Talk:2962: President Venn Diagram

This site is intended to explain the technical details and inspirations (perhaps humorous) behind the comics. This particular page is for Discussion/Talk about the particular comic in question, which will involve some personal overviews and meta-discussion. But it is not the ideal place to reproduce the wi(l)der issue of public opinion, which the actual political process will eventually establish, and many other public forums and outlets exist in which you can convey your own current leanings/observations on the whole election-related happenings. Please be sensible typically geeky in your wit, and try to keep all the ideological heat and partisan arguments out of this as much as possible.

Another really timely comic. Biden just dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris yesterday. Barmar (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Forget Biden, Hillary and Obama. This is the endorsement that counts. 172.68.23.199 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose no one is allowed to say that the upper right circle is mislabeled. It was supposed to say incompetent, dishonest and despicable. 162.158.90.25 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You're allowed to say it, but then we're allowed to suggest (with rather more emperical proof) that her presumptive opponent better fits your rewording. How about we all just don't try to re-run the old arguments (or pre-run the upcoming election) in that sort of tone, eh?

(To be clear, Randall has made positive comments to his favoured candidate, rather than stooping to arbitrarily attacking their opponent. If you can't at least be as positive in your own convictions then it's really not going to help your cause.) 172.69.195.6 04:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

First, Harris has more than one opponent, not just within her own party, but in the general election to follow if she’s nominated. Second, the many good qualities of my favo[u]red candidate are irrelevant to this comic, so I didn’t mention her. Third, I didn’t start this political discussion; Randall did, by making a refutable claim in his comic. Lastly, there’s nothing arbitrary about a resident of California pointing out facts about the former attorney general of California that people in other states, such as Massachusetts, might be completely ignorant of. 162.158.186.253 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, those abuses from the supposed party of police accountability. Politics in this country are so performative. 108.162.216.75 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You could say it, but then the box which says 'Kamala Harris' is mislabeled and 'Donald Trump' should be placed in the box above the middle one. Jaap-Jan (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also by saying the first circle is mislabeled you also say Randall is all those things. And if you feel that way, then remember you are free to NOT read his comics... I'm always on Randall's side in politics it seems, but I'm from another country, so I wont vote for any presidential candidates even if Randall was on the ballot ;-) I won't say more here now... --Kynde (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note the difference between “upper right” and “upper left.” 172.70.207.198 21:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Kamala, you had a good run. Randall has the touch of death when it comes to picking political candidates. 162.158.154.39 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean that no candidate endorsed by XKCD has ever won? ;) https://xkcd.com/2383/ Fabian42 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall was smart enough to not make a comic endorsing Joe *before* he got elected like he did with Hilldawg and (now) Kamala.162.158.154.31 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Not so; Randall endorsed Obama in 2008. -insert valid name here- (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, the criterion could be adjusted either way. "No woman endorsed by XKCD has won" and "No white person endorsed by XKCD has won" are both true, but the first prevents a Harris win, while the second does not. 172.68.174.192 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Randall secretly wants Kamala to lose and is doing 5D chess. 172.69.130.122 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall angling for VP? Alcatraz ii (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Randall would be good president. -- Hkmaly (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Meh, he seems to at least not be good at public speaking. And from what he says about himself, he would be distracted way too easily. Fabian42 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I, as an Epsilon Eridani native, think he would be a spectacular president, but his research priorities would swiftly result in false vacuum decay, so please, for the sake of the universe, please do not elect him. 172.70.214.218 20:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reference to some particular sci fi story, or do you coincidentally have the same favorite star name I do?

The Ed stories feature Epsilon Eridani and what's effectively false vacuum decay, but I don't know what the "research priorities" could be to make this a clear reference. 172.70.176.100 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The layout of this Venn diagram reminds me of https://xkcd.com/112/ 162.158.166.234 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I think I would probably swap the two. 162.158.174.23 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be very interested in which non-Politicians Randall would put into the top middle section. Fabian42 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

People eligible to be president who would make a good president but aren't politicians? I would be much more interested in who he would list in the right middle section, that is, people who would make good presidents and love Venn diagrams, but are ineligible. --172.69.6.133 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess Munroe has no issues with questions about ongoing U.S. backed genocides shrugged off with "shrimp and grits!"? -- Markifi (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

What really strikes me is that the USA have a (de facto) 2-Party system and still go so much into personal attacks and endorsements, etc. which in my mind could be the decision-making bit between 2 similiar parties in a multi-party system, or 2 equally sympathic parties to me. But in my mind a 2-party system should at least have the upside of actually discussing policy, and voters deciding based on that... --Lupo (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If Randall was in charge he could stop supplying weapons to Israel probably 172.69.195.63 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall sempai- we are targeted too. 172.70.131.52 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Re: the mouseover text: "I am more of a deficit sugar glider" ought to be in the running. 172.69.58.157 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

personally I'd put most candidates either the top left 172.69.58.24 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Neat. A Euler diagram (and no, Venn cannot just have this one). 172.71.158.226 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Quite! Venn called his diagrams "Euler circles." 172.71.151.137 22:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'eligible' topic is related to a campaign against Harris saying she isn't eligible because she's not american enough. This (fake) news was reposted in France by french Trump's fans. 172.69.225.223 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

