-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- - §3O§ -

so does the 10 days of darkness mean Q is silent for 10 days? When was the last drop?

Does it coincide with the DOJ 10 days?

originally posted by: justsaying111
Everyone on the planet knew the fix was in. Trump said it 100s of times.

A guy that couldnt get 20 people to a rally got more votes than JFK Ronald reagan And OBAMA.

If they didnt do enough to stop it when they knew it was happening how can we have faith in anything?

Anyone could knock out a straw man. It takes a real genius to uncover who stuffed him and who keeps propping him back up.

Biden is not the target. The presidency is not the prize. Show the world the swamp and then Drain the swamp. As the water levels are lowering in the swamp more creatures exposed.

originally posted by: panoz77
IT'S TIME TO SH!T OR GET OFF THE POT!!!!!!

Man I took ex lax about 3 days ago and I can’t hold it in much longer. I’m about to explode.

a reply to: justsaying111

Last post, #4949, was on Nov 03 2020, at 01:27:36 - so yes it MAPS to the same 10 days darkness as that before the DOJ can investigate fraud!

Someone needs this today...

Well here we are again folks, it's been a couple of days, and nothing from the Q, nothing from the ghost, nothing from the whatever. Flynn supposedly knows where the bodies are buried, yet has not exposed any of the bodies so that the people can see. Q supposedly has it all, but nothing has been dumped (to be fair though Q did state that it would be dumped at the end). Then there is the whole ghost nonsense with half-assed cryptic messages that kind of hint at something, but really only delivers if you can puzzle piece it into place.

Look folks we are going into a weekend with little to no signs that this issue is going to be resolved, people are getting real antsy about this, and quite frankly this is just like when Q sat by while many cities burned over the summer. This winter is shaping up to be exactly the same. The people like us are going to be put into a situation of not fully knowing what the day will bring, and q, ghost, and whatever will just sit back and feed us crappos as information drops.

I think a lot of people here and else where would probably feel a little less nervous about the situation if that plan we are suppose to be trusting was actually explained to us all. I've asked around and nobody seems to know what "The Plan" is, only that we need to trust it. Seems a little disingenuous for us to trust something without know what it is about. This "plan" is beginning to look like that "Obama care" crappos all over.

So in the end we all need to stay vigilant this weekend all because we haven't been been privy tp some mystery "plan" that may or may not exist. So in the end, without actually knowing what the plan is, we are being asked to stand in the rain and try not to get wet. We should either have an umbrella or we should walk away go back inside. Which serves society better?

WATERMARKS, FRAUD, & MAIL IN BALLOTS

I'm rather intrigued by the watermark theory that is being proposed.
I just want to put some meat on the bones. I don't lay claim to the various information presented, but I've just assembled it here in one place. CREDIT

Firstly this. Patriots/Qs have been encouraged to vote in person. They have been encouraged to ignore covid mind games and go to rallies and to vote on election day (in person). Why would this be?
Where is the real game of voter fraud taking place? What was the new thing that was brought to the table? What has DJT been warning about for so long since it was announced? What has been used to try and steal the election by large numbers of Biden votes turning up at 4am?

Vote by mail.

So, when we're talking about voter fraud and watermarks... which specific ballots are the important ones?

Vote by mail.

So when we're talking about a watermark, the only ballots that were important to verify as legal are the mail in ballots.
That isn't to say there aren't other attempts to scew the vote, but they are coming to light anyway (sharpies etc)

So back to the watermark. Is there any evidence that the mail in ballots could have been watermarked?

Evidence A>


Source

With many states expected to expand mail-in voting for November, experts warn that existing ballot printing services could quickly become overwhelmed.

One of of the biggest such vendors in the country is Runbeck Election Services. The company's 90,000-square-foot facility in Phoenix, Ariz., is already bustling, and things are expected to get a lot busier soon.

"This year we are going to mail probably around 40 to 50 million pieces. We'll print probably close to 80 million, up to 100 million pieces when you count inserts," said Jeff Ellington, the company's president and chief operating officer.

Now, that would seem to infer that a large proportion of the mail in ballots are actually printed from a very minimal few companies. If you read the article, then it is stated that the design of the mail in ballots is determined by each state and sent to them, and then they do all the printing, folding and placing in envelopes. The whole process... minus the name and address of the person to send it to (which is done in state I presume).

So, if mail in voting is printed by a relatively small number of companies, and the process is away from the state, then yes, a watermark IS possible.

Evidence B>

If you follow Q, and kept track of what is being highlighted often, then you should be keenly aware that voter fraud has been highlighted more than once. It IS on the radar. If Q is a military operation and real, then it is safe to assume that this in one direct area that they will be concentrating on.

Q drop 2479 CREDIT



"Who issues 'blank' ballots?"
"Who controls 'blank' ballots?"

Why is "blank" put in inverted commas? Are they really blank? Or is there perhaps something hidden on there?

