Mrecio

Los Angeles, CA- Voter fraud update: Probably nothing.

Last year, in the aftermath of Los Angeles’s devastating wildfires, Gavin Newsom promised to speed up “critical” wildfire-prevention projects. Nearly 100,000 acres of land have been “fast-tracked” for fire management. So far, state-approved groups have completed projects covering less than 1 percent. @christopherrufo @Shawn_Regan @kennethschrupp's latest: city-journal.org/article/califo…

Anyone who believes the last 3 numbers should wear a helmet whenever they leave the house.

This is how easy it is to register as a voter in California - All fake details - A vacant lot as an address - Fake name and fake contract information - Just check a box you don’t have a drivers license or social security number - Submit That’s it, no errors. It submits and you’re a registered voter Your first time voting you may need to bring an ID to capture your signature with your fake records, that’s it. Ohh and acceptable forms of ID so they can get your signature: - Gym membership card - Employer ID card - Credit or debit card - Prescription drug label - Insurance card (California provides free health coverage to all illegals) Mind blowing

“But there’s no evidence”

This tribute by @CHSN__ on Stacey King will make you cry. Amazing job on it. RIP the King.

💥NEW: Steve Hilton *STUNS* Billy Bush with California mail-in ballot loophole🤯 HILTON: “You can backdate your ballot by hand — and it will be counted. That’s how INSANE this system is!” BUSH: “I didn’t even know that. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Oh my God!”

Had AI run a statistical analysis on Pratt coming in 3rd based on the ballot drops. See below: The trajectory established in the first three batches showed the gap closing at 0.18 points per 1% of ballots counted. The late batches closed the gap at 0.54 points per 1% counted. The late batches were moving 3 times faster than the early batches established. If the trajectory from the first three batches had simply continued, Pratt would still have been leading by +2.93 points at 83% counted. He was actually trailing by -0.40 points. The late batches moved 3.33 points further toward Raman than the established trajectory predicted. The z-scores on that deviation are -7.81 and -11.29 for the last two batches. The probability of both late batches deviating that far from the established trajectory by chance is effectively zero. The t-statistic for the acceleration between early and late batch rates is -6.225. With two degrees of freedom, anything above 4.303 is significant at the 5% level. This is well past that. The plain English answer: The early batches established a clear, consistent trajectory. The late batches didn’t continue that trajectory they moved three times faster in the same direction. That acceleration is not explained by the trajectory that preceded it. The probability that it happened by chance is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

