![[0107] Trick Or Treat](http://www.sandraandwoo.com/comics/2009-10-29-[0107]-trick-or-treat.png "[0107] Trick Or Treat")
Today you get two strips for the price of one. 
We hope that everyone likes at least one of the two versions. Do you know if anybody has done something like this in a webcomic before?
We have created the following colored version of Doctor Woo as a little gift for donators. Now we wonder if there’s interest in merchandising products with Doctor Woo on it… And if so if you have special wishes regarding a clever slogan for it. (completely fails to hide the fact that he was not able to come up with one )
Democrat version:
- Man: And you two are… insurance salesmen?
- Sandra: No, no. I’m Hillary Clinton and this is my fellow party member Al Gore. We’d like to ask you for a generous donation to support starving children.
- Sandra: Otherwise we’d feel impelled to educate you about all the beneficial effects of public healthcare for the poor and weak…
- Cloud: … and about all the things you personally can do to save energy and thus leave future generations a world worth living in.
- Man: AAAAAAAA
- Cloud: This is working much better than it should.
Republican version:
- Sandra: Otherwise we’d feel impelled to educate you about all the beneficial effects of public healthcare for slackers and illegal immigrants…
- Cloud: … and about all the things you personally can do to save energy and still enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of a Bangladeshi!
- Cloud: You were right. They are pretty damn scary.
Loading ...
Rate this comment:
4 
0
NICE. Now THAT’S something to laugh at XD
Rate this comment:
11 
1
I don’t know… I like the deconstruction of the D version much better than the demonization of the R version. But if you mix the panels right (R1 D2 R3 D4), it might even be funnier.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
Perfect.
Rate this comment:
10 
1
i might get this better if i was in touch with american politics. which partyis the one that mr. burns supports again?
Rate this comment:
2 
0
Just about the best Halloween costume idea I’ve seen so far. And yes, that could be quite scary to some people, I’d imagine. For example, those who pay $300/month for electricity… I really have no idea what they could possibly be using it for, but if I can use that fact to shake some candy out of them, all the better =3
Rate this comment:
3 
3
Doctor Woo? Is that parody at Doctor Who?
If not, Daleks will exterminate you 
Rate this comment:
1 
1
Ambi’s right. the order he talked about would make it funnier but the execution is still quite clever and should be used more often. By others not just you.
Rate this comment:
4 
7
You should choose which one you want to see. That way you won’t be nonplussed by the one based in a party affiliation you don’t agree with, tainting your view of the one you do agree with.
Or you could not base comics in politics, polarizing your audience and alienating half of them all the time. Politics are dumb and the only comics that have successfully included them are comics like Bloom County that regularly lampooned the entire institution and not one side or the other (like the incredibly leftist Doonesbury).
Rate this comment:
2 
1
Regarding Doctor Woo… Could superimpose him over the time core of the TARDIS, get even more takers… As for a slogan, “The Doctor Is In”.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I may have to take a cue from Precocious on this… E-vil… EVIL!
Loved both versions.
Rate this comment:
3 
3
I don’t get it, those are both the conservative version…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
either approach would work for me…
just one teeny little thing, though…shouldn’t it be “compelled,” instead of “impelled”?
btw…love your strips!!!!
Rate this comment:
2 
0
According to Dictionary.com, “impelled” is correct(as is “compelled”), but I’ve never heard that word before in my life.
Rate this comment:
2 
1
It reminds me of the story I read about the people who run Conservapedia rewriting the Bible to remove “liberal bias” .
As hard as it tries fiction is never as strange as the truth.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
great comic make fun of the govrment and get candy sweet
Rate this comment:
2 
0
So wrong its good.I think you could go either way with both versions regardless of your views XD.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Nice.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Apparently, you cuss more when in Republican mode. Who knew?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I find both versions humorous. I have seen others do two versions of the same comic before, but it’s been a while. Long enough, that I can’t remember who else it was that’s done this in the past.
Rate this comment:
3 
0
I always knew those two scared both parties. >>
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I may be, but, don’t Sandra and Cloud look smaller than usual ?
