HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Jill Stein Campaign Respo...

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:24 PM

Jill Stein Campaign Response to Accusation of Use of 2016 Recount Money for Legal Defense

An article by Charles Davis in the Daily Beast was featured in a recent DU post that blasted Jill Stein for using leftover money she raised for a recount of the 2016 election for legal defense purposes. The Daily Beast article was published before allowing Stein or her campaign to respond to the allegations. The Stein campaign did respond later that same day (July 13, 2018), and the Daily Beast stuck the response at the very end of their article, while making no comment about it at any place in their article.

Given the Stein campaign’s response and what I know about Stein’s efforts to obtain a valid recount in selected states for the 2016 election, I feel that the Daily Beast article utterly failed to put the issue in a proper and fair context. Also, the DU post on this issue made no mention of Stein’s response, it was not noted by any of the DU responders to the post, and all the comments to the post that I saw were very negative towards Stein. Therefore, the purpose of this OP is to attempt to correct the record by putting this issue into what I consider to be a more appropriate and fair context. This was the Stein campaign’s response to the article:

Recount money was used to provide legal counsel for the Senate investigation of alleged Russian collusion that the recount and our campaign were accused of. It was outrageous that the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the recount of being a tool of Russian interference, when the recount was exactly the thing that could have detected any such election interference, had it not been obstructed. Legal counsel enabled us to defend the recount from the baseless accusations behind the Russia investigation, which allowed us to leverage the intense media interest in the Russia investigation to amplify the critical message that election integrity is our best defense against election interference.

That response makes perfect sense to me. If it is true, as indicated in the response, that “the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the recount of being a tool of Russian interference”, then using leftover recount money to pay for Stein’s legal defense was obviously legal and appropriate, and I don’t begrudge her that at all. Keep in mind that this “investigation” was engineered by our Republican Senators, and apparently by them alone. As such, I don’t have any more confidence in the validity of this investigation than I have in the House investigation of the Mueller probe of Trump or their continued investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal.

I have long believed that our election system is highly vulnerable to fraud and that it has been used as such on myriad occasions in the 21st Century. I believe that this is the primary reason why we are now ruled by a government that is so far to the right of the American people – including a radical right wing psychopath President, a radical right wing majority Supreme Court, a radical right wing majority Senate and House (until January 3, 2019), and a good majority of Republican state legislatures throughout our country.

The 2016 Presidential election produced some very strange results. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%, and yet lost the Electoral College resoundingly. Not counting three elections in U.S. history where the Electoral College did NOT choose our President (our President was chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1824, by a special judiciary committee in 1876, and by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when they halted the vote counting in Florida), there had previously been only one time in U.S. history when the popular vote did not align with the Electoral College in a Presidential election. That was 1888, when the losing candidate, Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote by only 0.8%.

There were 5 states in 2016 that pre-election polls predicted Clinton would win, but which Trump won, by small margins – Michigan by 0.2%, Pennsylvania by 0.7%, Wisconsin by 0.8%, Florida by 1.2%, and North Carolina by 3.7%.

Exit polls are considered accurate enough in many countries that they are used to monitor the accuracy of election results. The United States too considers them accurate enough to have sponsored them in numerous countries in the 21st Century, as a means of monitoring their elections. Yet, although exit polls are routinely used in the United States, they are never used for the purpose of monitoring elections, even though they have greatly and consistently under-predicted Democratic candidate performance in Presidential, Congressional, and Gubernatorial elections since 2004.

Here is a table for the 2016 election that shows exit poll results, official vote counts, and “red shifts” for the 5 swing states that Trump won by small amounts after pre-election polls predicted a Clinton win. “Red shift” is the difference between the exit poll and the official vote count, when the official vote count is lower than the exit poll prediction for the more liberal candidate (if it is the other way around it is called a “blue shift”, but we’ve rarely seen blue shifts for state or national elections in the U.S. in the 21st Century).

State........................Exit poll result.....................Official vote count...............Red shift
North Carolina...........Clinton by 2.1%...................Trump by 3.7%..................5.8%
Pennsylvania.............Clinton by 4.4%...................Trump by 0.7%..................5.1%
Wisconsin.................Clinton by 3.9%...................Trump by 0.8%................. 4.7%
Florida......................Clinton by 1.3%...................Trump by 1.2%..................2.5%
Michigan...................Even...................................Trump by 0.2%..................0.2%

Red shifts high enough to flip the state from Clinton to Trump were seen in each of the 5 swing states. In 3 of those states (NC, PA, and WI) the red shift was larger than the statistical margin of error. Note the very small margins of victory for Trump in 4 out of the 5 states. The margin of victory in North Carolina was larger than the others, but so was the red shift.

