Hey folks, it's your boy Rai....er... zettapede here with an important announcement:
We're assembling the biggest dump of archives, links, videos, and other data on the election tampering. Put it in the comments below - emphasis on specific, direct evidence of cheating.
Let's turn this into a resource for redpilling the "Where's the evidence?" Normies who've never researched a fact in their lives.
Remember to archive and download all evidence! (And if someone posts an unarchived link or un-downloaded video, make a copy and reply with the link!)
Come at me bro!
LINKS TO GET YOU STARTED
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpBG03og/archive-dump-to-be-filled-as-lin/
https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1324845160358940673?s=21
https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1324337951866802178
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpKZuGiT/benfords-law-courtesy-of-4chan-t/c/
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpKeTDhw/wow-what-a-turnout-election--105/c/
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1324793898724720646?s=21
https://twitter.com/kimKBaltimore/status/1324563483078307840?s=19
https://mobile.twitter.com/Pismo_B/status/1324445619474235393?s=19
More details:
https://thedonald.win/p/11PpPFQI2p/x/c/1ASsUPFsV6
Zombies are, I mean were, people too!
They identify as the living.
If anyone is wondering why they'd want to cheat in Chicago, here's why.
They wanted their "victory" to be so complete that they would have a clear mandate of the people to undo "Trumpism".
They vastly underestimated that even against massive fraud, the number of "Trumpists" in the USA would still give even their fraudulent numbers a run for their money
Is there an ELI5 explanation for how to translate the records to 1 thru 9 for testing against benford's? I'm not super mathematically-inclined unfortunately and have been wondering about that since first learning of this
Democrats have been cheating in elections for at least 50 years. What makes you think 2016 was clean?
Why would you compare to clinton in 2016 and not trump's count in 2020?
Plus Benfords law will never predict fraud, it shows you if the data is natural or un-natural and if its worth investigating further.
A good example would be applying it to expense reports, you think there is fraud because of the graph, but it turns out its due to peoples auth limits.
You'd never take it to court to say "Look its fraud", but its very useful as part of a package to explain why you need the court to issue a subpoena or explaining the store of how further evidence was collected etc.
Nice post. Thanks.
Ah, thank you. I was thinking they did some normalization transformation to give a UID each vote had or something. I haven't had time to sit and pull up the state website data yet
The Bedford's Law and 89% Wisconsin turnout stats are important evidence weapons in demonstrating our case to the public and in the legal battle to come. RUN THE SAME ANALYSES ON EVERY CRITICAL CITY/STATE. If Biden fails Bedford's in 5 major cities, that's EXPONENTIALLY more damning than 1.
Whoever ran these analyses, I urge them or anyone else to run them again on all the critical cities and states. META-DATA analyses like these are very powerful because they're not as anecdotal as "we found one guy who stole some ballots". If you can show consistent irregularities in the entire system, that's extremely damning and powerful, and rightfully so.
Someone posted this to me: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6D
but then again this paper is being disputed here https://t.co/1BwBRorfD7?amp=1
we need it to be rock solid.
Benfords law is just good at trying to give you indications if further investigation would be a good idea or waste of time.
Something is going on, it might not be fraud, but it could be!