Also, Dr Woo more looks like a Dr Woo-se to me.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
LOL! Those kids know how to play the field.
Rate this comment:
4 
1
LOVED both versions of the comic! I guess this shows that Hilary Rodham Rodham and Al “I Got The Nobel Peace Prize For The Same Reason That Barack Hussein Obama Did” Gore are equally scary to both Democrats and Republicans.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
Unlike Moxie Man, I’ve never seen a webcomic do this before. Certainly not for the sake of two political viewpoints. I wonder if not being American makes it harder or easier for you to make good bipartisan humor on the matter.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
@Tom Flapwell: Actually, I’m American, and I think I could easily give a bipartisan satirical spin on something like this, mostly because I don’t believe in politics.
Also, I found this very funny. I like when people make fun of both parties equally. It’s refreshing to see both sides getting an equal roasting.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I found most of the humour came from the juxtaposition of the two versions.
A much more time-consuming possibility that might be fun is to draw two versions, from slightly to the left and right, and put the strips vertically, side by side. Then you’d have a cross-eye stereogram where each eye saw a different side of the political debate, and the places where it differed would stand out.
Yeah, I’m a 3D geek. But I have no idea if it’s possible to do a stereogram in inks alone – I know I’ve never seen it done, at least. Come to that, unless you count “spot the difference” puzzles, I’ve never seen a stereogram that deliberately showed inconsistent scenes to each eye.
Rate this comment:
9 
12
Speaking as a conservative, you have a fatal flaw in the so-called “Republican version” there. Chiefly, conservatives’ complaint over the health care plan isn’t “health care for slackers” but rather “government undermining of the private insurance industry with a public option and strangling choice with additional regulations when Medicare and Medicaid already exist to provide health are to the old, infirm, and poor, and they’re already being swindled out of hundreds of millions of dollars by unscrupulous individuals and are so bloated that people who really need their help don’t get it half the time. Really, government does not make things better, it makes things worse.”
Oh, wait, that can’t fit on a bumper sticker. I’ve noticed that with Liberal vs. Conservatives: Liberals use sound bites and slurs and throw them around like stones. Conservatives try to reason and so get ignored by people like half the persons who have stopped reading this by now and are already typing up a flame post to drown out discussion with shouting and protest.
So if you kindly would re-label the “Republican Version” to something more accurate, like “What Democrats Think Republicans Think Version” then I’ll be happy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
OMG, LMAO!!! Oh man, hold on, gotta catch my breath….damn that was funny! I have to admit, that’s one way to scare people on Halloween…oh man…brilliant, simply brilliant. Quite a haul they got there, wonder how many bags they’ll go through before the nights over.
Rate this comment:
2 
4
This one didn’t really stand out to me in any way, though I appreciate the bipartisan approach. I normally stop reading a comic if I spot them showing any political stance (even if I agree with them). Comics are for entertainment, radios are for politics.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
I love that you can show them as terrifying to both sides x3
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is why I am an independant.
Ken wrote: I normally stop reading a comic if I spot them showing any political stance (even if I agree with them). Comics are for entertainment, radios are for politics.
You’re free to state your opinion. But I’m also free to completely ignore it and do what I want to do with Sandra and Woo.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I absolutle love thies strips i think prefetly show the recublican,democrat and nonpolitical sides of the jock.
@ezekel: broeadliy put, R is consevetiv and D is Liberal.
@rokas: I think Your argument looses a littel Whith the whole WE are reseneble but THEY are not.
@Garrett Williams: this may be way of from Your qustion. but ” one ligth does not put it`s naboer to shaem ” keep on mecking graet comics.
Rate this comment:
2 
1
I am conservative and lean more Republican, but I actually preferred the “Democrat” version, although I do interpret it in a more tongue-in-cheek manner. (It is a very subtle reading of it, but fits nonetheless.)
And yes, my issue with government health care isn’t “healthcare for slackers” so much as it is “government trying to control our lives in another way”. When you delegate someone authority to handle your business, they gain control over that area of your business, doubly so with governmental entities.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Thought I would add as well, last Halloween, my wife’s niece (whose mother is very strongly pro-Obama) dressed as Sarah Palin. For those who don’t know, she was the Republican governor of Alaska and vice presidential pick for John McCain.
