Basically, in World of Warcraft when a horde player typed "lol" into chat an alliance player would see "kek" because Blizzard made it so each faction couldn't chat with each other (was kind of fun really).
It evolved from there as it became an inside joke for "lol" or any kind of trolling in general.
The simplest way to understand it: trolls (horde) laughing and normies (alliance) not able to understand it.
If only there were a celebrity example of trying to suppress information online which in effect draws more attention to said information. That way we could give it a clever name as a warning to other... Oh, wait.
Sure and everything in the election for Trump was in comparison to Clinton. Clinton was a joke of a candidate as well.
this is just too hard; I miss my old life
Has he said this or expressed this? Wouldn't you be happy over this if he resigned? lol what do you want? You are really projecting any and every failure it could possibly be. Calm down, there is still many years of Trump ahead of us.
Those tests aren't that conclusive because it was A) never nationally implemented (one city isn't equivalent to a nation) and B) known by the participants that the test would end. It is an untestable system unless you jump in with both feet.
B) I can guaranteed people desire things, and as long as that is the case they will keep working.
You mean politics? Because politicians/liars/thieves have never tried to manipulate opinions on a mass scale..
I have a bridge to sell you.
There has always been propaganda for the masses, but this is different. This is propaganda for the individual.
What's the difference? Mass are just lots of individuals.
How do I know you are not a paid troll/computer program promoting this idea to change by vote for the next election? Therein lies the solution. Everyone is trying to convince you of something. This is no different.
I don't understand this. How is this different than any other time in history? Someone is always trying to convince you of something and many times that something is against your self interests... How did people before manage to get by ? What is fundamentally different about people that they cannot consume information and parse out what is in their self interest? There have always been liars and thieves and being on a computer doesn't change the proper defense of liars and thieves.
how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for rent/mortgage, a car, food, utilities, vacation, and other entertainment, please show your work. This is the only
When the electorate figure out they can vote to increase that monthly stipend... What is to stop that figure from rising?
The whole "people will stop working if you pay for their bare needs" argument is a massive lie
It is a psychological question masked in economics. Are you saying you can predict human behavior and ensure economic stability in an untested system with varying assumptions and ever changing outside influences?
As I have said in other posts. For me, an unknown has a chance of being good compared to a known bad. 10/10 would do again, still have 3-7 years to give judgement. Just like I did with Obama when he was elected. Why would I pass judgement before his term is up? I gave Obama a chance even though I disagreed with lots of his policies. I was willing to give Sanders a chance even though I disagree with his policies. Why would I not give Trump a chance even though I disagree with his policies? There is still lots of time for him to succeed/fuck up.
And "gun control" will never be harmonized across the US without a super majority to change the constitution. So, either accept that fact of reality or keep assuming you can change reality with a pen and paper.
Like it or not, guns are a protected right in the US. If order of the rights mean anything then it is the 2nd most important right we have. We can say what we want and defend ourselves for saying it. Considering how the government was complicit with antifa violence, these days, I am less concerned about a tyrannical government than a lynch mob and a complicit government.
For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad. What is democracy without populism?
I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.
I know it's back and forth and both share some blame. Just as the executive haven't put up much names for nomination the few that have been put forward took a very long time to get confirmed compared to prior administrations/congress.
So, we should just only have elites run the nation? I wonder how the "elite" define elite... -.- Yes, democracy means that even stupid people can run the nation that isn't' the point. A government for the people, by the people, and of the people means that if people are stupid the government will be too. Are you an authoritarian?
Well the problem is that the majority of Americans (you know, the country the president governs) didn't choose Trump, they chose Hilary. The electoral college is a travesty that lets 10 or so states decide our presidential elections. And no, before you mention it, it is not empowering the small states at all as half of the top ten most populous states are swing states.
There are problems with democracy. The same reasons that the Senate exist is the same reason for the Electoral College in a different branch of government. Do you think the Senate is a good idea for a bicameral Congress?
