Talk:1756: I'm With Her

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:24, 8 November 2016 by (talk) (Replied to
Jump to: navigation, search

An ad for Hillary? Well, I just removed Thing Explainer and What If from my whistlist. I gave Thing Explainer as a gift last year. I now regret that. Oh, and a coworker's husband blacklisted XKCD from their router. Great idea. The "I'm with her" and H with an arrow are CLEARLY the respective campaign slogan and campaign logo for Hillary Clinton, not some vagueness having to do with bringing a significant other. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I see it more as him endorsing voting regardless of who you vote for (as evidenced by half the comic is about "Here's how you vote" without any mention of candidates or issues) and the endorsing Clinton part is an add-on as if to say "This is how I'm voting; vote for her if you agree with me." Jeudi Violist (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If you're so insecure about your political beliefs that you abandon a comic you've followed for years just because they have a different opinion to you then maybe you should stop using the internet because you're just going to lose all your hobbies. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Blocking it from their router? Have they ever heard of the concept of... you know, just not visiting websites they dislike?².♫.venus.🍅.Cthulu.♣️ 19:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Has Randall endorsed a presidential candidate before? --Dfeuer (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He supported Obama on his blog in '08, not in the comic though. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

He could have said any number of clever things about the election, and all he did was put up a campaign sign. Disappointing. Gmcgath (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping Wednesday will be a newspaper saying "American immigration continues north" and below, "40% of the population move to Canada", but only if Trump wins. -- Jacky720 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

what a cuck -- 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

leaving aside the most ridiculous slur of the past few years, I don't know what else did you expect from Randall. I guess you must have stumbled upon this wiki by chance and have never heard of xkcd before.-- 17:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
AHAHAHAHA. *Ahem.* Hooray for pejorative misappropriation of a kink. /s 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I still don't get the joke even after reading the explainxkcd page 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a joke. Randall is simply encouraging people to vote. GizmoDude (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

¬I Ummmmmmmmm..... It's Randall's comic strip. He can endorse whomever he wants without getting anyone's permission first. To those who disagree with this endorsement - sowhat? Grow up.

Bit disappointing...

I was hoping for a comic today. oh well. Interesting to see how he's planning to vote, though - it's a shame that there are no candidates this year in favor of strong encryption. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Funny how females outdo males in this 'comic' but in terms of frequency and of elevation. Oh well. xkcd has long been overrepresenting females, it was to be expected. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Seriously? You're whinging 'what about the men?' in a geek web comic?! 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
And there are 11 characters and they are split 5 to 6, and if Blondie represents Clinton then there are 5 to 5 M vs W supporters. ;-) --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"Overrepresenting"?! If there were too many guys you wouldn't bat an eye because it's 'accurate' to whatever demographic you think xkcd is supposed to represent, but as soon as Randall draws 'too many women' you whinge about the oppression of men. First off, even if the readership is male-dominated, that doesn't have any impact on who the comic can portray. Second, there is nothing oppressive about seeing women portrayed in equal numbers or -heaven forbid- in positions of power. 00:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
>If there were too many guys you wouldn't bat an eye because it's 'accurate' to whatever demographic you think
You are literally a priori accusing me of bias regarding what I would have done in a comparable situation.
>you think xkcd is supposed to represent
xkcd's focus is exceedingly well-defined. It is often narrowed down to a particular academic field. It is not subjective.
>you whinge about the oppression of men
Please refrain from putting such words in my mouth. Overrepresentation is a numerical fact -- 'oppression' is a charged term which I doubt has a valid definition.
>even if the readership is male-dominated, that doesn't have any impact on who the comic can portray
You seem to be implying that my mention of overrepresentation pertains to overrepresentation with respect to viewership rather than with respect of gender balance in scientific fields Randall depicts.
>there is nothing oppressive about seeing women portrayed in equal numbers or -heaven forbid- in positions of power
Again, you are seeing claims of 'oppression' that are not there. I do not use this word -- I am talking strictly about gender quantity. In other words, I don't object to 'oppression', but to distortion of truth. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Oh shit, you're not joking. I don't think Randall cared in the slightest how many of each gender there were, or where they were placed. You are creating a problem which isn't there, and missing what the comic is actually trying to say. It appears that whatever Randall puts in a comic, you'll find a problem with it. 09:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Almost every comic depicting a scientific (academic, laboratory, engineering) context contains a female. As a matter of fact, I looked up the last 20 or so comics in the Science category. Where applicable, the gender proportion is:
f = 4, m = 0
f = 1, m = 1
f = 2, m = 0
f = 0, m = 2
f = 1, m = 1
f = 2, m = 1
f = 1, m = 1
f = 1, m = 1
f = 2, m = 1
f = 0, m = 1
f = 3, m = 1
total: f = 17, = 10
It is even more glaring that I had thought.
>It appears that whatever Randall puts in a comic, you'll find a problem with it.
You are making it hard not to conclude that you are not quite able to speak otherwise than in irrelevant falsehoods. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Like I said, Randall doesn't seem to concentrate on how gender is represented, and more on what the comic is about. Randall uses whatever fits best in each comic. Also, please refrian from using nowiki on "~~~~" as your signature. It is against the rules, because technically your comment ends in "</nowiki>". It is also pointless, because your IP is recorded in edit history anyway. 12:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
'Randall doesn't seem to concentrate on how gender is represented' -- it is quite remarkable for you to say so when the balance is significantly more than 1.5 : 1. As for my signature, 'my comment ending in </nowiki>' is literally false and, again, my choice of it is not intended to obscure my identity, but to signify irrelevance of it in discussion. ~~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I will tell my children and grandchildren that in the election of 2016, there was a guy so afraid of women that he complained that a webcomic about the election had "females outdo terms of...of elevation". This is some 18th century stuff. It is the consummate combination of unawareness of self and of others.

04:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

>there was a guy so afraid of women
I regret to see you rely on such tactics.
>This is some 18th century stuff.
This is not relevant. It is possible for a society to err away from its prior true notions. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The only disappointing this are comments like those two above. 18:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Females being overrepresented in comics like xkcd (but also other ones) with respect to their controlled interest in science in reality is a fact. Therefore, you are calling facts disappointing. How geeky of you. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
So, your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures, yes? Also, why are you afraid to "un-nowiki" your signature...? 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Allow me to repeat my point as you had apparently misunderstood: 'females being overrepresented'. This is something else than 'females being represented'. The more you know, the less chance there is for you to accidentally twist another person's words as misogyny/sexism. Also, identity is not relevant to discussion. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I understood you perfectly fine. My point still stands: You don't like Randall's preference for female stick figures. I never said you're being misogynic/sexist, so please don't imply I did. Thing with your "hidden" identity is that it's plain visible in the history of this page, so there's really no need to nowiki the signature, that's all. 20:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You are extremely skilled at saying things that are false and asserting that they're true. First you confused objecting to female overrepresentation (over-presence) with objecting to female representation (presence) ('your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures'). Then you moved to confusing objecting to female overrepresentation with objecting to *Randall's* female overrepresentation. My objection does not pertain to who is doing overrepresenting, but to the mere fact of it. I would have objected identically to any other writer. Also, your attributing of opposition to female presence in comics (after doing which which you proceeded to asserting my being personally hostile to Randall) is accusing of sexism/misogyny by definition. Also, I am obviously aware of edit history; my use my signature constitutes a reminder that identity is, as I said, irrelevant in discussion. It does not serve to obscure anything. You have a remarkable record of falsehoods. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
This is the most persistent troll I have seen in a long while. 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I regret that this is your reaction to my pointing out your false claims. ~~~~
I didn't make any false claims for you to point out. My comment about your trolling was the first comment I made. 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A little disappointing to have a normally lighthearted comic dive seriously into politics, if even for one strip. Not really a fan of either candidate, but would like to see stuff like this stay above the fray. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Completely agreed. SeanAhern (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Completely agreed 2. At first I though it's some kind of a romance statement ("be with her"). And from explainxkcd I have learnt that it's an US campaign ad. 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Lighthearted? Try to read the comics in the Category:Politics and Category:Climate change. Also there are many other comics that are not at all light hearted. You must have mistaken this with some other web comic? :) --Kynde (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, lighthearted. Even the earlier political and climate change strips had a bit of humor in them (the only ones that really didn't have at least an attempt at humor were the cancer strips, understandably), this is just a straight up political ad. And while it's Randall's strip and he can do whatever he wants with it, it's just a little disappointing that he dove straight in to political ads. If nothing else, something like Black Hat trolling by voting for himself. 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Well at least the I'm with her, could be interpreted like the "I'm with stupid"... :-) She is just less stupid than the alternative. Guess he seriously hopes this comic could make a difference and that he is afraid to do nothing. He reaches many people so who knows if this comic might swing an important state. You never know in a tight race. And although Nate Silver (often referred to by Randall in the past) says that it's a 70% chance Hillary wins then he is also not certain it will be her. So Randall does his best to avoid Trump as the big chief... He is even willing to loose some fans, although I think the majority of his readers prefers a world without a President Trump! --Kynde (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a first... comics 500 and 1130 (possibly 1131 too) were related to the election, but didn't endorse a candidate. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall is pretty much just saying OH GOD PLEASE DONT VOTE FOR TRUMP GizmoDude (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If Randall was saying that, he'd also be bringing up third party candidates (honestly surprised he didn't endorse Jill Stein considering she's more pro-science than Hillary. And before anyone says "anti-vax", check snopes. Jill Stein is so pro-vax [she's volunteered time vaccinated children and is on record saying she wants to increase vaccination rates], pro-addressing-climate[she's green party who has that as a primary platform], and wants to replace the people with business degrees on the panels of the FDA with people with science degrees. Jill is so pro-science and that it makes Hillary look like a flat-earther.) -- 21:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Jill Stein's stance on nuclear energy is an unscientific as it gets. 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Likewise her position on GMOs.
