have often been treating them with precisely this sort of dismissive and condescending attitude.

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 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

So, so far my reply: shit. Secondly...if the numbers are right, Hillary won the popular vote. The electoral college system isn't doing shit for us except helping get fucked up people like W Bush and Trump elected. Officially. Fucking. Broken. We need this changed by constitutional amendment ASAP.

Looking at some of the close races....the third party votes might have taken Hillary votes resulting in Trump wins.... I'm referring to each elector vote, not the popular vote. California was fine, but with more third party on the ballot that will mean more horrible upsets like this just for some dumb ideological experiment. Start at the local level, you third party people. Do it by ground swell instead.

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:
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.
That might be part of the problem. That stating your side is automatically divisive is why you reacted that way to this comic. That's why politics in D.C. is that way, too. Maybe if it was okay to be political and still go on as normal (instead of everything coming to a screeching halt) we'd have a much healthier democracy, one that we don't WANT to avoid like the plague.

drazen wrote: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.

I'm feeling more in favor of secession now. Coincidence? ;) I think it makes more sense than my state often being ignored. Maybe the three western states. I'm only in favor of contiguous states forming a union, but Hawaii could join, I suppose. Then I'd be cool with a U.S. regional agreement that essentially makes us still a national union...except with our own president and more rights. We had gay rights first and now it looks like we'll have pot rights but that might have to fight with the federal government.... Why do we need that?
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.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:It seems to me that one feature of this year's turbulent events is that we've seen people who would normally see their field as somewhat orthogonal to politics - comedians, scientists, webcomic creators - becoming more outspoken politically. I think it's a lot to do with a complementary tendency on the part of politicians, because Science in particular has increasingly become a political issue.


I think this is more a reflection of the fact that culture and technology has developed to the point that everyone--even people who superficially don't matter, who aren't statesmen or entertainers or scientists or leaders of industries--have become more outspoken about politics and everything else. Twenty years ago, an actor might never interact with his audience out of character--those who embraced their celebrity more may do interviews or publicity events, but direct interaction was fairly limited. An average person might make a geocities page, and their friends and maybe a few random strangers would read it. Now, everyone can be as involved and connected as they want to be. And if you're in any sort of entertainment or content creating industry, being connected was almost mandatory. I remember the early days of web comics when creator interaction outside the comic itself was uncommon--for some like Sluggy Freelance, the web community and author blog was a premium perk you paid for. Now, most webcomics at the very least curate their own forums, and often the author is involved with the community. If you're going to talk about their creative process and their home lives, and random interests and hobbies, things that matter to them, it seems pretty organic that many of them will start to talk about politics.

Success in these fields often requires a bit of self-promotion, and in the pseudo-intimate setting of many online communities, self-promotion means creating a sense that your fans know you one a deep level. Taking a position on a controversy is a risky way to do this, because you risk alienating your fans, but it also has its rewards. As Trump and his supporters have astutely observed, many Americans respect someone who will speak his mind and won't plan and filter every word like Hillary Clinton. Many of my friends who support Trump have told me that even though they disagree, sometimes strongly, with some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth, they love that he's willing to say it without spending ten minutes making sure he doesn't offend anyone or panders to the right people.

Which is why I think Randall is going to be okay. Maybe he temporarily annoyed some of his Trump-supporting fans, but if they're at all consistent on their principles, they're not going to Dixie Chicks him just because he spoke his mind.

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

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby mhelvens » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:Trump is merely inadequate. If you think he's going to be institutionalizing racism or something to that degree you are wrong. Hilary on the other hand is Evil. She would be using the pretense of a war with Russia that she herself created to strip away the first and second amendment and institute as much government control as possible.


Where are you getting this? Everything I'm saying about Trump can be verified by spending half an hour on YouTube and listening to his own words. If you'd like, I could defend any claim I've made with references and basic reasoning.

Your claims about Hillary Clinton come out of the blue for me, but I'd be happy to be educated. What do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?

gd1
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1756: "I'm With Her"

Postby gd1 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:
xtifr wrote:Ok, so several people have asked why Randall would post this. I think it's pretty obvious. A lot of people believe this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION WE'VE SEEN IN DECADES. (People on both sides, I might note.) Randall is making it pretty clear that he believes this election is important, and wants people to know that he supports Hillary because he thinks that's an important thing to do.

"But it might drive off some of his fans!..."

I'm sure he is aware of that. MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES! Some sacrifices are worth it. Apparently, he thinks this is one.

"No one cares what he thinks!"

Then why are you complaining about his comic? Obviously, some people do. Some might even be influenced by his open statement of support. (That's clearly what he's hoping.) And even if they aren't, well, at least he can say he tried. One thing is for certain: any claim that "nobody intelligent would support Hillary" is now busted, because Randall is clearly intelligent and he supports Hillary.

"I don't live in the US, and I don't wanna hear about it!"

Tough! MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES! Randall's gotta live here, even if you don't.

"But Crooked Hillary!"

Obviously Randall does not believe those claims.

"He should support a third party!"

If he wanted to support a third party, he would. MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES!

Note that this post is not supporting (or opposing) Randall's position or endorsing (or condemning) Hillary or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that there are very obvious reasons why Randall did this.


If Trump wins... what will his Wednesday comic look like? I think it would be funny.


I'd like to change my question to Friday's comic I guess? Maybe a withered H symbol with stick figure people weeping?

Trump presidency?
Cubs won the world series?
End of the world next?
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 100 guests