Swing states change over time as that States politics change based on the peoples needs and wants. Large states cannot ignore the small states because they have more people. The whole point was to keep the union together by ensuring that the Executive had the needs and wants in mind for a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. There is no single national election. Clinton lost the majority of elections. She won large margins in the few elections she did win. That is not enough because it has always been about the electoral college. Blame her for running a terrible campaign.
Oh and being hated by your party's elite doesnt automatically mean good (although I too share some frustrations with our two main parties). It could mean he's not fit to govern ("gosh, I didn't know being president would be so hard! Maybe I should spend 8 years of presidential vacation years in one, playing golf at my resorts)
It doesn't automatically mean good it just means he was an outsider and that anyone can become POTUS regardless of what established institutions want. That is a good thing. That is how you avoid civil war by ensuring the government accommodates the changing body politic of the nation.
Seriously, it sounds like you don't want a democracy yet rail on about popular vote and the people. What do you want?
What is the difference between a corporation and an individual? Should speech be limited because of the tax code that applies to you?
corporations gaining too much power over The People by spending on behalf of politicians friendly to their business?
The more moneyed and corporate candidate lost in 2016 for US elections. Money != guaranteed political power. Citizens can still vote no matter what corporations do and can hold the government accountable and can force the government to change positions. Corporations cannot do that.
What happens if half the electorate disagree with you and want more corporate 'freedoms', is that corporations gaining too much power over "The People"? Even if those 'freedom' were granted by the people through elections and votes? Who is "The People" if half the electorate disagree?
So, the problem with Europe is that the middle east and Africa are right next door where you can get weapons very easily. Borders are only for the law abiding. A criminal does not care about the borders nor laws if it is against their interests.
Slashdot Mirror
may kek be with you and your memes be dank.
You don't?
No she wasn't. I didn't consider her to be inspiring but she is experienced & competent.
That is your opinion and half the electorate disagreed with you. I thought she was a joke and still think that.
Basically, in World of Warcraft when a horde player typed "lol" into chat an alliance player would see "kek" because Blizzard made it so each faction couldn't chat with each other (was kind of fun really).
It evolved from there as it became an inside joke for "lol" or any kind of trolling in general.
The simplest way to understand it: trolls (horde) laughing and normies (alliance) not able to understand it.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
God you people are thicc..
ftfy
may pepe forgive me for this bad correction.
feelsbadman.jpg
Dubs for the legs.
FTFY
If only there were a celebrity example of trying to suppress information online which in effect draws more attention to said information. That way we could give it a clever name as a warning to other... Oh, wait.
Pepe died for your memes to be dank.
How do you kill that which is kek?
LOL, thanks for the laugh. I will be sure to remember the "most transparent administration" as honest. Meanwhile in the real world;
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
That was just the first link from google. Good god you are sheltered.
Name a POTUS that didn't lie that you have lived through.
Sure and everything in the election for Trump was in comparison to Clinton. Clinton was a joke of a candidate as well.
this is just too hard; I miss my old life
Has he said this or expressed this? Wouldn't you be happy over this if he resigned? lol what do you want? You are really projecting any and every failure it could possibly be. Calm down, there is still many years of Trump ahead of us.
Me too!
Those tests aren't that conclusive because it was A) never nationally implemented (one city isn't equivalent to a nation) and B) known by the participants that the test would end. It is an untestable system unless you jump in with both feet.
B) I can guaranteed people desire things, and as long as that is the case they will keep working.
They why do lots of people stay on welfare even though they are able to work? At the very least it undermines the assumption you are making. People may desire things, sure but that doesn't equate to people working if they don't have to.
mass psychological manipulation
You mean politics? Because politicians/liars/thieves have never tried to manipulate opinions on a mass scale..
I have a bridge to sell you.
There has always been propaganda for the masses, but this is different. This is propaganda for the individual.
What's the difference? Mass are just lots of individuals.
How do I know you are not a paid troll/computer program promoting this idea to change by vote for the next election? Therein lies the solution. Everyone is trying to convince you of something. This is no different.
has no defense against it
I don't understand this. How is this different than any other time in history? Someone is always trying to convince you of something and many times that something is against your self interests... How did people before manage to get by ? What is fundamentally different about people that they cannot consume information and parse out what is in their self interest? There have always been liars and thieves and being on a computer doesn't change the proper defense of liars and thieves.
