The stupid Jill Stein recount and what it means.

This is just my opinion.

Right now we are in the midst of a political issue concerning the votes cast in 3 states. Hillary lackey, Jill Stein is pushing for a recount.

What does that mean?


If the counts come back the same, then she will have wasted millions on a political gamble. Trump will remain president.

If the count comes back different? Then evil-queen-bitch Hillary will become the evil ruler/dictator of the US.

But really, if the count comes back different, then that means that there are flaws within our voting system. It would indicate voter fraud on a massive scale. It would demand reform, voter ID, more laws, controls over the process.

It would indicate that our system is flawed and that the people in charge of the system, corrupt or at the very least, inept.

So if the bootlicker Stein wants to do a recount, we should all welcome it.

It'll either prove our system works, or it'll prove that it doesn't.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If the counts come back the same, then she will have wasted millions on a political gamble.

And in the end, the lawyers are the only ones who win.

I do not do prognosticating often but I am going to do it here, the recount results will show no appreciable difference. The logistics for 'hacking' an election are almost so difficult it is not a reasonable method for rigging the system.

The repercussions of throwing the presidency to Clinton are almost to fearful to contemplate. Even if the recount goes to Clinton the outcome may well be a hot civil war and the liberals will lose.

I really do wonder about Jill Stein.

She was no lover of Hillary during the campaign. If I recall correctly she even said she favoured Trump over Clinton, so I wonder what has motivated this line of action?

Did someone get to her?

Maybe she believed the lies of "Russian hacking"?

Maybe even a quick grab the cash and run operation?

Perhaps she even thinks that someone rigged it in favour of Hillary? But then what would be the point of a recount?

It is all very strange.

a reply to: Ohanka

If it were me, I would be thinking about 2020. Either way it turns out, she has made a recognizable name with this. Her supporters would pay for that objective.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

If the recount actually shows that Hillary got more votes in the targeted states, then she has that right.

It would suck big time, we would and could protest her presidency and what it means.

But that is our system.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't think it'll change either. But what this does show is that Stein can be and was bought by the Hillary campaign.

I think our system, with all it's warts, does work.

a reply to: Ohanka

She's no different than Bernie.

She was bought and paid for.

What's even more problematic with this recount is that it was chosen with fraud in mind. Jill Stein didn't select any states where Hillary barely won, she's chosen states where Trump barely won, and only those. The states where Hillary just won were the ones where voter fraud was already discovered and publicly announced.
Also there were found 3 million dead people voting and 4 million illegal aliens voted.
This recount has been cherry picked by this scheme to avoid their own criminality and then use it again to change the outcome.
It has bias all over it for Hillary.
Even if the recount changes the outcome for Hillary, she will not be getting to be the president.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There are flaws in any voting system , either inherent or by design , remember the hanging chad ?
If there's doubt and the margin of victory is small then a recount is justified although I doubt the recount will change the result.

Perhaps they will discover that a foreign power did hack some of the voting machines.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CulturalResilience

If the recount actually shows that Hillary got more votes in the targeted states, then she has that right.

It would suck big time, we would and could protest her presidency and what it means.

But that is our system.

What you say is correct of course. In those circumstances there would be a lot of very angry people who would feel cheated by the system and they may well decide to act in ways we may not like.

Have we not considered a rigged outcome from the recount?

Probably unlikely, right?

But as I understand it, recounts have to flip in all three states in order for Hillary to win. That is highly unlikely, even with Michigan having gone to Trump by just over 10k votes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't think it'll change either. But what this does show is that Stein can be and was bought by the Hillary campaign.

I think our system, with all it's warts, does work.

I agree that it works which is why I think this recount is a rather large non-issue. We should really be focusing on important topics like the Mandela Effect and why liking pizza is such a bad thing of late.

originally posted by: Ohanka
I really do wonder about Jill Stein.

She was no lover of Hillary during the campaign. If I recall correctly she even said she favoured Trump over Clinton, so I wonder what has motivated this line of action?

Did someone get to her?

Maybe she believed the lies of "Russian hacking"?

Maybe even a quick grab the cash and run operation?

Perhaps she even thinks that someone rigged it in favour of Hillary? But then what would be the point of a recount?

It is all very strange.

Neither was Sanders (we thought) . How did that turn out for the country ? A puppet. Jill Al Franken Stein as well.

It'll either prove our system works, or it'll prove that it doesn't.

It'll prove the system works alright, just not for those it was intended to work for.

A recount will either show that Trump won fairly or he cheated, giving Hillary the win. It will also show whether she lost fairly or grant her the ability to cheat and steal the election. I doubt that they'd even consider doing this if Hillary didn't think that she had a shot to steal the election.

I'm sure all the extra money raised for the cause will go to bribing people and manipulating the process, leaving Stein with just enough cash to install an underground bunker in her backyard. She'll need to lock herself inside for the next four years if she turns out to be the right "tool" for getting the job done.

a reply to: six67seven

This is exactly what I was thinking. Especially if the recount they request is by hand.

She also raised about twice as much money she did in her whole campaign in 40hrs.


Here is an early vid on this recount.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Ohanka

If it were me, I would be thinking about 2020. Either way it turns out, she has made a recognizable name with this. Her supporters would pay for that objective.

Make that 2080 and I might agree

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

The repercussions of throwing the presidency to Clinton are almost to fearful to contemplate. Even if the recount goes to Clinton the outcome may well be a hot civil war and the liberals will lose.

And that's bad? Something to be afraid of?

That's precisely why I want Hillary to be president. I came to the conclusion long ago that these vermin will never be defeated peacefully.

So let's have it out and get it over with already.

Unfortunate? Yes. War always is. Necessary? I think so.

Am I allowed to say that?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DBCowboy

There are flaws in any voting system , either inherent or by design , remember the hanging chad ?
If there's doubt and the margin of victory is small then a recount is justified although I doubt the recount will change the result.
Perhaps they will discover that a foreign power did hack some of the voting machines.

Again , they are not connected to the internet , anywhere