MavisBeaconTeachesSnipin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2020
really having a difficult time dealing with Giant Meteor's loss. maybe next time 
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
Oh that, I remember that. If that got more traction youâd have people saying it was fine because Trump is evil and itâd be like spying on a suspected terrorist.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Basically, a lot of the Russia investigation and the roadblocks in Trumpâs agenda...were caused by Obama or could be connected to him.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
I checked his website and twitter, no mention of the rally or when it starts.
This article basically agrees with my view of why Proposition 16 got nuked from orbit. Basically every other race in this state gave a middle finger to the nigger and the woke white liberal that keeps pandering to the nigger.
Now if the GOP can reform itself in California and find a way to harness this energy is another story but they definitely made gains this year and I guess that ballot harvesting helped out. Since the democrats stopped the attempt to ban it because the GOP brought it up. The GOP here decided to embrace the tactic which led to super butthurt from the Democrats and Californian State Government.
California Secedes From Black America
Archive
I have several close friends who moved from California to Arizona to live in âredderâ territory. This has not been a good month for them. AZâs turning bluer than the balls on an Elder Scrolls neckbeard. And even if you want to scream âvoter fraudâ regarding the Biden win, the fact is that Arizonans havenât had two Democrat senators since the days when The Democrats Were the Real Racistsâ˘, and now that they do, the entire country has to pretend for the next six weeks that Georgia matters.
Thanks, âpardners.â
The irony is, my own Beverly Hills went even more solidly for Trump this year than in 2016. When Rodeoâs redder than the rodeo, you know youâre living in screwy times.
And on the subject of Californians and electoral surprises, commentators left and right have been puzzling over the fact that we defeated an attempt to bring affirmative action back to a state that banished it in 1996. Proposition 16, which would have allowed for favoritism of nonwhites in public employment, education, and contracting, lost by a wide margin. Yet the backers of Prop. 16 outspent the opposition $30 million to $2 million. And what a list of backers it was! The California Democrat Party and every Democrat officeholder in the state championed Prop. 16, as did every major newspaper. Every leftist âsocial justiceâ organizationâthe ACLU, NAACP, NOW, the ADL, BLM, even the Sierra Club and the PTAâbacked Prop. 16. So did the Chamber of Commerce, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft, Uber, Dropbox, Reddit, Lyft, Yelp, AirBnB, Instacart, Gap, Leviâs, United Airlines, Wells Fargo, the 49ers, the Giants, and the Oakland Aâs.
Soros backed it. The Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative backed it. Ava DuVernay backed it. Kaiser, Blue Shield, and PG&E backed it.
All those heavy hitters. All that money, and in a âblue stateâ no less. And yetâŚit wasnât even close. The big bucks, the big endorsements, the push from big business and big tech, came to nothing. And the pundits are baffled.
Several rightist colleagues have told me they believe that voters were confused by the wording of Prop. 16. The 1996 affirmative action ban stated that public institutions cannot âdiscriminate,â and since Prop. 16 would have overturned that ban, voters mistakenly thought that by defeating 16, they were doing the thing the racial justice lobby wanted them to do. In other words (according to my colleagues), 16 lost because Cali voters are so brainwashed by the diversity cult, they mistakenly acted against it thinking they were doing the converse.
Thatâs a nihilistic, âweâre so screwed even our victories are defeatsâ way to view the situation, and it plays into the rightâs general disdain for California. But in fact many leftists also went with the âvoters were confusedâ angle. âUnclear ballot language explains affirmative action loss,â lamented EdSource, a California education analysis site. The San Francisco Chronicle pointed to âvoter confusionâ and a âballot summary that voters found difficult to understand,â and Inside Higher Ed blamed âconfusing wordingâ for the defeat.
The L.A. Times editorial board blamed the loss on âconfused Latinosâ who were too stupid to understand what the proposition was about. The board also slammed âthe electorateâ for being âconservative when it comes to confronting racial inequity.â
âSo much for Californiaâs racial reckoning,â the editors mournfully wept.
Meanwhile, establishment conservatives at National Review, Hot Air, and elsewhere took the defeat of Prop. 16 as proof that âminority voters reject identity politics,â because inside every Ibram Kendi is a Thomas Sowell crying to be freed. âDemography is not destiny,â wrote John Sexton at Hot Air; nonwhites are âopting outâ of the Democrat identity-politics machine.