Rate this comment:
1 
1
I always get the feeling that the ‘differences’ between the two political parties is entirely superficial. The way I see it, its just age old tactic of divide and conquer. The people can’t regulate you if they’re too busy bickering about whether one’s donkey is better than the other’s elephant. Most of us just watch the whole morbid farce, cringe a little on the inside, and let the masses follow each other off the cliff, led by that infamous ten percent that are always most eager to take the lead and are almost always entirely unfit to do so…here’s to extinction, cheers!
Rate this comment:
0 
2
ROTFLOL! Sandra’s ankles should be thicker if she’s going to be Hillary though. Woo and Shadow should go out as the Lone Ranger and Tonto.
Shippy Softpaw–Is that you, Shippou?
Rate this comment:
1 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
http://www.pvponline.com/2004/12/30/dec-30-2004/
PvP’s 2004 December strip
Not political, but choose-your-own-ending.
Rate this comment:
3 
2
@Rokas
A negative conception of freedom right there. But each to their own. Still I would point out that while there is plenty of useless attacking rhetoric on what Americans call the “left” (and they aren’t really, if that’s good or bad you decide for yourself). But to say that the “right” try to use reason more than the left comes across as inaccurate, especially considering some of the blatantly destructive and (often) vile rhetoric that comes from the mouths of people such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. Now of course those two do not represent all Republicans (or Conservatives, take your pick), any more than all Republicans think that there were WMDs in Iraq. But that is how it can seem. Oh and I did read your entire post. But then again I suppose people see what they want to; Republicans see Democrats as spewing useless rhetoric and slurs and vice versa.
I liked the dual nature of the comic. It worked, I even found myself laughing at them both.
Rate this comment:
3 
3
@Rokas
Did you just cross into “We reason, they don’t” territory? Yeah, that helps a lot.
As long as you guys keep up with the mentality that you always have bigger brains, bigger guns, blah blah blah than your rival, bickering will never cease. Especially in the case with generalizing the entire population inaccurately labeled by one ideology that nobody practice (mouth full I know).
Recall Washington’s words? Recall his warning against partisanship? Let be honest, do you think we all be better off had somebody shut their mouth about forming GOP? Democrat Party? Whigs, Federalist, etc.? If anything, party system worsen the effect of already hive-minded populace. Now we are dealing with fanatics from both sides who will destroy the principle just to advance that same principle.
“We reason, but they don’t”?
No offense, but that had to be the root of so many ignorance out there that it is not funny. You can start enlightening yourself by admitting that your opponent is equal to yourself. That is what real America is about, the America that had been corroded by egotistical mingering between two bull#### parties and false ideologies that everybody follows without question.
Rate this comment:
5 
0
To the detractors out there, might I suggest that you take things as they come. It is natural that a comic writer’s beliefs will come out at least a little during the course of a comic, and sometimes the opinion inferred is one you disagree with. I try to glean from those comics the humor, and understand why they might think as they do. There have been a couple here I haven’t agreed with the core thought behind, but nonetheless found the strip humorous.
As for this comic, neither version of this is particularly mean-spirited, although the topic necessitates there will be some politics in the strip. So long as the author attempts to give all sides a fair shake, that’s fine by me.
If someone decides the thought expressed or the means it is expressed make this comic unpalatable to them, then they do have the right to stop reading it. I don’t understand what announcing this accomplishes, though.
Rate this comment:
3 
0
As for the two-party system (which is what current American politics boils down to in practicality), I do believe it tends to divide people, especially today in the day where people have their identity in a party.
That said, there are some general differences in the general ideologies of the two parties. So where politics are concerned, I prefer to think of politicians in terms of their ideological beliefs and interpretations of things like the Constitution and the role of government. These things are important, whereas one’s party affiliation doesn’t matter a whole lot to me in the long run.
