Ale_Pan retweeted
🚨BREAKING: Donald Tusk's Polish Interior Minister has ADMITTED to spreading disinformation about the motive of the Kraków terrorist, falsely claiming the attacker was "far right" without proof
Everything indicates he was actually a member of Antifa and a communist.
Ale_Pan retweeted
Se poi Speranza insiste con il sostenere beatamente che il Green pass serviva a spingere sulle vaccinazioni anziché proteggere sí mette contro le Risoluzioni 2362 e 2383 del 21 - Consiglio D’Europa, che espressamente vietavano obblighi surrettizi.
Siamo nel campo dell’estirsione..se vuole @LucioMalan abbiamo tutto quanto necessario @GfveGianfra
Si chiama epidemia, colposa o dolosa. Un reato abbastanza grave per il quale depositammo svariate denunce poi archiviate.
Mandate gli atti al Tribunale dei Ministri, forse oggi i tempi sono maturi..non si sa mai..tanto la prescrizione del reato è lunghissima…
NON SO SE HA VISTO LA PENA PREVISTA @LucioMalan
Ale_Pan retweeted
Speaking as a computer scientist...
Note also that the numbers you referenced aren't all just 64-35, they're all 64.6 + or - 0.2, and 35.4 + or - 0.2. That's even more unlikely.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention in math class. Likely some corrupt programmer put in a random factor that he thought would alter the numbers, without making it look like it altered the numbers. Like (brain-dead example) "If this ballot was for the opponent, and the random number generator is greater than 0.6, then change it.". But he didn't bother to do the math, or he would have realized that if you use whatever that random element is, over enough cases, then the result converges on 64.6 and 35.4.
At least if I was going to vet the program that did this, then that's what I'd most expect to find. This is a typical undergrad mistake. Just because your algorithm has a randomizing element, that doesn't mean that the result isn't going to converge, over a large enough number of trials.
Also note that this kind of manipulation almost always leaves a footprint in the data. Statisticians who specialize in analyzing voting results know what properties honest results should have. Unless the corrupt programmer really knew what he was doing, they'll spot the strange results, and the nature of the strangeness will give them a strong clue as to what the programmer did.
HOLY CR*P 🚨 How is this even possible??
All of California’s major candidate election results are the EXACT SAME percentages for Democrats and Republicans
Governor 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Lieutenant Governor 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Secretary of State 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Controller 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Treasurer 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Attorney General 64% (D) vs 35% (R)
Supreme Court Justice: Joshua Groban 72% (D) vs 28% (R)
Supreme Court Justice: Kelli M. Evans 72% (D) vs 28% (R)
These don’t look like real election results, they look like a computer algorithm
Our elections are fake
Ale_Pan retweeted
This man is a Computer Scientist and he looked at my post regarding California’s identical election results for top government positions
🚨 He CONFIRMS from a computer scientist programming perspective how the results ARE FROM AN ALGORITHM, NOT REAL VOTE TOTALS 👇 IT’S RIGGED
Speaking as a computer scientist...
Note also that the numbers you referenced aren't all just 64-35, they're all 64.6 + or - 0.2, and 35.4 + or - 0.2. That's even more unlikely.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention in math class. Likely some corrupt programmer put in a random factor that he thought would alter the numbers, without making it look like it altered the numbers. Like (brain-dead example) "If this ballot was for the opponent, and the random number generator is greater than 0.6, then change it.". But he didn't bother to do the math, or he would have realized that if you use whatever that random element is, over enough cases, then the result converges on 64.6 and 35.4.
At least if I was going to vet the program that did this, then that's what I'd most expect to find. This is a typical undergrad mistake. Just because your algorithm has a randomizing element, that doesn't mean that the result isn't going to converge, over a large enough number of trials.
Also note that this kind of manipulation almost always leaves a footprint in the data. Statisticians who specialize in analyzing voting results know what properties honest results should have. Unless the corrupt programmer really knew what he was doing, they'll spot the strange results, and the nature of the strangeness will give them a strong clue as to what the programmer did.
Ale_Pan retweeted
I’ve compiled the full list of ‘New valid voter registrations’ done nationwide between 2022-2024 WITHOUT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP and the total number is 20,283,937
🚨 So 20,283,937 new voters were registered without citizenship checks and Democrats won the Midterms with roughly 20 million extra votes
Here is a breakdown are 37 states that do not require citizenship verification to complete new voter registration and how many new registrations they registered without citizenship checks
California: 4,308,269
Texas: 2,900,357
North Carolina: 1,410,905
Florida: 1,337,303
Illinois: 981,482
Pennsylvania: 842,187
New York: 680,259
Alabama: 572,632
Virginia: 563,781
Maryland: 524,189
Wisconsin: 524,103
Colorado: 498,308
Washington: 473,192
Massachusetts: 465,616
Missouri: 460,197
New Jersey: 425,782
Oklahoma: 388,669
Connecticut: 386,014
Louisiana: 263,705
Arkansas: 246,974
Oregon: 240,611
Kentucky: 220,093
Kansas: 218,739
Idaho: 181,741
Nebraska: 164,491
Nevada: 145,494
New Mexico: 118,141
Iowa: 116,644
Maine: 106,978
Vermont: 81,993
Montana: 78,669
Delaware: 71,902
Hawaii: 64,468
New Hampshire: 61,210
West Virginia: 53,343
Rhode Island: 53,040
Alaska: 52,456
States: 37
Total: 20,283,937
This data comes from the Official Election Administration and Voting Comprehensive Report buried on page 192 and 193 of the document
—
Ohh and if you redo this list to include new voter registrations that were done without proof of ID being required it’s even worse
43 states do not require you to show or attach an ID or any other eligibility documents to complete a standard new standard voter registration form
During 2022-2024, there were 24,662,998 new valid registrations across 43 states that were done without any ID
Ale_Pan retweeted
Nobody believes this.