Reading these analyses is like watching a barnyard of decapitated chickens. Leftists simply canât believe that in a year of âracial reckoning,â a minority-majority state like Cali would turn its back on âjustice.â So of course, voters must have been âconfused.â Conservatives, meanwhile, are torn. The ones who canât bring themselves to see any good in this state also blame âconfusion,â while the flags ânâ Jesus optimists claim Prop. 16 went down because ânonwhites are natural Republicans we all bleed redâ whatever whatever.
Dimwits fellating their confirmation bias.
As the imbeciles on both sides succumb to their intracranial stenosis, letâs indulge in some clearheaded thinkinâ.
No, the wording of the proposition was not confusing. The ballot summary was crystal clear: âProposition 16 permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity.â Thatâs hardly Aramaic. And knowing what Prop. 16 was, whites, Asians, and Latinos in California voted against it. Only blacks overwhelmingly supported it. And at a paltry 5.8% of the state population, black âoverwhelming supportâ plus two bucks buys you a McNugget and Coke.
Yes, Asians were the strongest in opposition, and they led the field with individual donations to fund the No on 16 campaign. But Asian voters alone cannot decide a statewide initiative; at 15% of the population, they donât have the numerical strength. It was actually the Latinos wot dun in Prop. 16. All fourteen of Californiaâs Latino-majority counties voted against it.
But no, Prager U grads, Latinos and Asians did not rebuff Prop. 16 because they ârejected identity politics.â Something was indeed ârejected,â but no one wants to acknowledge what it was. Hereâs a simple truth that none of the analysts left or right are willing to admit: Prop. 16 was a referendum on blacks. Not âdiversity,â not âidentity politics,â but blacks. Everyone with half a brain understood that Prop. 16 was there to help blacks, and blacks alone. Asians and Latinos are doing exceptionally well in the UC system (Asians are overrepresented, and Latinos, represented at roughly their percentage of the population, outnumber non-Hispanic whites). Blacks are the ones who need the âspecial help.â Theyâre the ones who feel like they canât compete without being given extra points for melanin.
Proposition 16 posed a question to the people of California: Wanna help a brother out?
And Californians said no.
Asians said no for reasons of simple self-interest. For the average California Asian, this wasnât dim sum but zero sum: A âleg upâ for blacks means a kick up the ass for Asians. For every unqualified black whoâs affirmative-actioned into college, a qualified Asian is denied.
For Latinos, affirmative action isnât really their thingâŚbecause they donât need it. Not due to academic excellence (Ă la Asians), but because Latinos get their way through numerical superiority, not begging, guilt-tripping, and bullying (Ă la blacks). Give Latinos an open border, and theyâll do the rest. It doesnât profit them to give blacks special perks that come at the expense of the majority because in many California cities, Latinos are the majority (and theyâre the largest plurality statewide).
Latinos see themselves as the future of the state. Blacks are the past (as Iâve covered in previous columns). For Latinos, every current black neighborhood is a future Latino neighborhood. The sooner blacks move out, the better. So thereâs no motivation to make it easier for them to stay. You wanna go to college, JaâMarquis? Move your black ass back to the Deep South and your beloved HBCUs.
Bottom line: California Latinos donât need no stinkinâ affirmative action. Hispanics might use it when itâs there, because why not? But to them itâs a strategy, not the strategy. Whereas for blacks, itâs all theyâve got.
Now, with whites, one could argue that passing Prop. 16 wouldâve been a logical progression of 2020. This has been a year of strong-arming whitey into sacrificing in the name of âracial justice.â Police protection, safety and security, peace and quiet, personal property; whites in cities across the nation have surrendered these things in the name of the âdebtâ they supposedly owe to blacks. Prop. 16 asked whites to give up even more. And a lot of whites (primarily in L.A. and the Bay Area) did vote yes. But more voted no, andâcombined with the Asian and Latino votesâthat was enough to beat the bejesus out of the measureâŚeven in the face of an imposing coalition of billionaires, corporations, tech giants, advocacy groups, and top politicos pushing for its passage.
The defeat of Prop. 16 was a black defeat, but not at the hands of conservative whites. Thatâs what makes this story instructive; itâs an illustration of how the demographics of ânew Americaâ will inevitably contribute to a waning of black influence. Nonblack minority-majority California just said ânoâ not only to blacks, but to every leftist âopinion leaderâ in the state who interceded on their behalf. Itâs thoroughly grim news for black Americans, and it bodes poorly for the future, especially as most of the tricks black advocates have up their sleeve involve getting other demographic groups to act against their own best interests (not just regarding hiring and admissions preferences, but on issues like criminal justice âreformâ).
