Ha. Maybe it's because his GoFundMe pages have been suspended
https://meaww.com/richard-hopkins-u...d-me-page-suspended-us-poll-trump-biden-fraud
Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Ha. Maybe it's because his GoFundMe pages have been suspended
https://meaww.com/richard-hopkins-u...d-me-page-suspended-us-poll-trump-biden-fraud
Do you think Rosco and Dantes will share any of their reward with the SCM community?
Do you think Rosco will suffer a tragic accident leaving his share of the reward to be claimed by Dantes?
Now I do.
Initially I read this as “Pizza” and thought we were really disappearing down the conspiracy rabbit hole
Can't remember who referenced Benfords law, but here's a video explaining why it doesn't show voter fraud in this case and can't be used in elections.
I still don't get it...
How much do you think she has been paid to tell that story? Who in 2020 doesnt have their phone with them and cant at least take a photo or a video?
I guess there is a reason why the affidavits and legal challenges that Trump and his team are filling are being thrown out of court, its all bullshit.
If there is any real evidence, this would be a great time for them to show the rest of the World.
You believe in conspiracies too
Oh I think you do know !
Well, probably dantes, but I didn't check.
No way the Republicans were up to anything shady.
Evidence suggests several state Senate candidates were plants funded by dark money
MIAMI – Why would candidates for Florida Senate seats do no campaigning, no fundraising, have no issue platforms, nor make any effort to get votes?
Local 10 News has found evidence to suggest three such candidates in three Florida Senate district races, two of them in Miami Dade County, were shill candidates whose presence in the races were meant to syphon votes from Democratic candidates.
Comparisons of the no-party candidates' public campaign records show similarities and connections that suggest they are all linked by funding from the same dark money donors, and part of an elaborate scheme to upset voting patterns.
In one of those races, District 37, a recount is underway because the spread between the Democratic and Republican candidates is only 31 votes. The third party candidate received more than 6300 votes.
That third party candidate is Alexis Rodriguez, who has the same last name as the Democratic incumbent senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. The Republican challenger is Ileana Garcia.
Alexis Rodriguez falsified his address on his campaign filing form last June. The couple who now live at the Palmetto Bay address say they have been repeatedly harassed since then by people looking for Rodriguez, who hadn’t lived there in five years.
Local 10 visited Rodriguez’s place of business Tuesday, where Rodriguez lied about his identity. Pretending to be a business partner, Rodriguez shed little light on his sudden candidacy in the District 37 race and lack of fundraising or campaigning.
Local 10 began investigating Rodriguez’s candidacy because of a hunch by Executive Producer Natalie Morera de Varona last month. She was collecting candidates' headshots for election broadcast graphics and was curious why a candidate was nowhere to be found, not returning phone calls.
A search of campaign documents filed by Rodriguez led to a money trail and campaign finance connections with other no-party third candidates in Florida Senate District 9 in Central Florida, and District 39 in Miami-Dade.
The District 39 candidate is 81-year-old Celso Alfonso, a retiree who named the woman he calls his wife as campaign treasurer. She owns a day spa, and the home where we found Alfonso Tuesday afternoon.
He, too, lied about his identity at first, and finally admitted to being the candidate.
Alfonso claimed he had a lifelong dream to be in public service. He said he filed on his own, that no one assisted him.
A comparison of candidates Alfonso and Rodriguez show unusual similarities.
Both filed as No Party Affiliated candidates, yet both had recently been registered Republicans.
Both qualified as candidate on the same day, June 12, 2020, by paying a qualifying fee.
Both listed Gmail addresses with identical patterns: first initial, last name and district number and 2020.
Both list one single contribution to their campaign; both contributions are $2000 self-loans, presumably to pay the filing fee.
Both candidates' support appears to come from the same Political Action Committee, “Our Florida” - that have no previous political contributions or expenditures listed. It is the PAC that paid for campaign fliers for the candidates, all done by the same Clermont, Florida mail house, Advance Impressions.
Celso Alfonso gave conflicting answers about campaign fliers, first claiming there were none, then claiming his own campaign paid for them, though that expenditure is not listed in his campaign finance report. An unlisted campaign expenditure could be a campaign finance violation.
That $370,000 PAC expenditure to the printing house on Oct. 5 is the sole expenditure of “Our Florida”. And the PAC’s only contributor is an entity called Proclivity, whose $370,000 contribution is listed two days earlier.
Proclivity lists an address that traces back to a mailbox in a UPS Store in Atlanta.
Florida law allows the group to keep people behind its money private.
Local 10 News could not locate any businesses registered in Florida or Georgia under the name Proclivity.
The end of the money trail leaves no information on who is ultimately funding at least three candidates for Florida Senate who did no campaigning and no fundraising, whose presence in the race might have recalculated the number of voters who cast votes for the Democrats in the race.
Alex Rodriguez received 3% of the D37 vote, more than 6300 votes. The race, currently in recount, has a margin of .02 between the Democrat incumbent and Republican challenger.
The race for D39 was decided by 12.3 percent, a large enough margin to make Celso Alfonso’s 1.5 percent of the vote moot.
https://www.local10.com/news/local/...-candidates-were-plants-funded-by-dark-money/
Evidence suggests several state Senate candidates were plants funded by dark money
MIAMI – Why would candidates for Florida Senate seats do no campaigning, no fundraising, have no issue platforms, nor make any effort to get votes?
