Mrecio

They don’t care for the poor. They just envy the rich.

David Friedberg: California’s Voting System Looks Fraudulent, But It’s Working Exactly as Designed @friedberg believes California’s extremely loose election laws enable “appointments” not free elections. Why? The voting data in LA makes no statistical sense. “ Pratt's post-election mail-in ballots declined by 1/3. So statistically, the population of people that send in their ballots late reduced for Pratt by 1/3, increased for Nithya Raman by 80%, and Karen Bass 10% less, if you just look at the mail-in ballots before and after election day as a comparison. I don't know if there's a sociopolitical way that you can assess those statistics and assume that these are individuals casting their individual vote for who they think should be Mayor of LA. Basically, the concentration of incremental votes that Nithya Raman got came around the Skid Row area in Los Angeles. But when you look at the basic statistics of what happened in person, mail-in before, mail-in after Election Day, it becomes a real statistical quagmire on how did this sort of a sociopolitical shift happen in such a way that it did? Now, there was a report published, and they highlighted the 2018 California midterm elections and the challenges that they saw arise in that midterm election because of some of the legislative changes that were made. First, California Assembly Bill 1921 legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state. What that means is that any individual in the state of California has the right to go and collect ballots from any other individuals, regardless of relationship, fill them out, and send them in. California, two years later, 18 months later, also passed a law that made it permanent that every person registered in the state of California would get a ballot, so tens of millions of ballots then get mailed out. Then there was another series of laws that were passed that said anyone can register to vote. You don't need to prove your citizenship. You can use a gym membership card as an example. So anyone can register to vote. There is no proof of ID when you get a ballot. There is no demonstration that the person who fills out the ballot has anything to do with the individual who's supposed to be voting that ballot, and it is legal for an individual to go out and collect hundreds or thousands of ballots, ship them in, and they will all qualify in these kind of mail-in ballot voting processes. So there's nothing illegal or fraudulent going on. In fact, the system is operating exactly as intended. It has been set up and structured in a way that with the right construct, you can get an individual appointed, not elected, but appointed to a particular role in government under a, quote, ‘free election’ in California.”

Over 4000 workers just became millionaires by owning the means of production and the socialists are pissed

"you're 8 months behind on chipotle klarna payments because you've been saving up for the spacex ipo?"

@UWCRITTER @RoKhanna @BernieSanders Any counter points to my position? Or just going to stick with “Okay, Elon.”?

@m5rec @RoKhanna @BernieSanders Okay, Elon.

Musk is worth more than South Africa’s GDP. @BernieSanders and I proposed a 5% tax on people like him. In one year, it could fund: - free public college & trade school -$10/day childcare - Special-needs education nationwide Wealth inequality is the moral failure of our time.

@tedlieu I guess you’re calling 25% of your constituents stupid? Is that what democracy has come to? Our elected officials calling 1/4 of their constituents stupid?

Today Spencer Pratt conceded and said: “I’ve been laser-focused on stopping these commie animals, and I will stop them.” If you think that type of MAGA campaign and language was resonating in deep blue LA where Dems massively outnumber GOP by nearly 4 to 1, then you are stupid.

CA homeless admit they are paid to fill out 4 to 5 fraudulent ballots a day or every time ballot mules come to rig California Elections. The is a sophisticated election fraud operation funded with your taxpayer dollars through shady NGOs and Democrat politicians.

The Spurs know how to TAKE the lead, they just don't know how to HOLD the lead. And that's really the most important part of the lead: the holding

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.