In California, whites who care about their own best interests, combined with and emboldened by Latinos and Asians who do the same, were able to say no to the people to whom youâre never supposed to say no. And they dared to say ânoâ in this, the Year of Our Lord George Floydâs martyrdom. When a numerically small community amasses outsize influence via temper tantrums, guilting, violence, and threats of violence, the tactic only works when everyone else buckles before it. On affirmative action, California found its sea legs. If this state contained any intelligent and capable GOP leadersâand it doesnâtâthe same coalition that defeated Prop. 16 could in theory be assembled again to reverse some of the most damaging concessions the state has made to blacks in the past two decades (namely, the weakening of law enforcement).
That Asians and Latinos voted against Prop. 16 doesnât mean theyâre ânatural Republicansâ (sorry, Con Inc.). What it does mean is that in this of all years, white, Asian, and Latino Californians voted self-interest when blacks and their powerful allies told them not to. Thatâs seismic. A favor was asked by a rapidly declining population that rarely sees fit to prove worthy of those favors, and never returns them. And the favor was denied. Lord help blacks if this catches on. Next thing you know, Californians will realize they donât have to let their shit get stolen.
Mind you, Prop. 16 lost on its own; the GOP didnât lift a finger to defeat it. And todayâs GOP, which would rather win a few black votes than an actual election, is unlikely to learn any of the lessons that 16âs ignominious end might teach.
Still, a man can dream.
Black Americans and their leftist overseers won a lot of victories this year via intimidation and terrorism. But they lost this one, and it was a key battle in a key state. Whether itâs a one-off or a trend, no one can say. But at least itâs not bad news, and in 2020, ânot bad newsâ is the best we can hope for.
Thanks, âpardners.â
The irony is, my own Beverly Hills went even more solidly for Trump this year than in 2016. When Rodeoâs redder than the rodeo, you know youâre living in screwy times.
And on the subject of Californians and electoral surprises, commentators left and right have been puzzling over the fact that we defeated an attempt to bring affirmative action back to a state that banished it in 1996. Proposition 16, which would have allowed for favoritism of nonwhites in public employment, education, and contracting, lost by a wide margin. Yet the backers of Prop. 16 outspent the opposition $30 million to $2 million. And what a list of backers it was! The California Democrat Party and every Democrat officeholder in the state championed Prop. 16, as did every major newspaper. Every leftist âsocial justiceâ organizationâthe ACLU, NAACP, NOW, the ADL, BLM, even the Sierra Club and the PTAâbacked Prop. 16. So did the Chamber of Commerce, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft, Uber, Dropbox, Reddit, Lyft, Yelp, AirBnB, Instacart, Gap, Leviâs, United Airlines, Wells Fargo, the 49ers, the Giants, and the Oakland Aâs.
Soros backed it. The Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative backed it. Ava DuVernay backed it. Kaiser, Blue Shield, and PG&E backed it.
All those heavy hitters. All that money, and in a âblue stateâ no less. And yetâŚit wasnât even close. The big bucks, the big endorsements, the push from big business and big tech, came to nothing. And the pundits are baffled.
Several rightist colleagues have told me they believe that voters were confused by the wording of Prop. 16. The 1996 affirmative action ban stated that public institutions cannot âdiscriminate,â and since Prop. 16 would have overturned that ban, voters mistakenly thought that by defeating 16, they were doing the thing the racial justice lobby wanted them to do. In other words (according to my colleagues), 16 lost because Cali voters are so brainwashed by the diversity cult, they mistakenly acted against it thinking they were doing the converse.
Thatâs a nihilistic, âweâre so screwed even our victories are defeatsâ way to view the situation, and it plays into the rightâs general disdain for California. But in fact many leftists also went with the âvoters were confusedâ angle. âUnclear ballot language explains affirmative action loss,â lamented EdSource, a California education analysis site. The San Francisco Chronicle pointed to âvoter confusionâ and a âballot summary that voters found difficult to understand,â and Inside Higher Ed blamed âconfusing wordingâ for the defeat.
The L.A. Times editorial board blamed the loss on âconfused Latinosâ who were too stupid to understand what the proposition was about. The board also slammed âthe electorateâ for being âconservative when it comes to confronting racial inequity.â
âSo much for Californiaâs racial reckoning,â the editors mournfully wept.
