This is why I was skeptical of the Brian Cates article where he dismisses digital fraud and shifts the focus to ballot harvesting. It was clearly both, or all of the above. Maybe he is just a poor persuasive writer, but anyone discounting the impact of the voting machines lacks credibility.
Completely agree with you. Remember the video where they pull out ballots from under the table after sending everybody home due to a made up water main leak? I seem to remember they ran the same stack of ballots multiple times, this alone should be straight up video evidence that the machines facilitate fraud, as they are clearly programmed in such a way as to allow the same ballot to be run through and actually be counted multiple times. I suppose the counter argument would be they had to run them through multiple times due to errors, though it should be easy enough to look back at footage earlier in the day and see that they didn't need to run ballots multiple times just a few hours ago. Even if it is just an "error" (which it obviously isnt), it seems to me that it should require far more investigation than a simple wave of the hand "debunked".
It is highlighting the '3' in the previous sentence. That is, the first statement says someone has come forward. Then he says, "that makes 3." The response is essentially, "Wait. What? '3'! You mean there are two more than the one you just told us about? Why has nothing happened yet!?"
When they say election security, they mean their ability to secure the win for themselves. Not that elections themselves are insecure because everyone knows they are. Doublespeak...
California had about 12 million votes in 2016. It increased the vote total to 17.5 million votes by 2020. 45% increase from 2016->2020. California is loosing people during the same period.
And that's just the changed votes... doesn't count the fabricated fraudulent votes, or the harvested ballots.
or the containers of trump votes that ended up at the dump
Maybe that's what they meant by dump Trump. Perchance we missed those comms
This is why I was skeptical of the Brian Cates article where he dismisses digital fraud and shifts the focus to ballot harvesting. It was clearly both, or all of the above. Maybe he is just a poor persuasive writer, but anyone discounting the impact of the voting machines lacks credibility.
I agree 100%
Yeah that was the whole Italy and Lucifer satellites and shit was about.
Completely agree with you. Remember the video where they pull out ballots from under the table after sending everybody home due to a made up water main leak? I seem to remember they ran the same stack of ballots multiple times, this alone should be straight up video evidence that the machines facilitate fraud, as they are clearly programmed in such a way as to allow the same ballot to be run through and actually be counted multiple times. I suppose the counter argument would be they had to run them through multiple times due to errors, though it should be easy enough to look back at footage earlier in the day and see that they didn't need to run ballots multiple times just a few hours ago. Even if it is just an "error" (which it obviously isnt), it seems to me that it should require far more investigation than a simple wave of the hand "debunked".
lets also not forget the truck containers full of trump ballots that ended up at the dumps
Missing 1
Missing 2
Missing 3
FIND missing [3].
Future proves past.
NOTHING is a coincidence.
Q post 520. If you post a q post, please give the number of the post so others can go look or link to it. https://qagg.news/?q=%23%23520
It is highlighting the '3' in the previous sentence. That is, the first statement says someone has come forward. Then he says, "that makes 3." The response is essentially, "Wait. What? '3'! You mean there are two more than the one you just told us about? Why has nothing happened yet!?"
I was wondering that as well...
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/biden-administration-asks-court-not-release-dominion-voting-systems
Is there a tweet of Giuliani saying this or just this created picture?
NCSWIC
C H 3 NOW maybe C =see Mirror H3 = HE And NOW = WON
SEE HE WON!
When they say election security, they mean their ability to secure the win for themselves. Not that elections themselves are insecure because everyone knows they are. Doublespeak...
It will all come out, with out the potato's help.
It threatens [their] "election security" (cheating).
California had about 12 million votes in 2016. It increased the vote total to 17.5 million votes by 2020. 45% increase from 2016->2020. California is loosing people during the same period.
This is just recorded votes. This means the state added more than 9 million 18+ old people during the same period.
You mean it would threaten election INsecurity!
3+8+3+3 = 17 - just a coincidence.