Democrats are even asking questions it's so obvious.
2,848 out of 3,109 counties is beyond unrealistic, especially when you learn that states across the country registered millions of "new voters" without ANY verification of U.S. citizenship, with some counties even having more ballots counted than registered voters.
Ale_Pan retweeted
Shocking?!?!?
IN EVERY CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE RACE THE RESULTS ARE 53 TO 46
EVERY SINGLE RACE!
Ale_Pan retweeted
HOLY SH*T 🚨 The post below goes over the Midterms election results and shows it was algorithmically rigged, I put it into artificial intelligence AND AI CONFIRMS IT’S CORRECT. THE FRAUD ALGO AND ELECTION RESULTS PERFECTLY MATCH
“We cracked their cheating algorithm. 85/15 algorithm....for every 1000 Trump votes (most likely during early voting when Dems front loaded everything) 150 switched to Dems. It's the same pattern in every state that went blue”
Check the AI screenshot. It confirms the math is correct to the results that came in
THE 15% BAND
Look at this chart.
59 races. Senate and governor.
States ordered from reddest to bluest in 2024.
The solid lines are 2024.
The dashed lines are 2026.
The shaded bands are what moved.
One formula fits all of it:
Republican 2026 = 0.85 × Trump 2024
Democrat 2026 = Harris 2024 + 0.15 × Trump 2024
For every 1,000 Trump points, 850 stayed Republican. 150 landed on the Democratic side.
The numbers:
Senate: Republicans kept ~85% of Trump’s share
Governor: ~86%
Variation explained: 88%
What makes it strange:
It didn’t matter how red the state was. Wyoming, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts: same 15% (p = 0.69). The Democratic gain was sized by Trump’s vote, not Harris’s. The Harris part is zero.
The 0.85 beat both standard election-swing models in every set of races.
Drop any single state and the multiplier stays between 0.846 and 0.853.
Why seats flipped:
At 0.85, any state where Trump got under about 58.5% falls below 50%. Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina: all under that line. All flipped.
What this means:
Midterms are messy. This one isn’t. Two sets of races, different candidates, different campaigns, and the same 15% decrease almost everywhere.
A pattern this even demands answers at the ballot level: paper ballot hand counts, poll-book check-ins against votes counted, and voter files showing who actually turned out.
The numbers raise the question.
The ballots can answer it.
Ale_Pan retweeted
Demokracja według Unii Europejskiej. Niemieckie wojsko w Polsce. Urszula von der Leyen wysyła niemieckie wojsko do Polski. Donald Tusk wydał zgodę. Media o tym milczą. To musi zobaczyć świat.
Ale_Pan retweeted
I media internazionali stanno tacendo sul fatto che l'Unione Europea ha mandato in Polonia l'esercito tedesco.
Ale_Pan retweeted
They really expect us to believe Iowa shifted 24.19 POINTS to the left in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in 2 years?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Grok: No, a 24-point statewide shift is not normal in U.S. midterm elections. It is unusually large.
Ale_Pan retweeted
James Talarico got more 'votes' than any Democrat candidate has EVER gotten in Texas history. He got 500,000 more 'votes' than Kamala Harris got two years ago in a Presidential election year. The demographics of Texas have not changed significantly in two years.
You can talk about gas prices, or Iran, or Trump's personality until the cows come home, this still seems ... odd, to say the least.
Ale_Pan retweeted
ALL 21 STATES. ALL 1,799 COUNTIES. EVERY SINGLE ONE SHIFTED BLUE.
You can blame the Iran war. You can blame the economy. But you expect me to believe Republicans were THAT angry that every single state and county shifted blue?
And before anyone says it, this isn’t about being unable to accept a loss. I can accept losing. What I can’t do is ignore something that just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Sorry, but I have questions. 2020 makes me look at things way differently.
Ale_Pan retweeted
Idiot liberal moves from a blue state (because it sucks to live in) to a red state(because it’s great to live in) and then votes to turn it into a blue state. Incredible.
Ale_Pan retweeted
Pense numa jumenta!
O alecrim dourado mora no Texas, numa casa de mais de um milhão de dólares, com uma família bem estabelecida.
Estuda numa ótima universidade, a vida está serena, tranquila, mas ela vê um microfone e alguém continuando o trabalho do Charles Kirk.
Ela resolve disparar todo o seu esquerdismo sem freio algum. Queria CHOCAR, farmar aura para seus amiguinhos, como uma criança birrenta de 10 anos em busca de aprovação.
BOOM!
Em um minuto, ela consegue destruir o nome da família, os negócios da família, seu sonho dourado e todos os confortos futuros.
É como se uma placa dissesse: "CAMPO MINADO, não pise." E a pessoa pula com os dois pés!
A expulsão da universidade está em andamento, assim como a DEPORTAÇÃO!
Ale_Pan retweeted
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just called on Zelensky to be OUSTED
"I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal, because he could have made many deals that for some reason, he NEVER does."
"That's a war that should have never started. And I think it's time for Ukraine to get a new president."
LONG overdue!
🚨 Trump is GOING OFF on Zelensky, warning him REPEATEDLY not to hit Russian refineries because of the MASSIVE global diesel shortage it causes, and Zelensky did it anyway
"Zelensky could have settled this war MANY TIMES. Many, many times, and he chooses NOT to."
"We said, 'you can do whatever you want to Russia. Don't hit the refineries, because that's a world problem that's caused.'"
"So he better damn well stop!"