Anonymous ID: fd9aab Nov. 2, 2018, 9:17 p.m. No.3709772   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>9857 >>9975

I don't usually quote The National Inquirer, but when I doโ€ฆ.

 

THERE'S A REALLY GOOD REASON!

 

The Conner got beat bad in the ratings department, and the NE has just the right tone for this sort of little "revenge" pieceโ€ฆ.

 

Maybe this is old news, but I haven't seen it here, so here this is, for your enjoyment;

 

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/roseanne-barr-conners-ratings-scandal-comeback/

Anonymous ID: fd9aab Nov. 2, 2018, 9:41 p.m. No.3710029   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>3709590

 

Both links worked.

 

On the first one, I got distracted by the Conner's lousy ratings, and made a post instead on that.

 

Second one I readโ€“wow. Is it common knowledge that it was not legal to check on voter fraud before this year?

Anonymous ID: fd9aab Nov. 2, 2018, 9:53 p.m. No.3710165   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>3709739

 

Just my opinion, but in the end, it's not about proofs. It's about the only possible chance to turn things around. This is the only game in town, and it looks a LOT better than anything I've seen before.