No no no. If Randal just wish that Trump should not become president there is only one way to achieve this and that is by making Hillary win. This is not even saying that he likes her, he just dislikes the alternative more. Voting for anyone else might just help Trump. --Kynde (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, it looks like minutephysics has done a similar thing. 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see what the tone of the comments were going to be. I was half expecting to find an all-out flamewar in progress. I was happy to see that the comments have not devolved into the kind of attacks that one would expect to find pretty much anywhere else on the Internet. Geeks are the best people.  :) mwburden (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very dissappointed. Randall never took sides before and - be it as it may - this comic is not a comic but plain out political campaign. Up until now I held xkcd in EXTREMELY high esteem - this comic put a serious dent in that opinion.. -- 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really torn about this one. On the one hand I feel that you HAVE to take sides in this one, if your only other option is Donald Trump... on the other hand, I never liked when web comics express political opinions. It will always end in a flame war and almost never have anything to do with the web comic itself. Randall should've just put up a "go vote becaues it's important" sign without taking sides. 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure there are other comics out there that would agree with your ideology. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Randall should do whatever Randall thinks he should do. Should he put up "go read about global warming" comics instead of take the side of AGW? If you think this example is an inappropriate one to use in contrasting this comic with the current political election cycle then you've completely ignored the stances of the two popular candidates. But back to the original point: if you don't like XKCD anymore because of this one comic then go find another comic or start your own. All of art is an expression of the person. Randall knew not everyone would like his beliefs when he pushed this out to the world and is obviously prepared to deal with any consequences of taking a stand on his website. I, for one, applaud him for doing so (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Randall did a comic about global warming a while back, which was very interesting. Because I heard the "earth has warmed up before" argument before and even used it myself at least once. The difference about the global warming comic is that he backed it up with scientific facts, which is well within the scope of this comic. Political opinions aren't (or did the slogan change to A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language and politics?). Yes, of course he can do with his web comic whatever he wants to. But readers can express their opinions about what he does with it. It's called "freedom of speech", you know? 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a comic for that. 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Randall has endorsee Obama in 2008 and it is his comic and he can use it to endorse anyone he likes. I'm pretty sure he believes that he will only loose a few real fans of xkcd over this comic, because those who really enjoys all his comics in spite of for instance climate comics would really not like to see Trump as president. And would thus be happy if this comic helped in any way to avoid that. --Kynde (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you help list all the characters in the transcript? From left to right; they're Joanna (ponytail with EMP cannon) from 322; Black Hat; unknown with kite; White Hat; possibly Miss Lenhart (but his hair is somewhat different from 1519); unknown possibly Megan; cueball; unknown woman with glasses; Hairbun; Beret Guy; Cueball with toy sword from 303. B jonas (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not Miss Lenhart. Blondie. They are listed now. --Kynde (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for Randal. I had been noticing how many Hillary leaning artists had been pulling their punches this election, likely out of fear of trolling or loss of revenue. You want to know what courage looks like? This is is. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title text hasn't been explained yet. Is it a reference to the German chancellor Angela Merkel's phrase "Wir schaffen das!'? Don't know if Clinton has a slogan like Obama's "Yes, we can!". (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