Local 10 News has found evidence to suggest three such candidates in three Florida Senate district races, two of them in Miami Dade County, were shill candidates whose presence in the races were meant to syphon votes from Democratic candidates.
Comparisons of the no-party candidates' public campaign records show similarities and connections that suggest they are all linked by funding from the same dark money donors, and part of an elaborate scheme to upset voting patterns.
In one of those races, District 37, a recount is underway because the spread between the Democratic and Republican candidates is only 31 votes. The third party candidate received more than 6300 votes.
That third party candidate is Alexis Rodriguez, who has the same last name as the Democratic incumbent senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. The Republican challenger is Ileana Garcia.
Alexis Rodriguez falsified his address on his campaign filing form last June. The couple who now live at the Palmetto Bay address say they have been repeatedly harassed since then by people looking for Rodriguez, who hadn’t lived there in five years.
Local 10 visited Rodriguez’s place of business Tuesday, where Rodriguez lied about his identity. Pretending to be a business partner, Rodriguez shed little light on his sudden candidacy in the District 37 race and lack of fundraising or campaigning.
Local 10 began investigating Rodriguez’s candidacy because of a hunch by Executive Producer Natalie Morera de Varona last month. She was collecting candidates' headshots for election broadcast graphics and was curious why a candidate was nowhere to be found, not returning phone calls.
A search of campaign documents filed by Rodriguez led to a money trail and campaign finance connections with other no-party third candidates in Florida Senate District 9 in Central Florida, and District 39 in Miami-Dade.
The District 39 candidate is 81-year-old Celso Alfonso, a retiree who named the woman he calls his wife as campaign treasurer. She owns a day spa, and the home where we found Alfonso Tuesday afternoon.
He, too, lied about his identity at first, and finally admitted to being the candidate.
Alfonso claimed he had a lifelong dream to be in public service. He said he filed on his own, that no one assisted him.
A comparison of candidates Alfonso and Rodriguez show unusual similarities.
Both filed as No Party Affiliated candidates, yet both had recently been registered Republicans.
Both qualified as candidate on the same day, June 12, 2020, by paying a qualifying fee.
Both listed Gmail addresses with identical patterns: first initial, last name and district number and 2020.
Both list one single contribution to their campaign; both contributions are $2000 self-loans, presumably to pay the filing fee.
Both candidates' support appears to come from the same Political Action Committee, “Our Florida” - that have no previous political contributions or expenditures listed. It is the PAC that paid for campaign fliers for the candidates, all done by the same Clermont, Florida mail house, Advance Impressions.
Celso Alfonso gave conflicting answers about campaign fliers, first claiming there were none, then claiming his own campaign paid for them, though that expenditure is not listed in his campaign finance report. An unlisted campaign expenditure could be a campaign finance violation.
That $370,000 PAC expenditure to the printing house on Oct. 5 is the sole expenditure of “Our Florida”. And the PAC’s only contributor is an entity called Proclivity, whose $370,000 contribution is listed two days earlier.
Proclivity lists an address that traces back to a mailbox in a UPS Store in Atlanta.
Florida law allows the group to keep people behind its money private.
Local 10 News could not locate any businesses registered in Florida or Georgia under the name Proclivity.
The end of the money trail leaves no information on who is ultimately funding at least three candidates for Florida Senate who did no campaigning and no fundraising, whose presence in the race might have recalculated the number of voters who cast votes for the Democrats in the race.
Alex Rodriguez received 3% of the D37 vote, more than 6300 votes. The race, currently in recount, has a margin of .02 between the Democrat incumbent and Republican challenger.
The race for D39 was decided by 12.3 percent, a large enough margin to make Celso Alfonso’s 1.5 percent of the vote moot.
https://www.local10.com/news/local/...-candidates-were-plants-funded-by-dark-money/
That was interesting, thanks. It's rare that anything is actually learned when you are cleaning shit that is being perpetually flung at a wall in the hope that some sticks.
So, like the collection of gobshites in this thread , would you say there's no evidence of fraud in the election ?
There was clearly an attempt at syphoning votes in this case.
So there is evidence of shady shit going on.
You know full well I said I didn't vouch for the maths on that site. And I was right. Another dantes was right shocker is all you've proved today.
Indeed, dantes basically intimated that the inconsistencies with Benford's law could not be 'explained away'. And yet, here they are being readily explained away. Poor the dantes.
-1 dantes social credit.
What an attempt. That's just top grade electoral fraud, printing off a bunch of fake ballots is dumb street robbery shit. This type of syphoning of votes is akin to high level mafia stuff that you just need to sit back and admire.
I can live with that. The explaining away made me hopeful about the future of data science, for a few brief moments.
I actually had a look and that is the total funding, the rewards themselves are limited to $25k maximum per person. You almost got Rosco suicided over $25k and a couple of social credits.
We win!
The way the court works is Schmidt would provide a sworn affidavit to that effect, then his cross-examination would go:
(1) Did you witness every single vote which was counted in the state? No.
(2) So on what basis do you testify that there was no corruption? The election commissioner reported this to me.
(3) Did the election commissioner witness every single vote which was counted in the state? No.
(4) Did the election commissioner witness any of the votes we say are illegal being counted? No.
(5) No further questions.
And that's it. He's just on the fake news to deliver irrelevant propaganda to your brain.
Similar threads
