For her to be helping Hillary, you have to know that votes were flipped from Hillary to Trump. Equally, or even more likely, votes were flipped from Trump to Hillary, or from Stein to Hillary. But in fact, we have no evidence of any of that. Counting is the only way to know.

I think the people should have complete confidence in their elections, whatever it takes. If People lose confidence, past the point of the wide-spread apathy in the US, watch out. In recent world history, elections-gone-wild are a national flashpoint that significantly increases the odds of a serious revolt.

That's the trend, and the Establishment bubble-people are pushing it with their stonewalling and propaganda. In their arrogance, they are authoring their own doom.

That would probably be just as useful as taking over the Green Party now.

I'm with featheredsprite: Stein has seriously screwed the pooch here.

"Either outcome could be ugly for the elites."

The guarantee here? More hostile division in the population; another step in discrediting Democracy. There is surely a strongman being selected behind the scenes right now, and we'll be hearing from him 2018 at the latest. That's my bet.

Sure, the election ended. But now we have focused from an election to the future of our government.

In my view and my involvement, I don't call it a fizzle.

At hearing this. Although I haven't really researched what the alternatives could be, I'd prefer we figure it out before the pitchforks and barricades.

when my FOX-lovin' RWNJ dear friend and I talked over the course of the recent election, we found we had much more in common than opposed. The corporate stranglehold on our nation is clear to a lot of right wingers.

So what were your objections to the unification of the 99% again?

I thought I saw a contradiction, so I tried to get clarity for purposes of going forward.

I would vastly prefer the most practical course. At first glance, working within the Green Party to change it seems more practical than starting a new party. However, attempting the impossible is not practical.

If you tell me that people cannot possibly change the Green Party from within because gatekeepers will not allow that, I can understand that statement. I would also defer to your view in that case because you have had experience working within the Party since 1992 and I have not. I would still make up my own mind, but your view would be influential because of my lack of experience. It's not a matter of blame. Blaming others is not my style, anyway.

What I think you are saying is that trying to change the Green Party from within may be like trying to change the Democratic Party from within. With or without an influx of new, enthusiastic people, one way or another, it just ain't gonna happen, so fuhgeddaboudit.

And Hillary Clinton is the Typhoid Mary of political and moral credibility. She withers everything she touches. We have seen it repeatedly through this election cycle: important moral person A speaks out for Hillary. A lot of finger-waving at the bad people who don't support Hillary ensues. Important Moral Person A loses credibility. Hillary's numbers don't budge. This has happened with everyone from Michael Moore to John Lewis to Dolores Huerta--god, it even happened to Teflon Obama! The only way she ever gains credibility is to be contrasted with someone more visibly horrible--but she's great at draining the credibility from others. Bernie is an obvious example.

Now think about the Green Party. 68% of the population didn't know who Stein was at the time of the election. Now she's introduced to them on every mainstream channel as the person whose recount might overturn the election results. Your average American is not going to make the distinction between the candidate and the party, especially since I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press about the Green Party not supporting Stein's recount. They will assume, not unfairly I think, that the party of the candidate supports the actions of the candidate. And the actions of the candidate, especially since they're being taken in states where Trump won, not Hillary, clearly imply that the recount could reverse the election and bring us a Hillary Presidency. This message is being circulated by both major parties. Have you seen the emails? The email from the Dems was "We know how broken-hearted everyone was who supported Hillary, so we're supporting this recount." The reaction from the Trump voters is explosive and furious, because they think the recount might take the election away from Trump.

This is the environment in which 68% of America is being introduced to the Green Party. Whether you like it or Cass likes it or I like it or TrustVote.org likes it or Stein likes it, the fact is that America is being introduced to "Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein" as the person whose recount could overturn the election and give us a Hillary presidency. The Green Party is finally breaking through into the mainstream media--in the context of putting the most corrupt and hated Democrat in the country into office by overturning election results.

How do you think most of the country is going to feel about the Green Party now? When the Green Party claims to be against corruption, what do you think the reaction will be? When the Green Party criticizes the corruption of Democrats, what do you think the reaction will be? This is far, far worse than Cobb suggesting that Greens in swing states should vote for Kerry. Kerry wasn't hated, not like this. Kerry wasn't synonymous with corruption. And the 2004 election wasn't something that people desperately wanted to stop because it was causing them so much psychological strain (which has actually happened this cycle; the American Psychiatric Association put out guidelines to deal with the election stress, for God's sakes!) Worst of all, now they're doing the recount together with Hillary, and only in states where she lost!

We can nitpick on here all we want and say "Well, she can't challenge the primary, no standing" "Well, she can't recount NH, it's too late" "Well, she asked all the parties to join her in this recount, not just Dems"--none of that matters. When you're dealing in large-scale mass communications, it's the broad strokes that matter, especially when you're dealing with a bunch of corrupt assholes like the mainstream press, who have de-educated Americans for 30 years now by presenting the news at a level that roughly approximates drawing on the sidewalk with a big hunk of chalk. She's doing something that can't help Trump and can help Hillary. She's doing it with Hillary. If the Greens claim to be against the corrupt establishment going forward, the only response from the majority of Americans is going to be a snort.

What the fuck possible reason could there be to use the Green Party now? Like I said to Cass, you might as well buy the rights to New Coke and start trying to distribute it.