Rate this comment:
3 
0
Shippou-Chan has a point. Actually two. I personally like the odd political comic, even if it goes against my own beliefs, so long as it is at least an attempt at humour and not a shameless shot at pitching political messages in a blatantly pushy way. I cannot stand people trying to force their opinions on others, something I think (though I could be wrong) most reasonable people would agree with. This comic has avoided that completely I think, and even when there have been the odd opinion/political belief etc, it wasn’t really pushy, and there was humour involved (the Monsanto one for example). Contrast that with that comic with the Blue Dog talking about being a vegetarian. That sounded like a Public Service Announcement.
As for two party systems… I do not particularly like them. The US could do with something like, well, not Italy, but rather Canada. The existence of other fairly major parties force the two larger ones to compromise, especially when the voters do not fully support any party enough to give a majority. Two party system leaves the voter with fewer choices and has a tendency to cause voter alienation and apathy (if neither side represents your view, why vote?). That being said this is just my opinion (and an outsider’s one at that), besides it would make for a pretty long comic to try to represent the views of three or four parties…
Rate this comment:
2 
4
What cracks me up about the Republican’s fight against public healthcare is that they argue that the government option will undermine the private insurance industry AND the government is too incompetent to run healthcare. If the government is so incompetent, then they won’t be putting private insurers out of business. You can’t have it both ways!
Rate this comment:
4 
3
@Rokas: I was taking you seriously up until the moment where you accused democratics of doing nothing but slandering while the poor republicans try futilely to reason. Both sides do it, get over yourself.
Rate this comment:
2 
1
And now for the Independent Party version:
Only one panel needed. The kids are at the grocery store instead of a house porch:
Boy: “What do you mean we can’t go trick or treating?”
Girl: “As independents, we’re expected to make our own way through life and not be reliant upon the handouts of others. You’ll see. If we buy our own candy, we’ll be…”
Boy: “Awwwwwww…”
Rate this comment:
1 
1
um… we already provide emergency health care for illegal immigrants. And, It was the Republicans that pushed through the bill through in the first place, so…WTF? Additionally, It’s the Republicans that started the “think about the Tyrannosaurus debt our future generations will have to suffer with … and they, the republicans, didn’t say bring any of theese concerns up when Bush was in office spending the money like there was no tomorrow.
Gore is an environmentalist which I pretty much equate with socialism and communism. I am opposed to socialism, but you can be a socialist whether your a republican or a democrat. additionally a hospital won’t turn down a patient who shows up at an emergency room with a problem whether they can afford it or not, the doctors pay extortionary amounts of money to the insurance companies, so that they get paid either way.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
@ tony: The argument is a little more complicated than that. A government insurance plan, by definition of being govenrment, doesn’t need to run a profit. That means they can price thier service below what private “for profit” business will. Add to that the regulations the States put on insureancde companies that the Federal government dosen’t have to adhear to, and soon people will flosk to the government option in droves, putting the private industry out of business. As for the mismanaging of they system, well, that is what a govenrment does. A government is not setup to provide for the welfare of its citizens, it is there so that another government dosen’t take over, about the only things that they can do better that a private company is fight a war (and even then sometimes). One final note, as a person in the medical field, I have seen a few people come from accroos the border (or sea in one case) to get treatments here, because of the length of time it would take to see a a doctor in thier home country or the outright refusial to be given treament there. That is the fear that government healthcare brings.
P.S. sorry for the lenght of the rant
Rate this comment:
0 
0
@ Rocket T Coyote
I’m not Shippy Softpaw. Anywhere I use a name similar to this, it is Shippou or Shippou-chan, named for the kitsune from Inuyasha, whom I have cosplayed as (the only adult male I know of who has.)
Sorry.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
@Shippou
Just to be sure, my whole comment was directed at Rosk. As for the two ideology, they are false mostly because there is absolutely no way one idea could represent a large group of people fully. The moment you take the ideology of either conservatism or liberalism, you are taking it’s stain created by another member of that said ideology, as it had happen and is happening in America.
Let be honest, when is it ever good for a good portion of the population to blindly follow a banner that, in reality, support only part of their general ideologue? If democracy were to actually work effectively, we must have candidates that actually tell what he/she truly believes in hope that their ideology will benefit the nation. Not the case here right now. That case can be helped, a lot, if people could think for themselves just for once.
