Now THAT is an absurd analogy. The story admits it is hypothetical, and goes on to say IF certain hypothetical scenarios played out a certain way (based on the third party candidates' own guesses and positioning, not on facts), THEN it could be true that the race would've turned out otherwise. Which is so obvious asbto not require even being stated. But so are literally countless other hypothetical but counter factual scenarios, as I outlined earlier.
In no way is that remotely similar to a climate change denier rejecting overwhelming evidence.
In no way is that remotely similar to a climate change denier rejecting overwhelming evidence.
The story uses none of those words. No speculative, no hypothetical. What is absurd is your determination to argue about anything and everything! Your own actions in voting Clinton contradict your own speculation.
Seems you'd rather argue about this than address the recount question as it adds to the perception that Stein now feels a responsibility for helping elect Trump.