Election 2016: The Recount, Starring Jill Stein Of The Green Party

Submitted by: fancylad 8 months ago in News & Politics
jill-stein-recount

I'm not sure how many people were aware of this, but the Green Party's Jill Stein (she was that party's candidate for POTUS) headed a Thanksgiving fundraiser to raise funds to back a pricey recount of Wisconsin, a state Trump eked out a win with 27,000 votes, earning 10 electoral points.

Welp, as of this morning, the Green Party's $5 million fundraising efforts got backing by the Clinton campaign who announced that they will assist in this recount, as well as the recount of other key states.

Bad idea. Really bad idea as no one wins, no matter what the outcome is. Imagine what happens if the recount proves Clinton not only won the popular vote (which she won by 2 million-plus votes, and counting), but the electoral vote as well. Trump voters would go apeshit. A-P-E-S-H-I-T!

This is just my opinion, but the bell has been rung, and there's no unringing it. Give the win to Trump and let conservatives and Republicans -- especially Republicans under the poverty line -- find out what a Trump presidency will mean to them.

It's sort of like the article @butterrules posted yesterday -- the one about Malcolm McLaren's son burning £5 million worth of Sex Pistols and punk rock memoribilia. McLaren's son has become so disgusted with the state of modern punk, his answer is to destroy its history and start all over again. I can understand that and I can get behind it to a point. I'd rather he give it to me -- I've give all that cool shit a good home, but I understand his motives.

Will Trump burn America to the ground to rebuild it? I hope not, but I'm interested to see the reaction of the Trump supporters I know -- especially the ones out of work or living paycheck to paycheck -- when they realize that a Trump regime isn't going to put them back to work with a job that lifts them above the poverty line.

So this recount? Bad idea -- if a recount does prove that Clinton won the electoral vote, there'll be a huge clash between liberals and conservatives. If you think this good ol' boy screaming at an airplane full of passengers is sad and indicative of what the next four years has in store for you, just imagine what a it would be like if a recount swiped the hopes and dreams of 59,521,401 Trump voters.

For once in my life*, I'm partially agreeing with Trump in that this election is over. He's calling it a scam though. Poor choice of words, it's not a scam, just a desperate act by the Green Party.

*This isn't true, now that I think about it -- I also agreed when Trump picked Leeza Gibbons over the seemingly favorite blowhard Geraldo Rivera in season 14 of "Celebrity Apprentice."