Evidence C>
You can't be unaware that both Trump and Pence have been highlighting "LEGAL" votes as the ones to be counted.
Yes, there is fraud, and people being given sharpies etc... but what defines a LEGAL ballot? How would they know?





Trump is indicating here, that he knows that there is a defining line between legal and non legal.

Evidence D>

Look at the Q drop again above.



The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of voter fraud now according to Q.

Now look at this article from 2018 LINK


The DHS is stating 2 years ago that ensuring a verifiable result is going to be vital in the 2020 Presidential Election. This doesn't infer watermarking, but this points to the fact that this is very much on their radar. Do you REALLY think that they don't have this covered in some form or the other?

Evidence E>

The official documentation even points to watermarking...

Mail-in Voting: Election Integrity Safeguards LINK CISA.GOV



More from the DHS... they work with the vending community... i.e. The ones who actually supply the ballots.


LINK


So, in conclusion, yes... the idea that they have installed some kind of verification that will secure the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL votes is clear. The most common form of verification on mass produced paper products is watermarking. They could have put holograms on perhaps, and maybe in the future they will...

But. If you are trying to actually catch voter fraud, then you want them to fall into the trap first. If you don't let people act illegally, then there is no evidence, and no one to prosecute.

If you put all the above together (and I'm sure there is more evidence out there) then it isn't hard to imagine that as much as you might worry this election will be stolen, it is in fact safe. If it isn't, then all of these people above have failed to do their job. I'm personally pretty sure that we'll see this play out.

What is "The Plan"? Well, you're watching it.

Catching voter fraud by mail in ballots, versus the encouraged honest voting of all the Trump supporters who turned up to vote in person. The smaller "sharpie" con will be routed out too.. but that is small fish. Have a little faith

ADDENDUM

I just thought I'd add a link (which I'll be honest, I'm not sure who directed me toward this or where) that shows you that even on a domestic printer (the one in your office) has a unique identifier that shows which printer produced what document. Most people are unaware of this.

LINK

This is domestic. Scale that up to industrial.

edit on 6-11-2020 by saladfingers123456 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2020 by saladfingers123456 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: justsaying111

Last post, #4949, was on Nov 03 2020, at 01:27:36 - so yes it MAPS to the same 10 days darkness as that before the DOJ can investigate fraud!

TY... clinging to whatever hope I have left.

a reply to: saladfingers123456

Excellent post. I have sent this to a friend since I’m horrible at explaining. Thank you!!

a reply to: saladfingers123456

A lost a little confidence when I read watermarks are specific to “eash” election.

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: saladfingers123456

A lost a little confidence when I read watermarks are specific to “eash” election.

If you read the yellow highlighted part it is correct spelling. (Each)

a reply to: texasgirl

Thank you that restores 90% of said confidence

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: saladfingers123456

A lost a little confidence when I read watermarks are specific to “eash” election.

Sorry, that was my fault... I'm typing too quickly. I wrote that enlargement out, not the official source... which IS linked.
I have corrected the graphic. I only did that because the person who posted up the original picture obscured the text by covering it in yellow ink!

Sorry about that.

originally posted by: saladfingers123456

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: saladfingers123456

A lost a little confidence when I read watermarks are specific to “eash” election.

Sorry, that was my fault... I'm typing too quickly. I wrote that enlargement out, not the official source... which IS linked.
I have corrected the graphic. I only did that because the person who posted up the original picture obscured the text by covering it in yellow ink!

Sorry about that.

Oh ok. Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t understand what I was looking at.

a reply to: saladfingers123456

This is the best dig I’be seen post-Election Day




IF it’s true... and DHS is involved, it gets Trump out of the way. DHS is the expert. Trust the experts. Use their mantra against them.

They have to come through...

originally posted by: saladfingers123456

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: saladfingers123456

A lost a little confidence when I read watermarks are specific to “eash” election.

Sorry, that was my fault... I'm typing too quickly. I wrote that enlargement out, not the official source... which IS linked.
I have corrected the graphic. I only did that because the person who posted up the original picture obscured the text by covering it in yellow ink!

Sorry about that.

So can you give me any confidence that the dems didn’t already have tons of these watermarked ballots?

Lets hope the recount allows observers or it is more Stalin tactics on the "whoever counts the votes is what matters" comment he made.

originally posted by: Trillium
Per say
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
says "there will be a recount in Georgia".

twitter.com...

a reply to: saladfingers123456

Thanks for that.. It helped a little.

a reply to: justsaying111

Has this been posted?

data.pa.gov...

Scroll down until you find a chart. Select date of birth. And ask youreelf if this is normal.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Lets hope the recount allows observers or it is more Stalin tactics on the "whoever counts the votes is what matters" comment he made.

originally posted by: Trillium
Per say
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
says "there will be a recount in Georgia".

twitter.com...

The National Guard or military should be counting the votes under threat of death if they are caught cheating.