I am against one-party to three-parties system mostly because they often lack any real productivity, where their argument breaks down to calling someone a “meany-head”. I wish to put out there that under no-party system, people may perhaps be lost. However, I trust my life in the hands of those who are lost than those who act as a sheep.
4-10 party system allow more unique ideas and higher productivity, but even with higher number of parties, we’d still will face some difficulty in getting things around.
As for the comic, it was good. I do like the intention of keeping it balance, so I have no problem there (never did to be honest). Keep it up
Rate this comment:
1 
0
I love it that the man ran away terrified
. Any costume that gets you that much candy is a great costume.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
4-10 party systems are alright, a party system with over two can be beneficial in that it is sometimes a cause for compromise (which is generally good for the interests of the people at large rather than one segment of the population). There are also instances of splitting the vote though. That can mean that a party that does not actually have the majority of voters wins (this often depends on the system), which can cause problems. And having far too many parties (such as Italy) can cause factionalism rather than compromise, the result is that nobody can get along and governments are both easily corrupted and don’t last long enough to do anything. So there are positives to both few and many parties, but not so much for a large multitude of parties.
On the role of government: it is maintaining the good of the people because it is the will of the people that legitimizes government (remember this is all just my thoughts on the matter, feel free to yell at me, just as I feel free to state my thoughts). This is the people as a whole, not just a handful of wealthy CEOs etc. This is the way I see the health care debate: not all people can afford insurance or the price of care. They therefore have to often go without it (unless they show up in the ER at death’s door, which is already a kind of public health care already… it just costs everyone involved a lot of money). This is not good for the people, ergo it must be fixed. However if the consequences of fixing it are actually worse than the current problem then it is not worth it (having the level of care of a Bangladeshi, or so says the Republican version of this comic), or needs to be fixed in a different way.
Wow. Long rant. But in short the way I see it is that the government IS supposed to care about the welfare of it’s citizens as a whole. The argument seems to be about the best way to do that, ie, to not interfere (the extreme of this is license, everyone does what they want no matter how it effects each other) or to interfere (extreme of this is complete totalitarian control of people’s lives, the most extreme form of socialism), and of course what degree to interfere or to not (do we need laws? A form of interference! Technically a form of socialism. Do we need to listen in to people’s conversations in their homes? Taking interference a little too far…).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
@Canouvea
Good argument. Perhaps, and I do mean perhaps Italy may work well with less parties, maybe even (I daresay) with three. Thank you for reminding me about the factionalism.
America is without a doubt a hardcore melting pot, which means that if we were to overhaul the entire political system to disallow two-party dominance (if that is even possible), adding a third won’t do justice. Taking into account of factionalism, there might be a very narrow choice of where we can strike a compromise with the number of party dominance that offer the most productivity without creating factionalism. Unfortunately, it might not be narrow; the two major problems may overlap in such that no amount of party dominating the politics will fix anything without destroying something.
However, no party system (as George Washington wishes) offer an excellent opportunity for everybody to vote for who they think will lead the nation, without being swayed by incredibly false slogans of todays two-parties.
Now imagine: We could actually hear candidates true desire and actual willingness to lead, now remember, only Polks fulfilled ALL of his promises. One out of forty one (merging Cleveland, not counting Washington) presidents has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. When dealing with no-party system (for some of you, I am not referring to one-party system), is it wise to attempt to sway people using rhetoric that even you don’t believe in? Heck, that false rhetoric may be their own undoing, when their true rhetoric could had brought them to the office.
What does that tells us? To be a president, be honest about yourself and people may deemed your ideas worthy. If not? Tough luck, you cannot lead with ideas that most people will have problems with.
You understand? Feel free to ask any question (I may have left something out so, yeah).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Brilliant!!!
Rate this comment:
2 
0
The problem with having no parties is that it makes it difficult to achieve majority, especially in congress, or in Canada, parliament (where the Prime Minister needs to hold a majority in order to govern). The nice thing about a party line is that you can be sure of a certain amount of support. Of course that means that while there is less division between party members there is a very deep divide between parties, hence the problem.