No, the topic of Constitutional eligibility, it is more nuanced than each said is represented to state it. Kamala Harris was undisputedly (I believe) born in the US. This makes her a native-born citizen. The Constitution calls for a natural-born citizen but doesn't define that. From writings at the time (I don't remember which) natural-born means born to two citizen parents. Apparently, neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth, so once again (as with Obama, Ted Cruz, others) there are fair questions by thinking people. ProfDigory (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

_sigh_ I was about to come in here and suggest that we don't do the obvious political battle here but then I realized I'd be up all night because someone was WRONG on the internet 386: Duty Calls! Tomb (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have rather strong political opinions that absolutely nobody here cares about. But I also wanted to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the person who put the cautionary banner to not make the main article into a debate platform. I hope its presence becomes a staple of articles on all forthcoming controversial comics, as we commence our quadrennial plunge into the bubbling muck of American election season. -MeZimm 172.68.34.59 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include a link to the actual United States Constitution in regard to the Presidential eligibility section? In other words, I'm wondering if it would be preferable to link directly to a primary source of information as opposed to a tertiary source like Wikipedia? Either way, I have a link to the document on the Congress.gov website for those who may want to have a read. OmniDoom (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a longer version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR2uTfrh-k&ab_channel=GOPWarRoom ? I want to see the diagram props! 172.71.147.19 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"So many memes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XOjRsJiBTF0&ab_channel=FoxNews 172.70.214.129 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you are a netizen of exquisite taste. Might I suggest https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=kamala+venn 108.162.245.29 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my God, infinite anonymous clipping! https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125621/user-clip-venn-diagram 172.71.150.3 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A fourth Eulerian circle emerges! 162.158.186.5 23:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been decided. As per the edict of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the problems with Kamala Harris are: (1) Her laugh is weird. And, (2) she loves Venn diagrams. Let the games begin! We shall focus on the two issues Americans do care about: swine flue and fracking. 172.68.23.200 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't click on the link provided above, "habit of laughing at inappropriate moments" (NOT "laugh is weird") and "loves Venn diagrams" were two bullet points out of seventeen, both of them listed under the final section labeled "Weird" after many more obviously concerning policy positions. So, this discussion entry is yet another example of dishonest misrepresentation from the Left. 172.68.34.61 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And dishonest misrepresentation is definitely not something that you get from the Right, right?</sarcasm> "Crime Of The Century", I don't think...

This is why I instantly and instinctively thought it a bad idea for Randall to make his opinion known, in this comic. Not because I have reason to diagree with his (singular boiled-down to minimal description) assessment, but because everyone not totally on the same hymnsheet is likely to start complaining that only their boiled-down assessment (usually an objection) has any veracity... And sparks an ideogical tit-for-tat with far more heat than light. 172.69.43.166 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a really sad comic. Harris is a top cop and a corrupt one. America deserves better than either party is offering, and the supposed party of police accountability should not be running Harris. It's sad that Randall is telling himself otherwise. 172.70.178.91 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware that Harris was ever in the police, herself, and cannot find any reference to it in a quick search. I know she advocated police bodycams, which only corrupt cops need to properly fear/avoid using, though obviously one can always be corrupt "in your spare time", or if you're not a uniformed officer/just sat at a desk. Anyway, you have an opinion, and feel free to make your own webcomic if you have better names, wish to add other names and/or want to change the basis upon which Harris's name is judged. It might well be that (of all likely candidates, as well as the unlikely one that is "me") Randall honestly sees Kamala as (one of) the better individual(s) for the role. If everyone agreed, there'd be no need to ask everybody and try to distil the resulting popularity contest into a close-fought result that maybe half the country won't like (but who would like a result that the other half(ish) of the country wouldn't like), give or take various statistical anomalies. 172.70.85.103 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: Why do people call Kamala Harris a cop? - Top answer: "Because she was a prosecutor, both for San Francisco and as Attorney General of California. Many people conflate cops and prosecutors as they work closely. Harris had a reputation as a tough prosecutor, but also refused to seek the death penalty against the killer of a San Francisco police officer, and started a rehabilitation program that let some offenders clear their records. So her record was mixed." 172.68.3.2 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Right. That's an odd definition of a cop. You could almost call a fireman a cop (or a cop a fireman), or a donut-store owner.

