Useless Tree

“The way that can be spoken is not the real way." ~Laozi, Daodejing

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@WarrenFahy Yes, and it means they don’t need to dig up as many fake votes to get a winner.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

If the remaining 38% of votes cast for the LA Mayor are all allocated at the same proportion as the last batch that came in, Nithya Raman will come to within 100 votes of Spencer Pratt.

This is so precise that it appears those doing the counting know the rate at which they need to proportion the votes to eliminate Pratt.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@RepThomasMassie Understood, but what does it mean to be in a cease-fire then?

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@akarlin I had to read that last paragraph 14 times.

[BORED @BoredElonMusk]

Anyone who lives in Los Angeles has probably noticed an uptick this week in work being done.

Power company working, construction on the highway, tree clearing, etc. There's a reason that's happening all of a sudden.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@JDPowPow Yes, the amount of razor-thin races has increased drastically over the recent years.

[Walter Kirn @walterkirn]

What going on now in LA and CA is the electoral equivalent of the Palisades fire. Same people too. If they want to burn your world, they will burn your world. And you will have to apply to them for a permit to come back and visit the ashes.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@Polymarket This might be why: https://t.co/DaT0cxQcKz

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

If the remaining 38% of votes cast for the LA Mayor are all allocated at the same proportion as the last batch that came in, Nithya Raman will come to within 100 votes of Spencer Pratt.

This is so precise that it appears those doing the counting know the rate at which they need to proportion the votes to eliminate Pratt.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@FrankGirardot @walterkirn Thought this was a joke at first....

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@walterkirn They have had a lot of real-time practice and years to fine-tune.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@BrentScher @Kalshi

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@BrentScher @Kalshi Speaking of math:
If the remaining 38% of votes come in at the same proportional allocation as the last batch did, Raman will be within 100 votes of Pratt. She's currently 37,000 votes behind him.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@ianmSC If the remaining 38% of votes come in at the same proportional allocation as the last batch did, Raman will be within 100 votes of Pratt. She's currently 37,000 votes behind him.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@ITGuy1959 Bass and Raman are 3rd World candidates.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@ITGuy1959 Yes, and this is the math behind why the betting markets think Raman will overtake Pratt:

If the remaining 38% of votes come in at the same proportional allocation as the last batch did, Raman will be within 100 votes of Pratt. She's currently 37,000 votes behind him.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@RealJamesWoods Yes, and here is the current math:
If the remaining 38% of votes come in at the same proportional allocation as the last batch did, Raman will be within 100 votes of Pratt. She's currently 37,000 votes behind him.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@nope__nope__ugh @BrentScher @Kalshi Read this, then post another gif.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@GGrimsrud1996 @BrentScher @Kalshi

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@GGrimsrud1996 @BrentScher @Kalshi Yes, see my reply to him.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@seanmdav Yes: https://t.co/DaT0cxQcKz

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

If the remaining 38% of votes cast for the LA Mayor are all allocated at the same proportion as the last batch that came in, Nithya Raman will come to within 100 votes of Spencer Pratt.

This is so precise that it appears those doing the counting know the rate at which they need to proportion the votes to eliminate Pratt.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

@jasonwblakely Searle probably agrees with this latter breakdown.

[Useless Tree @_Useless_Tree_]

Further, a term like "monist materialist" is an oxymoron because the term "materialism" implies that a distinction is made between materialism and something else. And if there is material AND something else, there is no monism.
All such divisions would have to be on a lower level than the whole, and merely conventional, provisional, and artificial. That is, they are ontologically secondary, at best.