And I do not believe that having no parties will mean less false rhetoric, perhaps even more actually. And, while the parallel is not perfect, consider Athens’ direct democratic system. Simply because there was no parties (that I am aware of) it was one’s ability to speak (rhetoric) that mattered. Enter the sophists, who Socrates and Plato disliked because they cared more about the speaking part than the truth part. An Athenian general named Themistocles lied to the people so they would build a bigger navy. Rome was somewhat similar in that regard as well.
Furthermore if Congress members did not belong to a party there is the chance of even greater factionalism. A political party of one congress member vs all the other congress members and their own political parties. Nothing would get done. Then again, is that much different than what the US already has? In Canada a party member who does not follow the party line can be booted out of the party. Not good. At least in the US there seems to be debate even between members of the same party, which is good, it is almost like they have a way of getting around the idea of a “party.” It might have something to do with the separation of powers, and it does have advantages. But look at how long it takes to get something done! In Canada a PM with a majority just needs to say “make it so” (until they come up against the Senate), and it will be done (but there are other constitutional limits). Health Care reform would be rather snappy, well, technically health care is under jurisdiction of the provinces…
Then there is the problem of why to vote. Do we vote for who best represents what we think? Or do we vote for the one who seems most capable of doing the job (And what does that mean?)? Do we vote for who we think represents our interests? Or the interests of society at large? Ironically those are not always the same thing (in my experience). Churchill was a right wing anti-communist warmonger (which probably didn’t represent the majority’s interests or ideas)… but he was the right person for the job at the time, and once that job was done they got rid of him.
It would be better if candidates were honest with themselves and the voters. The problem is making that a reality. Politics seems to come rife with deceit and lies no matter what you try to do, and even if you get someone honest and good at first, power does tend to corrupt. Call me pessimistic, but the use of false rhetoric would probably continue even if there were no parties (especially if whoever wins stays in power for four years straight, and no chance to remove them). Would it be better without parties? I don’t know (one out of forty one is a pretty bad score). But maybe not.
Besides with no parties we would not have this (particular) comic! And my am I long winded today. Talking politics always makes me happy. Oddly enough.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
@Libra -
I understand your comment was directed primarily at Rosk. I also understand that each party has within it some variety of ideologies. That said, there are certain trends of thought that are different for each party. Not that everyone within the party will follow that pattern of thought, but that people who think a certain way will tend to drift towards the party which best fits.
And while I still hold that specific party affiliation isn’t important, the fact there are some general differences in what each party represents means that it nonetheless has some meaning. The important thing remains how you think about those things which are important to the running of a nation, and which representative best matches the people who elect them.
I do wish there were wider variety of parties, just as there is a diversity of thought within the populace. It is sometimes annoying the perception that i have to pick between 2 unappetizing candidates, and have to choose the “lesser evil” so to speak.
@Canuovea –
I do wish politicians would be more honest with everyone
* Seeking the good of society and the nation at large, rather than their own power (Pork comes to mind.)
* Being honest about their views to the voter.
* Legislating with common sense, without deceptive practices such as loading a bill down with unrelated programs and laws.
* Seeking truth and understanding concerning a matter before Congress before attempting to legislate on it. This includes giving ample time to consider all consequences of the law before moving ahead.
Rate this comment:
1 
1
Well, shippou:
1) What is the point in leaning toward something if people are going to vote for that something the majority of time? You may as well be purely that something.
2) We already have representatives. Even if we manage to obliterate the political party system, we’d still have representation. One level of representation is enough. Adding in another level of representation (via political parties) creates more schism, mess, and mindless bickering. So I have to politely disagree that parties have some meaning.
3) Agreed with the third paragraph. I shuttered to think we’d have to pick between (sorry for the Godwin’s Law) Hitler and Mussolini. No comparison is made to any of the US presidents just so you guys know.
@Canuova:
Well, hopefully I understood your point (I just barely woke up). Now, from what I can see what you are saying, a no-party system create even more schism as there is nothing to unite the people, resulting in free-for-all congress bickering. Well, think about it, we already have a unifying factor, which is why we have nations.
