Talk:1756: I'm With Her

Comments from before 2017 can be seen here: Comments from 2016

The woman to the right of the H looks more like Jill than Hairbun without glasses.1234231587678 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Found the joke

It turns out that this comic was funny in hindsight. 162.158.75.160 08:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ;-) But I think that most of those that rooted for Randall and Hillary fails to see the funny part now, especially Randall, but probably also several of those that actually voted for Trump in a protest either against the system of Hillary personally... --Kynde (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Today was the first time I saw it, and yes, I guffawed, though definitely from a schadenfreude perspective. Not that I cared who would win, the second most hated person in America or the first most hated person in American (and, in retrospect, those titles were interchangeable), but it is ~always~ funny to see those that either beg for more gov't or those that note that ~their particular~ reason for wanting more gov't is justification to force those ideas onto those who disagree get what they wanted/justified handed to them in spades.162.158.186.30 01:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I invoke Poe's law. Either way, a comment here from a living, breathing barrier to human progress and happiness. *insert troll insult spiel here*172.70.91.236 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This 'sad comics' list is utterly ludicrous, and really should just be removed altogether. It's headed by many bullet points of meaningless blather. And the content is just stupid. Funny gag about a notification bar in a flag being seen as a Randall making a flag for a conspiratorial three-state independence move? Comic about random funny security mishmashes (and clearly about border enforcements and laptop passwords - a very old issue) being seen as comments on Trump's presidency? Just a population distribution map being seen as Randall being 'still sad about election results'? A frigging bunch of funny emoji ideas being seen as SECRET REFERENCES to US politics, and not just the dumb things they very very obviously are? A comic about unnecessary reviews being seen as reference to nuclear war? New Year is.. maybe sad, kind of? But pretty spurious. A comic about focus being seen as political commentary. Every freaking comic here is somehow linked to Trump. Most for no reason whatsoever. The only person wasting time here is me, for some reason pointing out the utter meaninglessness and ridiculousness of this list. I'll go prune it now. --162.158.111.241 00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit that took an axe to the 'Sadness' section, as it seemed needlessly antagonistic. The section may need some culling or re-presenting, but it should be done in a more dispassionate way. For the most part, perhaps simply putting a statement at the top of the section noting that it represents speculative interpretation would suffice? (Also, for an edit that purported to be fixing spelling and grammar, it was somewhat rife with typos and grammatical errors.)141.101.76.16 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A) Why does the sad comics list exist (see comment above)? B) If it did have a reasonable argument for existing, why is it in here and not in its own category? C) If it should not have its own category, wouldn't it be more reasonable to put it in a table? D) How the hell are vomiting emojis supposed to represent a significant connection to Trump? E) A flag with 3 stars. Definitely connected to the Trump election/inauguration. F) The list is just stupid in general. Halo422 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This utterly ludicrous 'sad comics' list only exist because just one single editor likes and maintains it. Of course it's NOT a trivia belonging to this comic which was released BEFORE the election. Randall just shows his choice to vote and he further provides some hints how to vote. So in general the entire trivia should be removed because it doesn't explain anything of this particular comic. AND if all that mentioned sad comics are really sad is highly questionable, but more worse that's also mentioned all over at the other comic explanations and nobody had criticized this before.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not American-from-US, and frankly finding Trump amusing (Nobel!! Ha!) Anyway....why, in the comment, is Danish or possibly Megan "setting up the kite for black hat"? She's a competent and confident woman, whichever she is, and if she's setting up a kite she probably intends to fly it herself. Black Hat is just there to applaud. 108.162.250.11 07:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE

I've moved entries from 2016 to a sub-page mentioned at the top, I removed the mentioning of "trolls" because a moderator always has to be polite. Nevertheless there are at least four major issues here to be solved (maybe more):

The transcript is not standard.

The table at the explanation is bad layout.

The title text is bad explained, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel is irrelevant here but Barack Obama's famous speech "Yes, we can" has to be mentioned.

The "Sad comics" section at trivia doesn't belong to this comic.

I am happy about any input here at the discussion or even more at the explanation. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've squeezed the "Sad comics" section, but that's a preliminary solution. We can delete that irrelevant content, but maybe there is a better place for this. Most referenced comics are not actually sad, but maybe we should preserve a reference at this trivia to other comics, entitled by a less sad, whining, header. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad comics tivia moved to Sad comics. --Kynde (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Some 'politics' was removed from here, today. Yes, it was politics, but arguably very on topic (both comments together) given the nature of the comic itself, and we don't usually delete someone else's Talk comments "just because they are wrong". Having removed both the provoking statement and a directly rebutting statement, it's also unlikely that anybody would find both to be incorrect and beyond the pale. What I mean to suggest is that it's bad practice to 'vanish' a comic's Talk comments that aren't actually irredemably detrimental (we're talking of being actually illegal, nothing but vandalism or blatant spam, basically). Especially if it's not too far from the point of the comic.
Sooo..., because there's (almost ten years down the line) still a very real discussion about the relative merits between the two candidates (and those that have supported/opposed them, and maybe still do, or at least their nominal successors), I'm leaving the diff-link up there as historic record. Not going so far as to revert it back, but I am expressing my disappointment in the editorialising that was done (by someone who doesn't have a Talk page of their own, or I'd have made a comment there (and a User Talk page can be cleaned up, by the respective user, by convention).
Because the point is that one must be aware of the political choices (even if you think they are bad choices, or 'least worst' and wish there to be better ones) and participate in politics according to your own (hopefully considered) assessment. And knowing the 'other side' is not an optional part of that, even if you think that their position is untenable or even inexplicable. "The More You Know". And also "If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it". I speak as someone who has had no (direct) skin in the game, for which this comic was made, but I think many who have could still usefully use the introspection from its time and what has followed/is to come. But probably won't. 81.179.199.253 11:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)