Prash

[Prash @iPrash]

Minute Cryptic - 9 June, 2026
"Odd fellow can’t even swim!" (5)
🟣🟣🟣🟣🟣🟣🟣🟣
🏆 0 hints – 1 under the community par (177,513 solvers so far).
https://t.co/XzEirTtz28

[Classical Studies Memes @CSMFHT]

Absolute banger

[Flopping Aces @FloppingAces]

Mail-in voting didn’t just create new opportunities for fraud. It destroyed the single most important thing that has ever kept this republic functioning: the willingness of the losing side to accept the result and continue living under the government that beat them.

For most of American history we understood something basic. Republics don’t survive because the winners are virtuous. They survive because the losers still believe the contest was real enough to respect. That belief didn’t appear by accident. It was built on physical presence, secret ballots, visible processes, and the ability to know ... with reasonable certainty ... who actually voted and under what conditions.

Mail-in voting burned that down on purpose. It moved the entire act of voting out of any controlled environment and into the hands of whoever could collect, mark, and deliver ballots with the least scrutiny.

Signature rules became jokes. Marks replaced signatures. Ballots got routed through centralized hubs where third parties could handle them in bulk. And when the numbers looked off, the response from the people running the system was always the same: trust us.

We are now at the point where large numbers of Americans no longer believe that. Not because they’re paranoid, but because the system itself no longer produces the kind of verifiable process that used to make losing tolerable.

Once enough people decide the outcome was manufactured rather than earned, the republic stops being a government by consent and starts becoming something else entirely.

That’s not a future problem. That’s the condition we’re already in. And pretending otherwise is how you finish the job.
(article below)

[Mister Knauf 👹🌎 @daniel_knauf]

This is a very troubling video. Raman delivers a tearful concession because she’s clearly so far behind in the vote that her campaign team has obviously informed her that, given the numbers, she has a ZERO chance of placing in the primary.

How do I know this? Because those are the ONLY circumstances under which a team of campaign operatives would put their client through the humiliation of a public acknowledgment of defeat.

And yet…

Her “miraculous” comeback and the undebatable fact that the election is fixed, however, is the *least* disturbing aspect of this video.

Far, far darker is this:

Unless the concession was an orchestrated “fake out” (very unlikely) the candidates themselves—and their teams—are unaware that the elections are rigged.

Which means that the puppetmasters who engineer the outcome are more powerful than not only the voters, but the leadership itself—that the electoral process in California—and an increasing number of blue states, are just elaborate theater staged by shadowy, wealthy, powerful individuals who are self-appointed, de facto monarchs.

For you “No Kings” guys, this is even worse than a king. A king has a name. A king has a face. A king is accountable.

These creeps who are actually running the show do so with complete anonymity and immunity.

This is, boys and girls, the most dangerous form of government imaginable.

[Jake Langbecker @jake_langbecker]

My mayor muslim
My bagel jewish
My saturday night live
Knicks in five

[DukeNukem96 @DukeNukem1996]

Well it helps that the 33rd is subsidizing the other 32's expenses.

[Prash @iPrash]

“Studio apartment with good ventilation and easy access to freeway.”

[Lee (Greater) @shortmagsmle]

> woman in California registers dog to vote
> successfully casts multiple mail-in ballots
> “gets caught” by turning herself in; says she was trying to prove a point
> gets arrested, awaiting sentencing
> Governor of California takes a victory lap re:election security
> tfw

[Prash @iPrash]

With Serena back on the court, it’s time to bring back the OG! 🙏🏽

[Serena Serelena @SerenaSerelena]

Serena Williams. சரி இல்லனா?

[Ram @ramprasad_c]

Yes, Britain famously transferred wealth to India. When British arrived in India its share of the world economy was 4%. When they left in 1947, they had taken it to 23%, roughly equal to all of Europe combined.
On a serious note.
The Indian railways were financed entirely by bonds sold on the London Stock Exchange. British investors were guaranteed a return of 5% per annum by the colonial government. A guaranteed return, in an era when no other safe investment in Britain offered anything close. And who guaranteed those returns? Indian taxpayers. Indians paid for the construction. Indians paid the guaranteed profits to British shareholders. Indians paid for the equipment, which was manufactured exclusively in Britain and shipped to India at inflated prices. One mile of Indian railway cost twice what the same mile cost to build in Canada or Australia, because the guaranteed return meant there was no incentive to control costs. The more it cost, the more British investors and suppliers earned.

And what were these railways designed to do? Move raw materials from India’s interior to ports. Cotton from the Deccan to Bombay. Jute from Bengal to Calcutta. Coal from Bihar to wherever the Empire needed it. Tea from Assam to London’s drawing rooms. The routes connected mines and plantations to harbors. Not cities to cities. Not people to opportunities. Raw materials to ships. The Indian public’s transportation needs were, as Shashi Tharoor put it, entirely incidental.

Oh, and the railways also moved troops. Very efficiently. So that when Indians protested being looted, the British could deploy soldiers to shoot them. That was the other “infrastructure investment.”

But wait, there is more. Before the railways, India had the world’s finest textile industry. The British smashed the looms, broke the weavers’ thumbs (this is not metaphor, this is documented history), imposed tariffs on Indian cloth, and shipped raw cotton to Manchester to be manufactured into garments that were then sold back to Indians. India went from being the world’s largest textile exporter to an importer of British cloth within a generation.

The Bengal Famine of 1943 killed an estimated 3 million people. Churchill diverted food supplies from Bengal to already well-supplied British troops and European stockpiles. When informed of the famine, his response, on the record, was to ask why Gandhi had not died yet. This is the “infrastructure investor” Musk is defending.

India contributed 2.5 million soldiers to fight in two World Wars on Britain’s behalf.