The red shift for the popular vote (which doesn’t count for any electoral votes) was only 1.1% -- within the statistical margin of error. All of the above considerations rightly combined to cast a good deal of suspicion on the election results in the 5 swing states with red shifts (as well as pre-election polls for Clinton) that Trump won. Consequently, election integrity activists all over the country searched for a losing Presidential candidate to request recounts in those 5 states (only candidates are allowed to request recounts in the United States). Jill Stein was the only candidate to agree to do that. Some characterize her agreement to do that as “grandstanding”. They have a right to their opinion. But the fact of the matter is that recounts were desperately needed, as they held out the only hope for a reversal of what many believed to be fraudulent election results, with the election of a President that many believed to pose a grave danger to our country.

The Trump campaign attempted to block all three recount requests in state courts. In summary: The Pennsylvania recount was disallowed, the Michigan recount was initially approved but quickly struck down on appeal shortly after the recount was started, and the Wisconsin recount was allowed, but individual counties were given the option of doing the recount by using the same machines that provided the initial vote counts. About half of the Wisconsin counties chose to conduct the recount with those machines, which made the statewide recount worthless.

There is a great taboo in the United States against questioning the accuracy or integrity of our electronic voting machines. Losing candidates who do so by requesting hand recounts are lambasted by our corporate news media as “sore losers”, as was Al Gore in 2000. Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich was one of our biggest advocates in Congress for secure elections, until his District suddenly disappeared, thus ending his Congressional career. There have also been some associated deaths of brave people who have attempted to shine a light on election fraud at very high levels.

Thus, in 2004 John Kerry conceded a highly suspect Presidential election on the day after Election Day without requesting a recount, and in 2016 Hillary Clinton did the same. In both cases it fell upon the Green Party to fund the needed recounts, and in both cases the needed recounts were either not done or conducted in such an inadequate or corrupt manner that they were worthless.

It is easy to say in retrospect that the recount attempt in 2016 was a worthless exercise that shouldn’t have been attempted. But to those of us who strongly believe that our election system has been widely corrupted by the use of voting machines that lack public accountability, the 2016 recounts of the 5 states in question provided the best potential opportunity to begin the process of restoring our democracy.

Thus, I give Jill Stein a great deal of credit for making that attempt. Given the great taboo in our country against questioning the validity of election results, and knowing the character of our Republican Senate, as well as the fact that thus far no credible evidence has emerged against Stein, I find it likely that the Senate’s “investigation” of Jill Stein is without merit and in large part if not wholly motivated by her attempt to obtain information bearing on the integrity of the 2016 Presidential election results.

58 replies, 4569 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jill Stein Campaign Response to Accusation of Use of 2016 Recount Money for Legal Defense (Original post)
Time for change Dec 2018 OP
hlthe2b Dec 2018 #1
TheBlackAdder Dec 2018 #17
obamanut2012 Dec 2018 #22
hlthe2b Dec 2018 #24
BootinUp Dec 2018 #28
orangecrush Dec 2018 #52
dalton99a Dec 2018 #57
obamanut2012 Dec 2018 #21
Me. Dec 2018 #2
UniteFightBack Dec 2018 #3
mcar Dec 2018 #4
MagickMuffin Dec 2018 #16
PSPS Dec 2018 #5
Post removed Dec 2018 #34
SidDithers Dec 2018 #43
Bev54 Dec 2018 #45
WheelWalker Dec 2018 #6
Downtown Hound Dec 2018 #7
FSogol Dec 2018 #26
Bev54 Dec 2018 #46
FreepFryer Dec 2018 #8
oasis Dec 2018 #9
SidDithers Dec 2018 #10
SaschaHM Dec 2018 #11
FM123 Dec 2018 #12
calimary Dec 2018 #13
Baitball Blogger Dec 2018 #14
saidsimplesimon Dec 2018 #15
diva77 Dec 2018 #18
Demsrule86 Dec 2018 #19
Demsrule86 Dec 2018 #20
elocs Dec 2018 #23
MineralMan Dec 2018 #25
BootinUp Dec 2018 #27
Time for change Dec 2018 #33
ucrdem Dec 2018 #29
pnwmom Dec 2018 #30
RockCreek Dec 2018 #31
pnwmom Dec 2018 #32
Time for change Dec 2018 #36
pnwmom Dec 2018 #40
dsc Dec 2018 #50
Time for change Dec 2018 #35
Gothmog Dec 2018 #39
diva77 Dec 2018 #42
Gothmog Dec 2018 #48
X_Digger Dec 2018 #37
Gothmog Dec 2018 #38
NastyRiffraff Dec 2018 #41
Cha Dec 2018 #44
still_one Dec 2018 #47
Gothmog Dec 2018 #49
vlyons Dec 2018 #51
ismnotwasm Dec 2018 #53
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2018 #54
Gothmog Dec 2018 #55
dalton99a Dec 2018 #58
Gothmog Dec 2018 #56

Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:27 PM

1. I don't believe a word she says... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:09 PM

17. Here is the original source.

.