Meanwhile, establishment conservatives at National Review, Hot Air, and elsewhere took the defeat of Prop. 16 as proof that âminority voters reject identity politics,â because inside every Ibram Kendi is a Thomas Sowell crying to be freed. âDemography is not destiny,â wrote John Sexton at Hot Air; nonwhites are âopting outâ of the Democrat identity-politics machine.
Reading these analyses is like watching a barnyard of decapitated chickens. Leftists simply canât believe that in a year of âracial reckoning,â a minority-majority state like Cali would turn its back on âjustice.â So of course, voters must have been âconfused.â Conservatives, meanwhile, are torn. The ones who canât bring themselves to see any good in this state also blame âconfusion,â while the flags ânâ Jesus optimists claim Prop. 16 went down because ânonwhites are natural Republicans we all bleed redâ whatever whatever.
Dimwits fellating their confirmation bias.
As the imbeciles on both sides succumb to their intracranial stenosis, letâs indulge in some clearheaded thinkinâ.
No, the wording of the proposition was not confusing. The ballot summary was crystal clear: âProposition 16 permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity.â Thatâs hardly Aramaic. And knowing what Prop. 16 was, whites, Asians, and Latinos in California voted against it. Only blacks overwhelmingly supported it. And at a paltry 5.8% of the state population, black âoverwhelming supportâ plus two bucks buys you a McNugget and Coke.
Yes, Asians were the strongest in opposition, and they led the field with individual donations to fund the No on 16 campaign. But Asian voters alone cannot decide a statewide initiative; at 15% of the population, they donât have the numerical strength. It was actually the Latinos wot dun in Prop. 16. All fourteen of Californiaâs Latino-majority counties voted against it.
But no, Prager U grads, Latinos and Asians did not rebuff Prop. 16 because they ârejected identity politics.â Something was indeed ârejected,â but no one wants to acknowledge what it was. Hereâs a simple truth that none of the analysts left or right are willing to admit: Prop. 16 was a referendum on blacks. Not âdiversity,â not âidentity politics,â but blacks. Everyone with half a brain understood that Prop. 16 was there to help blacks, and blacks alone. Asians and Latinos are doing exceptionally well in the UC system (Asians are overrepresented, and Latinos, represented at roughly their percentage of the population, outnumber non-Hispanic whites). Blacks are the ones who need the âspecial help.â Theyâre the ones who feel like they canât compete without being given extra points for melanin.
Proposition 16 posed a question to the people of California: Wanna help a brother out?
And Californians said no.
Asians said no for reasons of simple self-interest. For the average California Asian, this wasnât dim sum but zero sum: A âleg upâ for blacks means a kick up the ass for Asians. For every unqualified black whoâs affirmative-actioned into college, a qualified Asian is denied.
For Latinos, affirmative action isnât really their thingâŚbecause they donât need it. Not due to academic excellence (Ă la Asians), but because Latinos get their way through numerical superiority, not begging, guilt-tripping, and bullying (Ă la blacks). Give Latinos an open border, and theyâll do the rest. It doesnât profit them to give blacks special perks that come at the expense of the majority because in many California cities, Latinos are the majority (and theyâre the largest plurality statewide).
Latinos see themselves as the future of the state. Blacks are the past (as Iâve covered in previous columns). For Latinos, every current black neighborhood is a future Latino neighborhood. The sooner blacks move out, the better. So thereâs no motivation to make it easier for them to stay. You wanna go to college, JaâMarquis? Move your black ass back to the Deep South and your beloved HBCUs.
Bottom line: California Latinos donât need no stinkinâ affirmative action. Hispanics might use it when itâs there, because why not? But to them itâs a strategy, not the strategy. Whereas for blacks, itâs all theyâve got.
Now, with whites, one could argue that passing Prop. 16 wouldâve been a logical progression of 2020. This has been a year of strong-arming whitey into sacrificing in the name of âracial justice.â Police protection, safety and security, peace and quiet, personal property; whites in cities across the nation have surrendered these things in the name of the âdebtâ they supposedly owe to blacks. Prop. 16 asked whites to give up even more. And a lot of whites (primarily in L.A. and the Bay Area) did vote yes. But more voted no, andâcombined with the Asian and Latino votesâthat was enough to beat the bejesus out of the measureâŚeven in the face of an imposing coalition of billionaires, corporations, tech giants, advocacy groups, and top politicos pushing for its passage.