We’d know if we elected a good politician if he/she actually acted in the interest of American population and group that they represent. A good politician would know that any deep schism will falter the overall progress of US, hence often they will compromise or make a strong point against or in favor of certain bill. I may be a little excessively optimistic about the no-party system, but to be honest, have we even tried the system?
Now, here is food for though, good ideas like communism tends to be impractical (as we’ve witnessed before), now what about ideas that seem to be begging for disaster? Democracy seem to beg for disaster as (a philosopher whose name I forgot put it) a vote of a village idiot equals to vote of a wise man. Looking at the world right now, some of the democratic nation seem to fare well in many field.
The point, no-party system may seem like a bad idea, but what if it actually works? What if we were actually underestimating the resolve of people we deemed as permanently separated?
Talking real politics makes me happy too. It’s the trashy politics that turns me off <.<
(Now, by all means clarify points that I may have missed. Getting coffee right now.)
Rate this comment:
1 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Actually, I have seen this sort of thing before. The fellow was writing an “birth story” based on the birth of his own son, and got so upset at the running comments he wrote two gags; one where the lady got drugs and one where she didn’t.
I think you did it better. (i.e. without blaming your readers for “having” to do it that way, but just finding humor from both viewpoints).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
As a non american, and a non american hater I have one point
THIS IS AWSOME
But I would prefer a Republican version with Sarah Palin, I laugh at how the liberlas think they are politically correct (Any one with two eyes can see they make the others to think for them) and The conservatives think they are rationall, and speaks with “arguments”, hahaha! if they konw how they sound, “oh no! our perfect sistem is going to suffer a change!” and their “i am scared of socialism!”. I would never forget an article that I read during my brief stance in Chicago (I was going to Ontario Canada) that said “we cant think in the morals, the country is always first” and of course the Liberals are as blind as bats (oh god, white wealthy people speaking of imigrants as if they know) . When USA runs out of money then we can be sure they will lose international relevance And I will be visiting my friends more often because the plane tickets will cost less!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
BTW this is not politics, its mockering (bout politics but mockering in the first place)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
There is no “apolitical” opinion, just some of us/you are to scare to speak your mind or you have such a short mind that you think your mind is pure and virginal. Everything you read that has to do with the world is political, and have social, filosofic, etnical (idiosincracy) and even aesthetics statements.
besides there is not much difference betwin Democrats and Republicans, they have the same vision of reality, from above, the democrats ignore that and the republicans count with that
Rate this comment:
0 
0
After reading both of them, I found funniest reading the first two of the first trip, and the second two of the second strip… which is wierd. Maybe I’m not thinking as much as I should about the politics behind this?
Oh, and I second Novil, and applaud him for his funny retort
Rate this comment:
1 
0
@Libra: Okay. We do have a unifying factor, hence nations. But there are so many different interests involved in the nation as a whole that you will have schism. It isn’t just the upper class, middle class, lower class, proletariat, bourgeoisie, ethnic groups (that there are in the USA, despite the melting pot). Consider also: the “east side” or the “west side” of any given city even, or the different religious groups etc. And each of these groups want what is in their best interest (and remember that some people will belong to multiple groups). Will you have one candidate for each group? Or if not, what if one group is not represented? Now if you have candidates who, as individuals, belong to some of these groups but not others then what happens? Schism. A party allows individuals with similar (and not always identical, which is good,) ideas to represent the people more broadly. It forces compromise because sometimes a party will support something that a voter (or party member) may not like, but a bunch of other things that said person does like. Hence it removes a measure of individuality (but not too much! Bad things happen when that happens!), and allows people to vote on the broader ideology of the party and if they agree more with that party than another. And if that disagreeable thing really does over shadow the rest of what the party stands for the person can quit or vote for a different party (this then gets in to the problem of balancing a decent number of parties, too few means less choice and not enough representation, too many means factionalism and schism).
There is another reason that parties are seen as better than individuals. It is harder to corrupt a lot of people than it is to corrupt one. This gives party ideology more solidity than just a single person’s thought. This ties into your second paragraph directed to me. How do we know that someone is acting in the best interests of the US as a whole and the group they represent? And is that even possible? What if the interests of the group they represent conflict with the interests of the US as a whole (and it can happen)? How do we know that who we elect is a “good politician” who works for the good of the US (or whatever country)? In any given political system corruption happens.