Top cop is just a colloquiallism to describe a DA, since they're the one that has to rubber stamp every police accusation, and they're typically the main impediment to charging police officers with the crimes they commit. Kamala has a very bad record in that regard. Prosecuting people for minor drug offenses she herself was guilty of, like Marijuana possession. 172.70.131.217 22:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And opinions about the efficacy of the Death Penalty varies (it stops reoffending, as well as any possible full exoneration in the event of a miscarriage of justice; the jury (figuratively and otherwise) is out whether it prevents further crimes by other people, especially those who are already subject to the pressures of 'street justice' with nonjudicial killing a constant threat anyway). Rehabilitation of receptive and truly repentent criminals is also surely better than letting everyone rot, regardless; or, if/when released, giving them no hope but to be more prolific criminals; and perhaps even relying upon being housed and fed by the penal system again as the only option, so caused more upset to force the courts' hands.

It's not really a mixed record, but a mixable interpretation. And "hang 'em all" people will have different perspectives from the "always be forgiving of mistakes" crowd, with the ideal 'truth' likely being somewhere between, and reality always going to err in both directions. So you can disagree about specific judgements and decisions, but be careful of either lauding or lambasting a wider policy shift. Hard cases make bad laws, and bad laws make individual cases hard to deal with.

Imagine that you're Glynn Simmons, or Sandra Hemme, or one of those eventually exonerated only after their exocutions (not necessarily all nice people, but doubts or actual disprooving facts about their parts in any particular Capital crime, or the social goalposts shifted away from discriminatory and heavy-handed policies, is a not an unusual event).

All I'm saying is that there's going to be nuance. And every person will have "mixed" approval ratings, even per a given individual's own personal assessment if they know enough to get at least a 2D viewpoint, and ideally at least 3D. And I don't know how anyone without an extreme view on the world would equate a general policy of enhanced rehabilitation with corruptness (when corruption can equally involve framing and improperly prosecuting innocent people, whilst letting the truly irredeemable go free). 172.69.43.166 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you call a diagram with more than three circles? I feel we should add ones for "Held ANY public office prior to Presidential bid.", "Served ANY employer, other than one's self, prior to Presidential bid.", "Pledges to abide by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.", and "Pledges to abide by the results of the Presidential election of the United States." It will be easy, as Randal can just copy and paste existing name. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you couldn't do "four circles" as a Venn Diagram (only as an Euler), at least not in 2D strictly-euclidean (and non-wrapping) space. But there is an ellipse-based version that would work for you, as well as even more arbitrary-shaped zoning or just going up a dimension and making it four spherical bubbles in 3D space.

As to your categories: Randall would probably fit in the intersection of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th supercategories (can't rule out he has fit the first, as I don't know what else he's done apart from his NASA stuff and I'm not sure what the definition of "public office" would extend to, anyway (even "elected official" could cover being voted into some position of note in his university's Physics/D&D/Film-Appreciation/Morris-Dancing Society, if he indeed participated in any of that kind of thing at the time).

And I reckon that almost all the usual politicians you could name could fit into at least those same three, plus the first if they've actually done any legwork to rise up the ranks to actually get to touch President-worthy status.

Anyone who doesn't occupy the last two is probably bad at the "would be a good President" of the comic, though given the arguments about how to best interpret the Constitution (even within actual SCOTUS rulings on such issues) then you're likely to get subjective arguments from Candidate A's supporters that Candidate B won't do that as well as from Candidate B's supporters that Candidate A won't do that (to their respective preference). Naming no names, but fairly obvious cases should come to mind. It's possibly that (for a given state of opinion) you could even put any given into your #3 but not in the #4, or vice-versa (but "would be a good President" then depends upon which of these interpretatins you value and which of them you're willing to let slide), rather than the more obvious "both or neiher" dichotomy. Perspective is the key. And the US has many (and polarised) perspectives, unfortunately. 172.69.43.227 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I need explained to me is why Vanilla Ice is not in the upper left circle. --172.70.85.102 13:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

yo I'm back

why is Randall chill with genocide

we gotta hold him accountable

who is with me

172.69.43.245 07:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

He isn't, get over yourself. 172.69.79.139 08:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

then explain why he is backing a genocide supporter 172.68.205.135 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to explain. 1) He isn't (that's your first leap), 2) Don't assume somebody exhibits an unconditional "everything they believe, I believe" blindness (your second leap), 3) What you say here is unlikely to reach/influence/impress Randall (and not just because it's hokum), 4) Look at the alternative, the guy who actively empowered the attitude you apparently decry (leaving you short of a better alternative even with your strawman objections).

Your simplistic statement is either troll or lacking in understanding. Or both. I'd suggest you try harder, but you're so far wrong/misguided/unrepentant that I see no profit for any of us. 172.68.186.129 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)