The more you project what you think I think the more you will not understand my voting behavior and the more you will lose elections.
how say 960 euros a month (the Netherlands experiment) would be able to pay for rent/mortgage, a car, food, utilities, vacation, and other entertainment, please show your work. This is the only
When the electorate figure out they can vote to increase that monthly stipend... What is to stop that figure from rising?
The whole "people will stop working if you pay for their bare needs" argument is a massive lie
It is a psychological question masked in economics. Are you saying you can predict human behavior and ensure economic stability in an untested system with varying assumptions and ever changing outside influences?
Everyone with a clue knew.
As I have said in other posts. For me, an unknown has a chance of being good compared to a known bad. 10/10 would do again, still have 3-7 years to give judgement. Just like I did with Obama when he was elected. Why would I pass judgement before his term is up? I gave Obama a chance even though I disagreed with lots of his policies. I was willing to give Sanders a chance even though I disagree with his policies. Why would I not give Trump a chance even though I disagree with his policies? There is still lots of time for him to succeed/fuck up.
And "gun control" will never be harmonized across the US without a super majority to change the constitution. So, either accept that fact of reality or keep assuming you can change reality with a pen and paper.
Like it or not, guns are a protected right in the US. If order of the rights mean anything then it is the 2nd most important right we have. We can say what we want and defend ourselves for saying it. Considering how the government was complicit with antifa violence, these days, I am less concerned about a tyrannical government than a lynch mob and a complicit government.
For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad. What is democracy without populism?
I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.
I know it's back and forth and both share some blame. Just as the executive haven't put up much names for nomination the few that have been put forward took a very long time to get confirmed compared to prior administrations/congress.
So, we should just only have elites run the nation? I wonder how the "elite" define elite... -.- Yes, democracy means that even stupid people can run the nation that isn't' the point. A government for the people, by the people, and of the people means that if people are stupid the government will be too. Are you an authoritarian?
Well the problem is that the majority of Americans (you know, the country the president governs) didn't choose Trump, they chose Hilary. The electoral college is a travesty that lets 10 or so states decide our presidential elections. And no, before you mention it, it is not empowering the small states at all as half of the top ten most populous states are swing states.
There are problems with democracy. The same reasons that the Senate exist is the same reason for the Electoral College in a different branch of government. Do you think the Senate is a good idea for a bicameral Congress?
Swing states change over time as that States politics change based on the peoples needs and wants. Large states cannot ignore the small states because they have more people. The whole point was to keep the union together by ensuring that the Executive had the needs and wants in mind for a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. There is no single national election. Clinton lost the majority of elections. She won large margins in the few elections she did win. That is not enough because it has always been about the electoral college. Blame her for running a terrible campaign.
Oh and being hated by your party's elite doesnt automatically mean good (although I too share some frustrations with our two main parties). It could mean he's not fit to govern ("gosh, I didn't know being president would be so hard! Maybe I should spend 8 years of presidential vacation years in one, playing golf at my resorts)
It doesn't automatically mean good it just means he was an outsider and that anyone can become POTUS regardless of what established institutions want. That is a good thing. That is how you avoid civil war by ensuring the government accommodates the changing body politic of the nation.
Seriously, it sounds like you don't want a democracy yet rail on about popular vote and the people. What do you want?
Has anyone tried?
What is the difference between a corporation and an individual? Should speech be limited because of the tax code that applies to you?
corporations gaining too much power over The People by spending on behalf of politicians friendly to their business?
The more moneyed and corporate candidate lost in 2016 for US elections. Money != guaranteed political power. Citizens can still vote no matter what corporations do and can hold the government accountable and can force the government to change positions. Corporations cannot do that.
What happens if half the electorate disagree with you and want more corporate 'freedoms', is that corporations gaining too much power over "The People"? Even if those 'freedom' were granted by the people through elections and votes? Who is "The People" if half the electorate disagree?
So, the problem with Europe is that the middle east and Africa are right next door where you can get weapons very easily. Borders are only for the law abiding. A criminal does not care about the borders nor laws if it is against their interests.