Jill Stein may have been an abysmal failure as a candidate for president, but she is doing a magnificent job of making a fool out of herself with her preposterous recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. As election historians tell us, the likelihood of just getting one of those states to flip from Trump to Clinton through a recount is vanishingly small. Trump leads by just too many votes for a recount to make any difference. But to get all three to flip so as to put Hillary in the White House? That’s just about as likely as Jill Stein winning the Electoral College vote. Not going to happen.
But back to her current preoccupation with making herself look ridiculous.
That project is proceeding nicely as officials, pundits, and politicians from both major parties point out the futility of Stein’s recount effort. And the leadership of her own Green Party is disavowing any support for her. Even her running mate has distanced herself from Stein.
However, she is attracting some humorists who are having a good time making poor Jill the butt of their jokes.
By the way, did you know that her ballot recount effort is really going to cost $33 trillion? Didn’t think so. More on this stunning figure on page two.
Poor LOSER!!!!!
Jill Stein is one sick ticket. what happens to the left over money does it go to Stein green???????
BS NEWS
Anything to make money for her and the Clintons
Look At The FACE OF GREED.SHE SURE LOOKS LIKE OLD(HILLARY)GRANNY.
Jill Stein is a con artist and a fraud.
Waste not-Want Not! How idiotic can these peopl be?
Just think how many people could be feed with the money they are wasting.
Hi, Jake. I’m glad you added the word SATIRE at the beginning of the title. I thought enough hints were dropped in the article that people would figure out that this story is satire. Apparently not from reading the comments. We seemed to have some who incredibly really believed that figure of $33 trillion was accurate, and others who knew it was impossible and so were prepared to dump us into the category of “f**e news.” (Although I wonder how many of these people actually read the whole article to get all the hints that this thing was a piece of satire.) Then there were the others who saw the piece correctly for what it was and was intended to be. I’m afraid that last group was the smallest. Perhaps with all the screaming about “f**e news” we’re better off making sure when we do a piece in fun, that we go to the extra step of making what should be obvious, obvious? Kindest regards, Craig