That's the same I thought. But I'm not sure how well known this phrase is outside of Germany. However "Wir schaffen das!" always had a bitter taste - even considered ironic or sarcastic by some - (which e.g. "Yes, we can!" didn't), so I interpreted "We can do this!" as voting for Clinton is simply the lesser evil. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I find (linking to )this civicinnovation website rather questionable. They want to audit peoples address books based on who the names in there might vote for? That sounds like Erich Mielkes wildest dreams come true. Even German newspapers (where i'm from), which are 100% anti-Trump, have in the last days noted concern about the methods of Clintons supporters bullying the other side, and this is a disquieting new piece in that picture. I'll hope this is just a ploy to step up with Trump on the bad manners side. -- 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all comics have to be humorous

From [1]

The English term comics derives from the humorous (or "comic") work which predominated in early American newspaper comic strips; usage of the term has become standard for non-humorous works as well. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
The problem is that this isn't a comic, this is a campaign ad. 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Could we please just NOT get politics involved in the comments, guys?

Just... please? Papayaman1000 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious. What had you expected :-) This is the most loaded comic of all time. It will even take down 388: Fuck Grapefruit, even though it beat his blog about his Obama endorsement. --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall has taken a side in a political Argument before: Not counting the near-invisible easter egg, comic 1005 consists solely of Randall taking a stance on something political and providing links to show how you can help. That wasn't too long ago, but no one freaked out about a serious, political strip back then. CJB42 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Policy to candidates is not an apples to apples comparison. People get much more up in arms when the topic is either a candidate or policy that goes against religious text or teachings. SOPA and PIPA were neither (well, unless you count GNU as some kind of internet religion). Zernin (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's sad to see a guy who is so smart in some areas, yet can not see Hillary Clinton for the terrible president she would be. (Granted, part of the reason we only have a few other choices is because of our messed up voting system.) (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I agree with you that Hillary may be worse than almost any one else from the Democrats. But Trump is sooo much further out on a limp, and I'm sure this might be the only reason Randall makes this comic. He is seriously afraid of what woudl happen to the US and the rest of the world if Trump wins --Kynde (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of comic, post contained a political statement. I am not amused. I want a refund. I don't vote, and I don't even live anywhere near USA. 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A refund? For what? You pay to read this comic? Zorlax the Mighty'); DROP TABLE users;-- (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Darn right you better be with her. If you say anything else, you will "commit suicide". Just ask Vince Foster or Seth Rich if you think I'm crazy. 21:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What, Randy does not say "Bernie or Bust"? I feel cheated now. :P -- 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Poor Bernie. Poor America. Poor world. 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just good luck America (and the rest of the world where I belong), whatever happens tomorrow. But I'm hoping Randall can help his candidate win! --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm with her... unfortunately : (. I just didn't think it made sense to donate to a billionaire. 00:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't get political in the comments? The fucking "comic" is a fucking political ad. We're going to call this fucker out on his cuckery. 01:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a damn. Sure, I might not agree with his political leanings (hell, I don't want either of them in the WH), but it's just 1 comic. On Wednesday, he'll probably go back to the same stuff he's been doing for 1755 other strips. This will be nothing special. Just one comic. Sure, it might be politically fueled, but just because a person lets their leanings known doesn't mean you should be allowed to call them a "cuck" or cause a talk page for a popular comic, or a Reddit for a popular comic, devolve into the equivalent of monkeys flinging crap at walls. So just please deal with it and move on. Yours truly, GranadalandDreamer (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall's with *her*? good to know that randall considers arab life worthless/supports financiers over single African-american mothers/refuses to understand encryption/would rather spend public money on coal than retrain miners/loves trade deals that will hurt the poorest, increase inequality, damage the environment, homogenize culture, allow private corporations to sue elected governments/can't make his mind up over the Dakota Access pipeline/changes his accent depending on which state he is stumping in/was late to supporting gay marriage/lied repeatedly about coming under sniper fire in bosnia/has had to repeatedly plead incompetence or rely on bureaucratic politics to evade formal breach of contract or charges of criminality. Iowa, Utah and Wisconsin may have Gloria la Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation on the ballot, if you want a candidate who isn't an elitist. And if you didn't want splitters, you should have voted for Bernie. Cockhorse (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean it's not like Trump is going to be a whole lot better for Arab people, Black people, gay people, or pretty much anyone who's not a straight white dude. It's quite possible he voted for Bernie, but at this point it's a little late for him to be asking others to support Sanders. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

No, but that doesn't mean we should settle for clinton. It is not late to be asking for people to support Sanders, if anyone was doing that, because if the senate swings to the democrats he ends up in charge of the budget committee. Oh and I forgot one: randall is apparently also planning to disappoint all of us, even those who loathe him, within 100 days. Cockhorse (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump would be a whole lot better for all Americans, not just "straight white dudes". He won't be better for people in other countries looking to illegally enter the United States, but why shouldn't an American President be like this? You're just throwing demographic categories around thinking you're making an argument against Trump. Only those who buy into the leftist narrative will believe you.