So let us summarize the colonial “investment” in India. They took a 23% global economy and left it at 4%. They destroyed the world’s finest textile industry. They built railways with Indian money, for Indian resources, generating British profits. They engineered famines that killed millions. They drained an estimated $45 trillion in today’s value over 200 years.
That’s some unprofitable adventure.

[Prash @iPrash]

I’ll accept it

https://t.co/kEq40WK4EP

[Prash @iPrash]

What rhymes with 5? 😭😭😭

[Prash @iPrash]

What rhymes with 5? 😭😭😭

[LakeShowYo @LakeShowYo]

Knicks fans are insane 😭😭😭

“My Mayor is Muslim, my bagel is Jewish, my Christian’s Dior… Knicks in 4!!!”

[Prash @iPrash]

Hey British Museum - please steal these as well and keep them safe. We don’t deserve anything nice.

[thirdmainroad @thirdmainroad]

⚠️ DISASTER AT MADRAS MUSEUM! ⚠️

Priceless ancient artifacts dating back to the 3rd century & earlier are being treated like worthless junk. Rushed renovation work is happening directly on top of & around these irreplaceable treasures, leaving beautiful historical sculptures buried under construction pipes, rubble, and heavy machinery as seen in attached images and videos!

[Mike Bales 🫡🇺🇸 @MikeBales]

Kids have safety scissors now.
But back in the day, we were totally allowed to use the classroom guillotine at 10 years old.

[Tom Sauer @thomasbsauer]

The late, great @ScottAdamsSays once told us (paraphrasing):

If the odds of getting caught cheating are very low, and the consequences of getting caught are minimal, then the odds of cheating happening *somewhere* approach 100%.

Food for thought.

[PoIiMath @politicalmath]

I mostly agree with this with the following caveat:

It might not be legal fraud to grab 1,000 ballots, mark your favorite candidate, and have a homeless person sign it with a smiley face

But it is a moral fraud because you've just disenfranchised 1000 voters who actually care about their vote, care about the results, care about their city

If that is what is happening (which seems likely) then it calls into question the very nature of representative democracy. Why do we even have a vote if the vote result isn't determined by individuals but by NGOs who can harvest as many votes as they want using these strategies?

[The Kaipullai @thekaipullai]

All this talk about Governmental corruption makes me think of the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who in 2004 fired the entire police department, dissolved pointless ministries and sacked 60000 civil servants..

And instead of Georgia becoming a max type of lawless dystopia, over the next 10 years, its GDP went up by 70%, corruption almost vanished and per capita income tripled.

So Yeah

[goma @soigomaa]

Free my man

[Disgraced Propagandist @DisgracedProp]

Somebody else needs to help me do this with charts and graphs but I’ll try with words first.

- In a normal election, you have 2 candidates, R & L. People cast votes. Proportionally, the votes of each candidate rise and fall in little chunks but take an overall steady line due to the force of averages. One of the lines eventually tops out, and that candidate wins on election night.

- In a mail in election, you have 2 candidates R & L. In this instance, some mail ins (if allowed) may come in after Election Day. But still, due to the force of averages, their lines with have little ups and downs but maintain a steady upward trajectory both during and after the election until one wins.

Now it has become the norm that after the election in mail in states, Dem candidates tend to go from tied or losing to drastically ahead AFTER the election, against the force of averages. How?

There are two legal, non fraudulent explanations:

1) that “Dems vote late by mail.” Dubious, considering that it used to be that Rs were known as absentee voters, but technically possible that for some never explained reason, Ds vote later than Rs by mail and that explains the statistical anomaly of why Dems lines shoot up after Election Day.

2) ballot harvesting. The far more likely explanation. Legal in California, this is when huge amounts of ballots are collected by political activists (unions, NGOs etc) and submitted on behalf of large populations of people in churches, workplaces etc. Both sides do it, but it is technically possible that Dems are much better at it. This is how insiders explain the “red mirage” statistical anomalies in 2020 and that have become so common since. Also explains why the prediction markets clinched Raman as winning while she was still down.

However, there is something different happening in Pratt v Bass election. A third candidate, a second, much less popular and less well known Dem is in the race, Nithya Raman. And this time, the late mail in ballots—mailed on Election Day or just before which is why they are “late mail in”—didn’t go to “the dems” they went specifically to Nithya Raman. Pratt stayed flat. Bass stayed flat. Nithya went way up after the initial count was reported. Unprecedented.

Oddly, the mail in mailed any time before Election Day did not favor nithya at all. Only the late mail ins counted after initial numbers were reported massively favored her. So we’re meant to believe that Nithya voters specifically voted not just by mail by late by mail, while the other Dem and Pratt voters did not. Bass voters stopped voting late mail in entirely, as they had last election against caruso, and Nithya voters started?

Could it be “Dems vote late by mail?” No, because then both Nithya and Bass, both Dems, would have risen at roughly the same rate, only without Pratt. But nithya massively over performed just enough to oust pratt, which would not have been possible had she and bass split the votes.

Could it be ballot harvesting? Also no. You can harvest a church or workplace and predict roughly that your harvested votes will favor Dems, but how could you feasibly predict which Dem out of two? Nithya’s support, always squarely in third place during the polls, is mostly educated white women, definitely not the type to vote late or be harvested. But that’s actually besides the point. How could a vote harvester, who is supposedly delivering filled out and sealed ballots from a constituency the harvester believes will lean left, know which left wing candidate this or that batch favors? And moreover, why would they then send only those batches after the election, while submitting all the other mail in ballots for bass before the election?

Occams Razor points to the much simpler explanation. Whoever is harvesting the votes isn’t just harvesting them, they’re somehow controlling the votes themselves, whether by filling them out or throwing away competing votes they don’t like. This is the definition of voter fraud.