The defeat of Prop. 16 was a black defeat, but not at the hands of conservative whites. Thatâs what makes this story instructive; itâs an illustration of how the demographics of ânew Americaâ will inevitably contribute to a waning of black influence. Nonblack minority-majority California just said ânoâ not only to blacks, but to every leftist âopinion leaderâ in the state who interceded on their behalf. Itâs thoroughly grim news for black Americans, and it bodes poorly for the future, especially as most of the tricks black advocates have up their sleeve involve getting other demographic groups to act against their own best interests (not just regarding hiring and admissions preferences, but on issues like criminal justice âreformâ).
In California, whites who care about their own best interests, combined with and emboldened by Latinos and Asians who do the same, were able to say no to the people to whom youâre never supposed to say no. And they dared to say ânoâ in this, the Year of Our Lord George Floydâs martyrdom. When a numerically small community amasses outsize influence via temper tantrums, guilting, violence, and threats of violence, the tactic only works when everyone else buckles before it. On affirmative action, California found its sea legs. If this state contained any intelligent and capable GOP leadersâand it doesnâtâthe same coalition that defeated Prop. 16 could in theory be assembled again to reverse some of the most damaging concessions the state has made to blacks in the past two decades (namely, the weakening of law enforcement).
That Asians and Latinos voted against Prop. 16 doesnât mean theyâre ânatural Republicansâ (sorry, Con Inc.). What it does mean is that in this of all years, white, Asian, and Latino Californians voted self-interest when blacks and their powerful allies told them not to. Thatâs seismic. A favor was asked by a rapidly declining population that rarely sees fit to prove worthy of those favors, and never returns them. And the favor was denied. Lord help blacks if this catches on. Next thing you know, Californians will realize they donât have to let their shit get stolen.
Mind you, Prop. 16 lost on its own; the GOP didnât lift a finger to defeat it. And todayâs GOP, which would rather win a few black votes than an actual election, is unlikely to learn any of the lessons that 16âs ignominious end might teach.
Still, a man can dream.
Black Americans and their leftist overseers won a lot of victories this year via intimidation and terrorism. But they lost this one, and it was a key battle in a key state. Whether itâs a one-off or a trend, no one can say. But at least itâs not bad news, and in 2020, ânot bad newsâ is the best we can hope for.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
I've already won one bet on here in the last month though
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
@It's HK-47 is his username.
Grandpa Simpson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
"...what the Obama/Biden adminstration did in 2016 and 2017, makes everything Richard Nixon even contemplate, pale in comparison..."
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
Sorry, it's probably because I remember him as the "robot suit dude with info" guy, don't know if I should edit the post or not.
Mr Cuddles
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
Was that with a certain pink cat? I'm not saying that you will find it impossible to get people to make a bad bet, but imo if you are going to offer a cash bet you would have to find the stupidest person alive to take it on at evens. Now offer people 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 and you might get some bites.
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
Ya know, you don't have to tag someone when mentioning them.
Jesus.
Jesus.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
I'm glad I'm not the only one wishing for it to pull a surprise victory at the electoral college.really having a difficult time dealing with Giant Meteor's loss. maybe next time
NeroRisotto
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
Cope harder, Meteortard! Should've placed bets on Jeb! like us chads!really having a difficult time dealing with Giant Meteor's loss. maybe next time
Seethe and dilate! You will never be a clapper.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
No shit. I tried to tag him because I'm shit at explaining it and don't have a lot of links handy to help elaborate, in case the guy wanted a further explanation.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2020
Iâm confused about this too but I did read somewhere (forget where) that itâs next Saturday, the 5th.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
What's the problem? He comes on here of his own will all the time, and he could answer LurkTrawl's question.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
He needs to fire his advisors if he is waiting that late.Iâm confused about this too but I did read somewhere (forget where) that itâs next Saturday, the 5th.
Taco
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
I got ads from the CA election because I usually run my VPN through a CA IP. I think the proposition ads were just very effective after seeing them and the only ads I saw for all the props were from the side that won each one. If you want to win a proposition you need aggressive advertising since most people won't know dick about them until they step in the booth otherwise.
Siryakko212
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
I know I am late on this one, but can you please provide the source of when Jim Carrey said this? I'm quite curious. This is the same bloody person who was in Kick-Ass 2 only to talk against it when a school shooting happened.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2020
I mean maybe, all I remember is waking up flailing around screaming "no, not again, I can't do it again"
- Status