Изложите деньги, использовался, чтобы обеспечить юридическое совещание относительно расследования Сената предполагаемого российского сговора, в котором изложение и наша кампания обвинялись. Было возмутительно, что Разведовательный комитет Сената обвинял изложение в том, что оно инструмент российского вмешательства, когда изложение было точно вещью, которая, возможно, обнаружила любое такое вмешательство выборов, имел это не затрудненный. Юридическое совещание позволило нам защитить изложение от необоснованных обвинений позади расследования России, которое позволило нам усиливать интенсивный интерес СМИ в расследовании России, чтобы усилить серьезное сообщение, что целостность выборов является нашей лучшей защитой против вмешательства выборов.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:32 PM

22. hahahahhaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:36 PM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:47 PM

28. Lol. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:29 PM

52. Da!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 08:42 PM

57. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:31 PM

21. same

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:30 PM

2. Pants On Fire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:30 PM

3. Until/unless she is cleared I don't believe her. She was a guest of Putin's. THE END. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:34 PM

4. How many votes did Stein get in those states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:02 PM

16. Looks as though the OP failed to provide that info


Hmmmmmm, I wonder why that is???


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:35 PM

5. Blah, blah, blah. This is all that really matters:

Case closed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)


Response to Post removed (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:50 PM

43. ...




Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:15 PM

45. She was secretary of state it is her job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:35 PM

6. Malarkey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:36 PM

7. Jill Stein and the Green Party are full of shit

-Downtown Hound-repentant Nader 2000 voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:42 PM

26. True, but her supporters and apologists are full of shit too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:17 PM

46. Agree 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:36 PM

8. NUTS. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:36 PM

9. Campaign?

She's still running?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:37 PM

10. Uh huh...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:39 PM

11. Even her response is bullshit.

On top of FEC records that they had to file showing that many non-legal staffers are being paid more now than they were during the campaign, using the funds as a legal slush fund still goes against the grain of the proposed earlier solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:41 PM

12. She is another one who says one thing but does another....

According to The Daily Beast "Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has largely based her campaign on her uncompromising positions on the environment, opposition to big banks and Wall Street, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industry. But an analysis of her financial disclosures, which she was required to file as a presidential candidate, show she is heavily invested in the very industries that she maligns the most and as a result of her investments, she has built significant wealth."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jill-steins-ideology-says-one-thingher-investment-portfolio-says-another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:44 PM

13. FUCK JILL STEIN!!! Haven't you done enough damage by now, Jill?

When’s the next banquet with Vladimir, ‘eh? Mike Flynn probably won’t make it so I’m sure they’d be even more eager to have you there than they were, the last time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:49 PM

14. F that shit.

I provided $ to Stein's recount effort because I was frustrated with the election results and nobody else moved to organize us to find out what happened. Stein made the first outreach so I responded.

Do I feel duped? Just as bad as when I donated to John Edward's campaign. Except, that Stein feels particularly misleading and I have seen this kind of thing happen before when the master HOA in our community asked for money so we could find a lawyer to research our PUD to see what our "vested" rights were in relation to changes on the golfcourse. The first thing they did wrong was relying on local lawyers, which it appears to me, have so many conflicts of interests that they never help you move forward. What tends to happen is that they look the other way as the authoritarians in the community try to bully everyone into submission. So it's no surprise that the local lobby group crossed the line too many times and the organization became the subject of a lawsuit.

It was a surprise when those those funds became part of their legal defense fund, but the money was eventually returned. And I think the Stein group should do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 01:51 PM

15. Go away Jill, I saw you

sucking up to Vlad on RT. You are compromised. You are a dull tool of little value to the Tsar. Hire a lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:17 PM

19. I give Jillie the traitor no credit...I do not believe she wanted a recount to succeed since she

said over and over that Trump was a better choice...she made some money. She is a grifter, and a liar. Fuck Jill Stein and the Greens...wouldn't believe one word she said and a huge post defending her is just silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:22 PM

20. I sincerely hope Jill Stein is indicted for collusion. I am convinced she was part of the Russian

interference in our 2016 election. Orange should be the new color for Jill Stein and the Green Party...as in orange jumpsuits. The Greens are not green as they have ushered in Trump who is busily destroying our environment...they helped elect Bush twice also. They can all go fuck themselves. The Greens are basically Republicans enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:39 PM

25. Jill Stein and Ralph Nader - Disruptors of Elections.

Just go away, Jill. Follow in Nader's footsteps. You've done your job. Now go away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 02:46 PM

27. No, that response was bullshit.

A recount wouldn’t detect Russian interference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:09 PM

33. A recount, if not obstructed by Trump's lawsuits or by other means

probably would have showed that Clinton won the election.