There are 42 comments:
Male 39,659
And Michigan DID a recount: and still upheld the results. So... fuck that shit in the pussy?
0
Reply
Male 5,990
That's what I heard. Good enough for me. So, how hard was that, really? Try not to be so butt-hurt over this. It's bullshit, I agree, but try to get over it and get on with your life.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Um, your Queen and the DNC are AGAIN trying to nullify the democratic process and fuck the US Constitution... and you're fine with that? OK! Just... get over their crimes? OK! Allow them to carry out their plots without comment? OK! :-/ or not...
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Are you actually saying that a recount nullifies the democratic process? The point of a recount is to confirm that the democratic process worked properly. Are you actually against that? I'm sure you'd be all for it if Clinton had won.
0
Reply
Male 5,990
By the way, the fact that I disliked her less than I disliked Trump hardly makes her my "Queen". Try to keep that in mind while you're bowing down and praising His Holiness, your god Trump.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Michigan doesn't even use electronic voting... so fuck that shit. >>> Isn't is amazing how ALL the IAB Liberals BLINDLY accept the word of some alleged 'computer analysis' but REJECT the findings of the US Government agency responsible for overseeing the election? Fucking amazing... even the White House isn't buying this, but YOU are!
0
Reply
Male 1,504
A key point of this so called concerned recount is that first Hillary clamed that it was a bad thing to do if Trump did it, but not her and that the state and federal gov. don't think that any of these contested states have been counted wrong or hacked. This is just one more time the ultra left is being a bad sport. Just like Algore and Bush in Florida it will only show that everything is on the up and up.
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Another key point is that this is the work of Jill Stein, not Hillary Clinton.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
HAHAHAHA! Oh no! Hillary could not possibly have gotten Jill to do the dirty deed for her in return for millions of dollars and a cushy Ambassadorship... fuck no! politicians would never do THAT! They have too much integrity!!
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Oooh! A conspiracy theory! Tin foil hats on, everyone!
0
Reply
Male 313
A recount is a good idea not just in relation to this election, but it's a good idea to verify votes as a matter of principle for a well-functioning democracy. If Trump wanted to fundraise recounts for states Clinton won, I'd support that as well.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
That's honest of you Mr.Snow :-) What do you think of Jill ONLY going after Trump-won States and not close calls in Hillary-won States? And the fact that Michigan doesn't even HAVE electronic voting? Yet here are all these IAB Liberals drinking the shit... I mean Kool-Aid... and asking for seconds.
0
Reply
Male 587
I doubt that anything was hacked, but I have no real issue with them doing a recount.  If it was genuinely wrong and would change things, I think we would have a huge mess on our hands.  But, if there was foul play, it needs to be fixed.  They need to hurry up before the electors vote though.  I don't think it would matter once those votes were cast, but I could be wrong on that too.
0
Reply
Male 9,041
The only reasonable response.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
What a load of shit! If she was 'concerned' about this? She would look at ALL the closely contested States, not ONLY the ones Trump won in. She was obviously told (bribed) by the DNC to carry out this bogus 'recount scandal' so they wouldn't get blamed for it. Isn't it amazing how fast she raised millions for a bullshit project which might not even get carried out? And she (or her party) gets to KEEP that money, disregardless! I wonder what % were also 'Clinton Foundation Donors'?? Or employees there... 50%? 75%?
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Grammar Nazi here: "regardless". Thank you. Also...sorry!
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Irridisregardless of your dialect? It's a perfectly good word in Canada :-p (Trap sprung! lolz!)
0
Reply
Male 5,990
"Irridisregardless" I like that one!
0
Reply
Male 39,659
:-) I do too! And there's lots more 'local jargon' around here too. Like 'un-thaw' (when frozen things melt) for example. :->
0
Reply
Male 39,659
It seems the White House put a chill on the idea of multiple recounts. So let us pray it won't happen!! Worried about Trump supporters going out to riot? HA! Imagine if there was a recount, and it confirmed Trump's win? The Dems would be out AGAIN rioting some more!!!
0
Reply
Male 20,571
I'm not worried about trump supports rioting, I'm worried about their whining.
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Personally, I think it's a waste of time and money. But it is a part of our Democratic process when a possible irregularity is detected. Data experts noted that there was a significantly lower (I think it was 7%) than expected number of votes for Clinton in places where electronic voting machines were used. More than likely it's because polls are often incorrect but it seems a reasonable excuse to check. I don't especially care one way or the other but I have to admit that I'd love to see how @5Cats responds if the election gets turned over!
0
Reply
Male 8,266
Actually, if you account for demographics and past voting by area, there is no 7% discrepancy.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Absolutely true. Notice how all the lefty-liberals blindly accept the results from these 'computer experts' but NOT the authorized US Government agencies which oversaw the election? Notice that? Notice how they ignore Hillary FIXING the nomination process, but claim it is impossible she tried to 'fix' the election... deplorable!
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Notice how Trump claims that there were millions of fraudulent votes yet gives nothing at all to even suggest evidence of that? Do you at least sprinkle some mint on his shit before you swallow it by the ton? Did you also notice how I, a self professed liberal, have said nothing at all to support your bullshit comment about blindly accepting the so-called experts results? Try not to shovel the shit even harder than Trump does.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Except that in the past 4-5 elections there WERE millions of illegals voting... ASIDE from that! Oh, and Obama encouraging them to illegally vote, saying they would not get deported even if (somehow!) they got caught... ASIDE from that! If you honestly believe that NO OTHER possible reason for a TINY difference in % exists except for Trump (or the Russians) altering the ballots? NONE! Then have a nice day! PS: that includes Hillary stuffing the paper ballot areas... you ignore that possibility? Huh! It is exactly the same likelihood as Trump's machinations...
0
Reply
Male 39,659
You know it is equally possible that Hillary STUFFED those paper ballot boxes for the 'extra' 7% right? There is just as much evidence she did that as there is that Trump hacked the electronic ballots: zero. Except that stuffing paper ballots and getting illegals to vote (multiple times) happens a LOT...
0
Reply
Male 5,990
And it's starting!
0
Reply
Female 372
So how does Trump declaring that he'd fight the result if he lost and then railing against someone else doing the exact same thing not make him the world's biggest hypocrite?
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Michigan doesn't even use electronic voting. It is VERY far fetched to believe someone hacked a computer system that doesn't even exist... tin foil hat territory...
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Maybe it refers to the robot vote.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Eh? The entire system was NOT connected to the internet... unlike Hillary's illegal servers. Robots have just as much right to vote as do illegal aliens, eh?
0
Reply
Male 638
Trump never declared he would if fight the results if he lost. Stop making things up.
0
Reply
Male 39,659
Correct: He refused to say he would accept the results 'no matter what'. IE: If there was OBVIOUS fraud that could easily be proven? He would (then) not accept that! DUH! >>> Notice how NO ONE ever asked Hillary that? Not even once? Hummm...
0
Reply
Male 5,990
No, he didn't. He also didn't say that he wouldn't.
0
Reply
Male 8,266
Liberals DEMANDED he accept the outcome, in essence forgoing his legal right to contest, which he refused to do. Now the Liberals have refused to accept the outcome, which makes THEM hypocrites of the highest order.
0
Reply
Male 8,266
Should read "Buttercups and libs..." Edit button please
0
Reply
Male 8,266
Buttercups and lies won't accept the results until they 'find' enough 'votes' to corrupt the process.
0
Reply
Male 5,990
And Trump is now calling it a scam even though he refused to state that he would accept the result if he lost, putting him at that same level. Once again, I think it's a waste of time and money. On the other hand, if it gets people to finally accept the result it may be worth doing.
0
Reply
Male 9,041
Same way he went from pro-choice to thinking women getting abortions should be punished. Or saying the electoral college was "a disaster for a democracy" but now its "genius". Trump has no problem with hypocrisy. He needs to win at all costs so he changes his positions to that which he think will be the winning position.
0
Reply
Male 5,990
Sounds pretty much like a routine politician for someone who's big draw was the fact that he's not a routine politician.
0
Reply
Male 9,041
I don't get into conspiracy theories much. However, the one that russia hacked the election in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is pretty good. I don't think it happened, but we do know Russia was actively hacking to give trump the win. It isn't THAT far fetched is it? My question to conservatives is this, is there any circumstances or amount of proof you would accept if that was actually the case? Or would it be a lie and Hillary stealing the election no matter what?
0
Reply