THE FORMULAS WHAT THEY MEAN AND WHY THEY MATTER I derived four deterministic linear formulas from the ballot drop data: Raman% = 27.87 + (3.19 × drop number) Pratt% = 22.05 - (1.17 × drop number) Bass% = 40.20 - (1.86 × drop number) Other% = 9.88 - (0.16 × drop number) The Starting Points The constants - 27.87, 22.05, 40.20, 9.88 - represent each candidate’s baseline. Where they genuinely stood when post-election counting began. Real votes. Organic support. These are the numbers before anything unusual occurs. The Slopes - How the Formula Runs The slope is the increment applied to each candidate every single drop. It gets multiplied by drop number - 1, 2, 3, 4 - which means the effect escalates automatically with each drop. So for Raman it isn’t just plus 3.19% every drop. It’s: Drop 1: 27.87 + (3.19 × 1) = 31.06% Drop 2: 27.87 + (3.19 × 2) = 34.25% Drop 3: 27.87 + (3.19 × 3) = 37.44% Drop 4: 27.87 + (3.19 × 4) = 40.63% Drop 5 predicted: 27.87 + (3.19 × 5) = 43.82% Each drop pushes her further from her baseline. It is built in. Automatic by design. The slopes also sum to exactly zero. +3.19 - 1.17 - 1.86 - 0.16 = 0.00 Every percentage point Raman gains comes precisely from the other three candidates/groups combined. This is a closed system. Conservation of votes. The formula doesn’t create votes - it redistributes them. The R Values - The results were remarkable To validate these formulas I ran linear regression analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients, R values, came back as follows: Raman vs Pratt: R = 0.9966 Raman vs Bass: R = 0.9934 Raman vs Batch: R = 0.9984 Raman vs Other: R = 0.9794 R values measure how perfectly data fits a straight line. They run from 0 to 1. 0 means completely random. No pattern whatsoever. 1 means a perfect straight line. Every point exactly where predicted. For context: 0.70 is considered strong in social science research. 0.85 gets researchers excited. 0.90+ is extraordinarily rare in human behavioral data. Squaring them to get R² values: Raman vs Pratt: R² = 0.9932 Raman vs Bass: R² = 0.9869 Raman vs Other: R² = 0.9592 Raman vs Batch: R² = 0.9968 That last number, 0.9968, means that 99.68% of Raman’s vote share movement across these drops is explained by a single variable. Drop number. Nothing else. Just counting to five. You get R values like that in physics experiments. In controlled laboratory conditions. Measuring the expansion of metal under heat. Not in elections. Not in a major American city with millions of diverse voters casting ballots across weeks. The Slope Relationship The slope of 3.110 between Raman and Pratt is particularly significant. It means for every percentage point Pratt lost Raman gained 3.110 points. Every drop. Without variation. Without noise. Candidates in a democratic election don’t move in mathematical opposition to each other at a fixed ratio across 200,000 ballots. Four variables in an equation do. Why The Shutoff Had To Exist Because drop number keeps increasing, the formula keeps pushing percentages further from baseline. Left unchecked by drop 7 the math produces: Raman: 27.87 + (3.19 × 7) = 50.2% Pratt: 22.05 - (1.17 × 7) = 13.9% Bass: 40.20 - (1.86 × 7) = 27.2% So the formula was never intended to run to completion. It was designed to run until a specific objective was achieved, Raman leading Pratt by a sufficient margin to secure the runoff and then stop. The stopping condition appears to have been triggered at approximately 38,000 votes into drop 5. The precise moment Raman crossed 3,000 votes ahead of Pratt. After that point the remaining 9,800 votes in drop 5 distributed at approximately the baseline that existed after drop four. The formula completed its task. Then it stopped. And the numbers went back to looking normal.

They say: “Show me proof of election fraud in Los Angeles” “Ok, here you go!”

🚨Los Angeles Election Fraud Caught on Hidden Camera LA election petitioners were caught on tape giving homeless individuals other voters' information, instructing them to forge voter names and signatures, and offering cash and drugs as incentives to register to vote.

@tedcruz Shattered

Did he break the glass?

Statistically IMPOSSIBLE. They think Americans won’t see the Massive Fraud they are committing against the American people… Pratt and Bass vote share pre and post Election Day are the same. Raman’s has doubled. This is statistically impossible. SO MUCH FRAUD 🤯😡😡

Former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer (passed 2021) didn’t mince words: “UFOs are REAL. Multiple alien species have visited Earth for thousands of years.” He named the star systems: Zeta Reticuli, Pleiades, Orion, Andromeda, Altair. Some are working with the U.S. government, he claimed, sharing tech like microchips, fiber optics, and advanced materials. Military has shot UFOs down. We’ve back-engineered the crashes. Most species are friendly, Hellyer said. Stop treating them as enemies. Cooperate instead of building Star Wars-style space weapons. One of the highest-ranking officials in history to say it out loud. Friends… or something else?👽 What do you think?👇

They want you to believe this happened in the LA Mayors race… 3rd place jumps to 1st in *every* ballot drop *after* Election Day Defies all mathematical probability, the law of averages and has never happened in US election history No one with a functional brain believes this

@Alt_Azn We always knew the mail in votes would skew hard YES on more taxes lol. That’s the story they’ll sell.

Why would voters who mail their ballots at the last minute disproportionately support higher taxes on themselves? It sure does boggle the noggin. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Yea the math don’t make sense… Per ChatGPT, the odds that *Raman received 22% of the vote thru the first 64% of votes counted, including 20% of mail-in votes, *and since the election ended she received 41% of the next 19% of ballots counted, nearly entirely from mail in votes, *given the different population sets, mail-in vs in-person is… The equivalent to WINNING THE POWERBALL 7X IN A ROW!! She’s just one lucky candidate I suppose.

🤔

@JamieKennedy Also the odds Pratt got 0 votes in that drop are, wait for it…. The equivalent to WINNING THE POWERBALL 450 TIMES IN A ROW!!!

@m5rec Ur the MAN!!!!

There are certain rules that one must abide by when counting ballots in a primary election. CA obeys NONE of them. HTBITY