Looks like the Trumpettes are getting rather triggered over a web comic. Wasn't there a candidate in this election that was preaching against this whole getting easily offended by words thing? 03:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This just makes me... sad... 03:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is a webcomic about "romance, sarcasm, language, and math" taking a political stance and telling me who to vote for? Randall can have his own opinion, but this isn't okay. I've read this comic since ... gosh, since the low 200s-300s, so probably over 5 or 6 years and... I think I'm done. 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's okay. It's his comic, which he gives us for free. He can use it to entertain us, to draw random pictures of extradimensional red spiders, or to advocate for a political candidate and inform people how to vote, especially people who may have a more difficult time doing so (like the disabled and elderly). However, I really must thank you... you claiming that this "isn't okay", and all the others here with ruffled feathers over it, makes a previously boring comic one of the most hilarious xkcds in a good long while.².♫.venus.🍅.Cthulu.♣️ 10:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wiki doesn't have a category for 'serious'/'no joke' comics, and least not that I spotted. There should be, and this should be in it. Teleksterling (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees Guy Fawkes in the logo? 04:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the only other time Randall generated that much controversy here in comments was when suggested that all beer tastes bad. 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)rw

  • The title text may be quoting - directly or indirectly - Angela Merkel's slogan ("We can do this", or in German "Wir schaffen das"), but I don't know why unless it's just an appropriate slogan. Schroduck (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hej. I think it was the right thing to do, and if you read some of the older XKCDs (just think about the one about free speech - they just show you the door, and some others) you could have expected that this is his position. even through i would take the vote for stein on my part. I'm sorry for the situation of the citizens of the USA right now. Greetings from Oversea - and good luck today! -- 10:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Way to alienate half of your readership, Randall. Well, now we know that Randall is a socialist communist who hates America. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

  • If you are so repulsed by seeing someone post something that you disagree with that you have to regress to early-teen insults, then I suggest you turn off all your electronic devices and start living in a cave. Engaging with people that we disagree with makes us smarter and better-informed. That said, it's Randall's comic that he provides to us at no charge - and if you stop reading today, you're automatically eligible for a full refund! Paddles (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that a big chunk of his readers must be non-US, and we don't really give a rat's arse which arse you elect, it is a bit disappointing there wasn't even something a little witty here. Other web-comic authors have often put things like this as an extra one between the others - and given that he missed a comic today, I don't see why he didn't do that. Anyway, have fun you lot and please try not to start any more wars. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Oh we non-USers do care!! I guess Randall just thinks today is too important to not make his position clear. Which is an admirable decision. I'm also shocked and surprised to find there may be Trumpers lurking on xkcd. Glad to hear so many of you are leaving, folks. 16:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know any Trump supporters amongst your personal circle, you're part of the problem. Expand your worldview.
Hairbun with glasses

I wonder if she is meant to represent Susan B. Anthony. SBA did have a bun (most photos) and glasses (later in life), and she is the most obvious person to be placed at the same prominent level as HRC.Sysin (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe, but Randall has drwan Hairbun with glasses like this several times before as also mentioned in the gallery. So I do not think any of the characters represents real persons except maybe the only one looking out at us, Blondie which would be how to draw Hillary in xkcd. --Kynde (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that final reminder, about being in line before the polls close true in all 50 states? I believe that Indiana nominally has a different law, that you must be inside the polling building when the polls close in order to vote, which is not quite the same thing. although in practice, it's usually enforced as "be in line" instead 15:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, The Hillary Logo isn't particularly egregious. He has two elements suggesting to vote for Hillary (the logo, and the "her"), and 5 elements about increasing general voter turnout. I don't like Clinton, but the comic is mostly about voting, nor voting for Clinton. 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall's fiance/wife has been diagnosed with cancer, hasn't she (per xkcd 1141: "Two Years")? So if/when President Trump repeals ObamaCare --- and in particular repeals the provisions in regard to "pre-existing conditions" --- then his wife loses her healthcare coverage, doesn't she? This is ample reason for Randall (and his wife, and all cancer patients and their families) to oppose Trump, isn't it? PNWoldguy (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)