>>3881054

dude face it, it's not a fucking obvious sting… it would look a lot different than it does right now if it was.

every loss or bad thing that happens is "oh but its actually GOOD for us!!! dont worry! sit back and enjoy the show" ect ect

These are cult tactics. Turn any negative toward your ideology into an actual positive, it only seems negative because you have little faith!

Straight out of Jeovah Witnesses or Heaven's Gate. Fucking hell anons. Fuck that. I'm here to do research and cultivate an intelligence board. Not preach cult tactics.

>>3881229

as I said in my post, I'm here to do research, but then I see shit like this and have to call it out. You are blatantly using cult tactics in trying to sway anons into lulling back to sleep again and not researching any irregularities with the election

>>3881246

I'm telling you to keep researching shit with the election and to stop believing every loss is a fucking win. Where are the autists?

>>3881274

no that's not a fucking cult tactic. stop being pedantic. realize what the fuck you are doing and fix yourself.

im out

>>3881285

This stage is known as bargaining, when the ideology starts to visibly show holes and lack of reasoning. Do you ever even second guess yourself?

>>3881293

Are anons going to just stop researching the election fraud all together now? FFS

we not in here

this is not the night shift I know. no autists, and anons eating up this garbage: >>3881054

Like it's gospel.

Ah yes, take the L we got in the elections and turn it around into a W, and if you don't believe, YE OF LITTLE FAITH!!

>>3881338

At the end of the day, it's a States rights ordeal. DHS running sting operations within States electing their own reps, would be unconstitutional and we all fucking know it. So if you believe this is what happened, good fucking luck getting away with it. If it is a sting and everything goes the way the previous anon lays out, it would be safe to say we now are in dictatorship area. Which I'm sure many anons would be ok with given our leader, but many wouldn't be. You get this right? If the federal gov ran a sting operation on the States, trampling the constitution in the process, AND get away with it. Ye. I think you get it now.

>>3881361

not to mention, the next liberal president on will use the same "sting" operation to indict their political opponents and keep themselves from losing, accusing them of voter fraud.

I do think the dems cheat, but think about what having the Fed's run stings and alter State elections will look like once it's common place.

I know some of you here have enough fucking foresight to at least see that

The only way sting ops could work is if they are ran by the state level on their own elections.

>>3881389

lmao so you believe the feds ran sting ops in dem states, against the constitutional rights of each state to govern itsself, and believe they will get away with it…

No constitutionalist here? No originalists?

>>3881392

so I can mark you down as anti constitution, and pro dictatorship. makes sense the theory you proposed before then. Thank you for being honest and exposing!

>>3881412

>states rights don't trump federal executive branch mandates

Yes yes they do… 10th Amendment, re read it.

Or any plethora of case law on this subject.

Look I want to think this shit is a WIN for us too. but think of all the shit you have to trample over in order to make it so. And the vast majority of the public would not buy it. Good luck with this theory anons.

All Q has said is there is indeed voter fraud. We all fucking know this. But this has to be handled at the State level, like Texas indicting those that committed fraud in our election.

https://cbs12.com/news/nation-world/five-people-arrested-by-texas-ags-office-for-voter-fraud

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article220540115.html

>>3881460

I'm not against States indicting and going after voter fraud, obviously. I just sauced you two cases of such.

I am against the fucking FEDS rolling up in STATE ELECTIONS and running STING OPS. IMAGINE THIS BEING DONE BY A LIBERAL FAGGOT PRESIDENT AND TOSSING OUT ALL REPUBLICAN VOTES. WE KNOW HOW FUCKED UP THEY ARE, if this was done it will be turned around and used against us 10 fold.

>>3881475

Dude it was not a fucking federal election. there is honestly no such thing as a federal election. The closest thing you get to a 'federal election' is indirect elections for the president through the electoral collect. ALL ELSE IS HANDLED BY THE STATES

>>3881499

yeah write me off as a division shill cause im willing to actually discuss what it means when the feds run sting ops on the states. if you can't even entertain the idea of what that would mean going forward in our country, then there's no real point in discussing it with you. you will listen and believe with no analysis or critical thinking.