I see ancient Republican Rome and Democratic Athens as similar to a no party state Rome was slightly more successful than Athens in that regard (thanks to separation of powers). But of course it is not a direct parallel. So no we have not actually tried it before (to my knowledge). Should we? Well, maybe (and how?). But we could also try giving me absolute dictatorial powers over the entire world (and trust me, there are several problems I could fix, theoretically). But that is something we really shouldn’t do at all. Or maybe we should. Who knows?
I completely agree with what you said about communism. Sounds good on paper, screws up in reality (thanks to Lenin’s party system, at least in part). As for Democracy. Sometimes that village idiot is right. Besides, the argument for democracy is that there is no one wiser than everyone else enough to actually rule everything. Is Democracy begging for disaster? I think it depends (see direct democracy in Athens, that WAS begging for disaster, and got it). Democracy seems to work out fairly well (if not perfectly) in many many places (some it doesn’t at all). By extension our current party form of democracy is not perfect, but seems to work fairly well. What if a no party system works better? “What if” is a very dangerous phrase, but it is worth discussing and thinking about (which is what we are doing). Worth a try? Maybe in some places, or even some parts of government. Again, I don’t pretend to know.
The funny thing is that I do not deem people “permanently separated” in fact I believe that the sides in a no party system would be constantly shifting. Sometimes these five people would agree, then sometimes some of them would agree with others… I think one of two things would happen. Policy would lack cohesion because constant agreement would not be possible and none of the many sides (people) could be able to actually exert their influence on policy on a constant basis. Or, perhaps in frustration due to this, the representatives would make deals with other representatives, who they agree more with, for support. And parties would form from that. Then again, what do I know? Real life is more complex than either/or of course.
All this being said I know that the party system has many many flaws. In the worst cases the individuality of members is all but erased, and any criticism from inside the party is stifled. This tends to happen to different degrees in most parties I have had the pleasure of observing. And it is bad news. In the worst cases you might as well have a dictator for that party. Never ever good news. Admittedly this is something that the separation of powers helps to reduce (President = Democrat, Congress majority = Democrat, Senate = Democrat, they are still going to compete with each other for public favour, and they can disagree). I personally am no fan of two party systems, but the idea of parties makes sense for me. Or rather parties have their place, and sometimes they should not play a role at all, but they should still exist. Just my opinion though.
Whew. I am sorry for the blob of text I always seem to put up, but I can’t help it sometimes. I could have written an essay for crying out loud!
Rate this comment:
1 
1
980 words. I’d say that’s pretty good for an essay. Your English teacher would be so proud
Rate this comment:
1 
1
I don’t even understand the joke. o.O
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The joke as I saw it was how effective the tactics of the aforementioned political figures are. The difference between the mocking of Hillary and Gore in the first and second is the spin placed on said tactics.
For the record, I still think the first works from the conservative viewpoint as well as from the liberal one. Although I do like the layout with the 1st and 3rd frame of the Rep[ublican version mixed with the 2nd and 4th from the Dem version.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’ve never commented here, but I just wanna go on the record.
Anyone else find it wildly funny that the person/people behind this webcomic made two versions to try and appease both sides, only to have the comments STILL turn into a big political debate?
When it comes to politics, no matter what you do you just can’t win. Ever. EVER.
PS, I`m a Republican and I liked the Democrat strip better. I too would run in fright if Hillary and Al showed up at my house to wax political with me. Most of my oddly overwhelmingly Democrat friends agree on that. Then again, you could have used ANY 2 politicians and the end result would still be the same. Politicians are scary.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The funniest part is that a lot of the best energy-saving policies are also money-saving in the long run.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Living like a Bangladeshi is a small price to pay for a future our descendants can live in.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Wow! I hardly recognized Cloud and Sandra. I gotta say man, you have some good drawing skills.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I consider myself a Democrat, yet I have no clue about what any of their policies are. I need to study more government.