Tracy Beanz with Tim Canova, the Dem who tried to take down Wasserman-Schultz in Florida District 23

Democrat Tim Canova ran against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz two times: once at a Democrat in 2016 and this year as an Independent. Both times he faile. But he might have successed, but for such an astonishing degree of DS meddling that it boggles the mind. This interview reveals corruption in Florida State politics involving both parties and multiple government agencies. When Canova tried to get to the bottom of the problem, he found that just about every governmental body which is supposed to ensure a free and fair election in his district is totally compromised. Example: When he sued to get access to the paper ballots in the 2016 election, Brenda Snipes responded by burning the ballots–apparently with impunity.

Truly a MUST WATCH. Good for red-pillling DEMS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq4qGnL-zGc

>>4008237

>>4008251

>>4008316

Have any of you actually WATCHED this video? I'm fucking sick of anons who are too closed minded to actually check out a particular piece of work because they have a general bad impression of someone because of something else the person said or did.

CHECK IT OUT FIRST, THEN CRITICIZE!!!

>>4008629

Don't fuck with me. Defend your argument instead. Better use of time.

>>4008641

Is that all you've got? Ridicule and bullshit?

Anyone that comes on a research board and fails to do the research necessary to refute a claim by another anon is just a lazy son of the bitch, not a researcher.

>>4008716

Thx, partner. I try to judge the merits of an article or video based upon the content. There are plenty of independents who don't endorse Q or did at one time and don't now. Who cares, if their work is good? Even if just some of the work is good?

I still get good leads from Alex Jones, for example. So Q said he's mossad (or people think he said so, anyways). Suppose that's just a piece of disinfo? We can never know for sure.

That's why WE REALLY ARE Q! We have to learn to exercise the same kind of discrimination we see from Q on our own, if we want to be effective researchers.

Some naysayers are shills. The ones I worry about are not quite shills but don't bother to really think about stuff, just make assumptions. I have no patience with this approach to research, it's total BS and hurts our work here. That's why i will always challenge that.

(Most of this is not for you, fren, but a general statement I hope might support our work here.)

>>4008721

Night getting kinda early, isn't it?

>>4008699

Losing argument.