Believe what you want

>>3881511

ok so now we are getting somewhere!

Feds running monitoring in tandem with State officials to scour for voter fraud. This is actually a normal occurrence and happens every election. Here is the DHS doing this in the 2016 presidential election

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/election-2016-tracking-reports-voting-problems-across-united-states-n673236

The DHS deploying to help monitor the election is normal happenstance. Not grounds for a STING OP theory

>>3881525

I would be okay with this if the states agreed and carried out all operations, only with support from the Fed.

Problem is, do you really think states like California would agreed and help in such cases? The dots don't connect.

The DHS deploying monitoring services/resources is normal.

>>3881549

>hurr durr ur stupid and/or shill, i cant refute the points your making or understand your argument so I resort to the typical bullshit chan response

Yeah, great one there kiddo!

>>3881555

The only jurisdiction that provides is PROSECUTION. Like it always has. Not jurisdictional grounds to run sting ops, or any operation at all other than monitoring.

>>3881565

Not a backpedal, it was you who agreed that it would be done by states, which has been my argument the entire time. I was happy to see you come my way.

There is a very LARGE veil between monitoring an election in cooperation with States, and running a Federal sting operation within a deeply Democrat state. Reconcile

>>3881572

So, if I understand you correct anon, you are merging the mil tribunal theory, with the fed sting op on elections theory.

In that, the Federal Government already successfully held tribunals and declared certain election officials at the state level and candidates as enemy combatants. Am I understanding you correctly?

>>3881582

see >>3881561

read the whole fucking sentence.

>>3881591

I'm willing to mull that over for awhile. Well put.

>>3881592

yeah think logically, no deals, ect ect other buzz words. DHS monitors every election bud, its nothing new. Sauced in my previous posts. The only anon that has any actual meat on the bones of the theory is this anon: >>3881572

Meanwhile you just sit here regurgitating platitudes and declaring who you think is or isn't an anon.

>>3881614

>>3881555 Federal jurisdiction for prosectuion easily established when federal candidate(s) on the ballot.

without the 'for prosecution' clause it is misleading.

Shout out to the anons who were willing to actually discuss the issues and make common ground, in that the feds couldnt run a sting op, unless a previous military tribunal was carried out, or it was operationally completely 100 percent by the States and only monitoring services by the Feds

To all the anons who just mindlessly regurgitate "trust the plan, think logically, you're a shill, you're stupid''' because I'm willing to actually discuss and hammering things out,

FUCK OFF

>>3881632

Yeah clearly believing the fed can openly run sting operations and then cherry picking half a sentence from the constitution is totally smert, you are such a smert cookie.

Fuck off with that shit.

If you faggots ever actual cared about running analysis you would actually bring shit to the table when a competing view comes on board, instead of using shit "concern faggot, sliding POS"

I was on topic and gave numerous sauces to back my points, you on the other hand are mindless.

>>3881641

emotional butt hurt? because I successfully refuted the main theory running on the board, resulting in anons actually researching said theory and changing it after? nah, feel like proper analysis was actually carried out. not that you would understand.

This is how the board used to operate a look like back in the day. Not that you would know.

>>3881656

No you used the wrong part of the constitution, and tried to apply it to the DHS running a sting operation. The part of the constitution you linked

>"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators."

would require a new legislation for said sting operation for house reps, which didn't happen, and doesn't apply to the senate.

you should listen to this anon here: >>3881655

and then review the historical problems that are associated with "section 5 enforcement" as it's known.

The only way around this is military tribunals as laid out by this anon here: >>3881572

>>3881695

you have absolutely no understand of how constitutional law plays out, or historical precedence.

You can make up a lot of federal jurisdiction by only taking a few sentences out of context. Congrats! Sure does make ya feel good!

But doesn't make you right.

>>3881701

I can agree with this, up to the point of

>jurisdicition to investigate matters related to election of federal candidates.

Not exactly, but I know what you meant. and will agree with the sentiment that we don't know, and would urge caution in believing the theory "it's all sorted out and they are going down" essentially as repeated across this bread numerous times.