Elections are an additive process — you count the votes — and add them up. Votes should never be going down on live television. Votes should never be switching between candidates on live television. This is election fraud & it happened all across the nation.🔻
GEORGIA🚨
Negative votes & vote switches should *NEVER* happen on your CNN, ABC, & NBC live news feeds. This is according to the data scientist & programmers who presented at the State Senate hearings. They previously worked for the US Navy, the CIA, & Big 4 Accounting Firms.🔻
Elections are an additive process — you count the votes — and add them up. Votes should never be going down on live television. Votes should never be switching between candidates on live television. This is election fraud & it happened all across the nation.🔻
It happened last night.
774,723 - 742,323 = 32,400
32,400 votes subtracted from @Perduesenate live on ABC last night during the Senate Runoff.
2,130,535 - 2,125,535 = 5,000
32,400 votes subtracted from @Perduesenate live on ABC last night during the Senate Runoff.
https://t.co/z9B4oCizCv
More from Kanekoa
*The Election Map*
There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud in all contested states. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.🇺🇸🦅
https://t.co/XP9LQuEPtY
https://t.co/LMeZ6uOfzW
There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud in all contested states. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.🇺🇸🦅
https://t.co/XP9LQuEPtY
*The Evidence Collection*
— Kanekoa (@KanekoaTheGreat) December 29, 2020
There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985
A list below.\U0001f53b pic.twitter.com/x57NgPVhhd
https://t.co/LMeZ6uOfzW
Thread of my threads. pic.twitter.com/KCQ1AOoIn3
— Kanekoa (@KanekoaTheGreat) November 23, 2020
More from Politics
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?