True, it would not have showed who rigged the election, or whether or not Russia was involved. But a demonstration that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to being programmed to miscount our votes, as well as a reversal of the election, would have been a great service to our country.

I agree that its chances of success, given all the wealthy and powerful people against it, were small from the beginning. But it was certainly worth a try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:01 PM

29. Stein is a mixed bag, for sure.

But the recount was a bold move and desperately needed. I don't fault Kerry or Hilary. Kerry's political career would have soon ended like Al Gore's did and Hillary didn't need another full-court bashing. Stein was the only other candidate with standing who was willing to step up and the results, while disappointing, were instructive and useful in the ways that you explained. So even if she collected more than she used it was still a worthwhile exercise.

p.s. JMHO! Happy 2019 to all DUers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:04 PM

30. She continued raising millions for the recount under the FALSE PRETENSE

that the recount could occur in all three key states, even though she knew GOING IN that the margin was too small for a recount in PA, and even after a judge ruled against her.

Most of the millions who donated were hoping to somehow flip the election if irregularities were discovered. This was never a possibility -- and Stein preyed on their desperation.

No one should be giving credit to the woman who dined with President Putin and Michael Flynn in the year before the campaign began.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:04 PM

31. Thank you for this post, time for change

I am discouraged and shocked by the routine vitriol against recount expressed in DU, which appears to be solely motivated by the fact it was Stein to initiate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockCreek (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:06 PM

32. No, it's motivated by her duplicity -- pretending that if she raised enough money

she could get the recounts in all three states, and possibly flip the election.

She knew going in that the margin was too large in PA for a recount, and she'd have to get a judge's approval for a special recount. Even when the judge turned her down, she STILL went ahead asking for millions more for her recounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:25 PM

36. She ased for more money because Wisconsin kept on raising the price and because she

intended to ask for recounts in Florida and North Carolina if she could raise enough money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:40 PM

40. She raised far more than she needed and she lied about Pennsylvania.

She closed out the campaign with less than a hundred thousand, but her recount scam left her with millions left over, after all of her recount expenses were accounted for.

Then she FAILED to keep her promise that her gullible donors would be able to vote on how to spend the money.

She's a scam artist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:25 PM

50. she could have asked for a recount in NC

but she wasn't going to get one. In NC the results must be within 1% even for candidate requested recounts.

https://ceimn.org/searchable-databases/recount-database/north-carolina

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockCreek (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:22 PM

35. Yes, I feel the same way - very sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockCreek (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:34 PM

39. I was a volunteer in the Victory Counsel program

The Victory Counsel program was the Clinton campaign. Marc Elias is one of the best election lawyers in the country. The recounts had no chance in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:47 PM

42. The recounts had no chance? Perhaps due to obstruction tactics of the recounts?

The corruption needed to be exposed (still does). The election fraud was multi-faceted and should have been investigated. An unobstructed recount is crucial for integrity of our elections. Whether or not a recount "has a chance" was not the point in this case, and the recount could have provided evidence of fraud. As it stands, the recount obstruction needs to be investigated as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diva77 (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:22 PM

48. I volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection efforts

The DNC and the Clinton campaign spent a great deal of time fighting voter suppression. The laws on recounts are fixed and one cannot sue for a recount on the grounds that there was undocumented corruption

I note that Stacy Abrams documented corruption but did not pursue a recount

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:27 PM

37. Fuck Jill Stein. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:29 PM

38. Stein defrauded the people who donated to her scam recount effort

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:46 PM

41. Nope. I don't believe that Russian tool

She and the traitor Mike Flynn sat at Putin's table at the RT gala. Before she can be believed on ANYTHING she needs to give a credible explanation of what the hell she was doing there. I'm willing to bet it wasn't for the lobster thermidor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 03:53 PM

44. jill stein is a known LIAR..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:17 PM

47. F**k Jill Stein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:24 PM

49. Jill stein defrauded the people who donated to her bogus recount effort

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:29 PM

51. Her anti-vax pandering is all I need to know

shame on her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:36 PM

53. Fuck Jill Stein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:47 PM

54. Reading through the responses, the common sentiment seems to be "F**k Jill Stein". I couldn't agree

more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 04:54 PM

55. Stein was a tool of Russia and Putin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 08:46 PM

58. Putin's useful idiot is not actually an idiot

She made a lot of money for herself in the process

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 06:01 PM

56. Stein has yet to use a dime of it to clear about $53,000 in outstanding fines levied on her campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread