MN Rube Chat

ForCaleb wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:21 pm

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:20 pm His work was banned on social media. Why would that be? Maybe the companies don't want to be associated with a proven fraud.

So put the DVDs out for a dollar, plus shipping. This is a clear and obvious money grab.

You're going to be ok. No one is going to make you watch it.

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Oh jeez.

Spiderman is not pretending to be informational. It's entertainment. The fact that you made that reach comparison shows just how far gone you really are.

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:38 pm

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Oh jeez.

Spiderman is not pretending to be informational. It's entertainment. The fact that you made that reach comparison shows just how far gone you really are.

Okay. Maybe Michael Moore or Al Gore would've been a more appropriate example. I remember paying to see an Inconvenient Truth, and that fuckface Al Gore won an oscar for it. It's okay for him to charge, but not anyone else.

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:38 pm

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Oh jeez.

Spiderman is not pretending to be informational. It's entertainment. The fact that you made that reach comparison shows just how far gone you really are.

Okay. Maybe Michael Moore or Al Gore would've been a more appropriate example. I remember paying to see an Inconvenient Truth, and that fuckface Al Gore won an oscar for it. It's okay for him to charge, but not anyone else.

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:38 pm

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Oh jeez.

Spiderman is not pretending to be informational. It's entertainment. The fact that you made that reach comparison shows just how far gone you really are.

Okay. Maybe Michael Moore or Al Gore would've been a more appropriate example. I remember paying to see an Inconvenient Truth, and that fuckface Al Gore won an oscar for it. It's okay for him to charge, but not anyone else.

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:38 pm

Sidewinder2k2 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:22 pm

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Oh jeez.

Spiderman is not pretending to be informational. It's entertainment. The fact that you made that reach comparison shows just how far gone you really are.

Okay. Maybe Michael Moore or Al Gore would've been a more appropriate example. I remember paying to see an Inconvenient Truth, and that fuckface Al Gore won an oscar for it. It's okay for him to charge, but not anyone else.

Hornets wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pm Let's get back to the fact that this is damning evidence that proves the election was not fair....

Ask Not wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 pm

Hornets wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pm Let's get back to the fact that this is damning evidence that proves the election was not fair....

Will you please walk us through it?
Thank you, Hornets. Appreciate you.

Night Train wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:18 pm Dammit, why can't we see Spiderman for free? If they really wanted everyone to see it, they'd make it free derp derp. Feel sorry for all those saps that paid to see Spiderman.

Ask Not wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 pm

Hornets wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pm Let's get back to the fact that this is damning evidence that proves the election was not fair....

Will you please walk us through it?
Thank you, Hornets. Appreciate you.

mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:51 pm I just finished watching the documentary.

The claims are pretty compelling if they actually have the evidence they claim they have: namely, video of these individual "mules" that are linked by geo tracking data and video data at the drop boxes placing multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes. Even some of the anecdotal video is pretty suggestive- there is a woman who breezes up to the drop box wearing gloves, turns around and walks to a trash can she did not even look at on her approach and throws the gloves into the trash or the people dropping off ballots in these drop boxes and then taking a pic of the box (to prove they dropped off the ballots so they can be paid). Who wears gloves just to make a drop at a ballot box? Who takes pictures of a ballot drop box?

But the weakness of the presentation is they do not show this. They show the clips, but they never showed video of a person going to more than one drop box. They claim in the 400 million minutes of video they have this but it is never shown in the released documentary.

Because of this, there is not sufficient evidence presented in the released documentary to make a real case. I believe there was a huge amount of ballot harvesting in the 2020 election with the millions of unsolicited ballots mailed out to voters, many of whom no longer existed at the address they had on the voter rolls (who fights keeping accurate voting rolls?). But, if I had to make a jury vote of "guilty or not guilty", unless they presented information not presented in the released documentary I would vote "not guilty" because they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case.

Slap Shot wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:44 am

Ask Not wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 pm

Hornets wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pm Let's get back to the fact that this is damning evidence that proves the election was not fair....

Will you please walk us through it?
Thank you, Hornets. Appreciate you.

He hasn't watched it either.

Has there been a single credible media source on the planet that has deemed it credible?

Bull wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 8:11 am

mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:51 pm I just finished watching the documentary.

The claims are pretty compelling if they actually have the evidence they claim they have: namely, video of these individual "mules" that are linked by geo tracking data and video data at the drop boxes placing multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes. Even some of the anecdotal video is pretty suggestive- there is a woman who breezes up to the drop box wearing gloves, turns around and walks to a trash can she did not even look at on her approach and throws the gloves into the trash or the people dropping off ballots in these drop boxes and then taking a pic of the box (to prove they dropped off the ballots so they can be paid). Who wears gloves just to make a drop at a ballot box? Who takes pictures of a ballot drop box?

But the weakness of the presentation is they do not show this. They show the clips, but they never showed video of a person going to more than one drop box. They claim in the 400 million minutes of video they have this but it is never shown in the released documentary.

Because of this, there is not sufficient evidence presented in the released documentary to make a real case. I believe there was a huge amount of ballot harvesting in the 2020 election with the millions of unsolicited ballots mailed out to voters, many of whom no longer existed at the address they had on the voter rolls (who fights keeping accurate voting rolls?). But, if I had to make a jury vote of "guilty or not guilty", unless they presented information not presented in the released documentary I would vote "not guilty" because they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case.

So they don’t even show the most compelling evidence they say they have?



A fool and his money….

Beef Supreme wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:14 pm

Bull wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 8:11 am

mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:51 pm I just finished watching the documentary.

The claims are pretty compelling if they actually have the evidence they claim they have: namely, video of these individual "mules" that are linked by geo tracking data and video data at the drop boxes placing multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes. Even some of the anecdotal video is pretty suggestive- there is a woman who breezes up to the drop box wearing gloves, turns around and walks to a trash can she did not even look at on her approach and throws the gloves into the trash or the people dropping off ballots in these drop boxes and then taking a pic of the box (to prove they dropped off the ballots so they can be paid). Who wears gloves just to make a drop at a ballot box? Who takes pictures of a ballot drop box?

But the weakness of the presentation is they do not show this. They show the clips, but they never showed video of a person going to more than one drop box. They claim in the 400 million minutes of video they have this but it is never shown in the released documentary.

Because of this, there is not sufficient evidence presented in the released documentary to make a real case. I believe there was a huge amount of ballot harvesting in the 2020 election with the millions of unsolicited ballots mailed out to voters, many of whom no longer existed at the address they had on the voter rolls (who fights keeping accurate voting rolls?). But, if I had to make a jury vote of "guilty or not guilty", unless they presented information not presented in the released documentary I would vote "not guilty" because they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case.

So they don’t even show the most compelling evidence they say they have?



A fool and his money….

Gotta save something for the sequel: “2,001 Mules!”



What’s a better grift than charging idiots $24.99 to watch bullshit?


Charging them $49.98 to watch it twice!

Hornets wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:04 pm

Slap Shot wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:44 am

Ask Not wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 pm

Will you please walk us through it?
Thank you, Hornets. Appreciate you.

He hasn't watched it either.

Has there been a single credible media source on the planet that has deemed it credible?

Watched it start to finish and it was absolutely damning for liberals. You won't watch it, your attention span is about 10 seconds.

thinktank wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:20 pm Yeah, whatabout BLM?!

Coach Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:29 am

thinktank wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:20 pm Yeah, whatabout BLM?!

Sorry for your loss. Maybe they will send you a picture of one of their mansions you sponsored.

Coach Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:29 am

thinktank wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:20 pm Yeah, whatabout BLM?!

Sorry for your loss. Maybe they will send you a picture of one of their mansions you sponsored.

Coach Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:29 am

thinktank wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:20 pm Yeah, whatabout BLM?!

Sorry for your loss. Maybe they will send you a picture of one of their mansions you sponsored.

Gork wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:54 am And the moon is a lie!

Slap Shot wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:08 am

Hornets wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:04 pm

Slap Shot wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:44 am

He hasn't watched it either.

Has there been a single credible media source on the planet that has deemed it credible?

Watched it start to finish and it was absolutely damning for liberals. You won't watch it, your attention span is about 10 seconds.

No one believes you.

mlhouse wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:51 pm I just finished watching the documentary.

The claims are pretty compelling if they actually have the evidence they claim they have: namely, video of these individual "mules" that are linked by geo tracking data and video data at the drop boxes placing multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes. Even some of the anecdotal video is pretty suggestive- there is a woman who breezes up to the drop box wearing gloves, turns around and walks to a trash can she did not even look at on her approach and throws the gloves into the trash or the people dropping off ballots in these drop boxes and then taking a pic of the box (to prove they dropped off the ballots so they can be paid). Who wears gloves just to make a drop at a ballot box? Who takes pictures of a ballot drop box?

But the weakness of the presentation is they do not show this. They show the clips, but they never showed video of a person going to more than one drop box. They claim in the 400 million minutes of video they have this but it is never shown in the released documentary.

Because of this, there is not sufficient evidence presented in the released documentary to make a real case. I believe there was a huge amount of ballot harvesting in the 2020 election with the millions of unsolicited ballots mailed out to voters, many of whom no longer existed at the address they had on the voter rolls (who fights keeping accurate voting rolls?). But, if I had to make a jury vote of "guilty or not guilty", unless they presented information not presented in the released documentary I would vote "not guilty" because they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case.