DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Post office complicit in plans to deny millions of mail in ballots

Just as a general 5,000 ft perspective and to give a contrarian viewpoint since the King of Contrary turned up again - - - - - who would you say cares more about the legitmacy of our elections?

1. The people who want to undermine the validity of the elections - based on No Evidence and a bunch of mumbo jumbo what ifs, Suzy analogies that have zero relevance to the topic... and emotions.
2. Or those paying attention and refering to the data that demonstrates consitently (even the right leaning heritage foundations findings) that there is no mass voter fraud? (And also have 60+ court rullings backing them up).... AND not to mention that in actual cases of voter fraud that have been proven and pursued legally, there is almost a 50-50 split between those doing it to vote for R and those doing it to vote D.

For some strange reason as it turns out, throwing out accusations with no substance or evidence and expecting everyone to believe that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and no suspect or motive it makes them "care" more. And somehow makes you care less.

They are setting things up like they did in 2020. To dispute our election results but only if they lose. Somehow these brainiacs haven't figured out what a scam this all is. It's fair if they win and rigged if they lose. And they buy into that BS hook, line and sinker.

Heads I win - Tails you lose.

MUricA -- FreEdDuMb !!!

I think you just haven't figured out that scams can be layered on top of other scams.

To me, it seems that it's rigged no matter who wins.

It's not about caring more, for me it's about annoyance with people expressing false certainty based on numbers they believe because they are told they can believe them. It's like numbers cast some spell on some people and they can't think beyond the surface level. Some group has put out a number, it must be true. There's a number-- that's for sure the truth. Yes, we can trust the government(/some biased organization) with no further examination. They'd never lie to us.

I know you lover diversionary tactics to alter the discussion in a different direction but what we're talking about here is one side claiming there is direct cheating being done through the act of voting on a scale massive enough to change the outcome of elections. They have shown zero evidence to support that. They have lost over 60 court cases in an effort to prove that. FOX News lost a court suit that cost them 780 million dollars to settle by trying to include voting machines in their conspiracy theory.

In this case it these voter fraud accusations have been investigated by not just one source but by several sources and litigated in over 60 court rooms. The Heritage Foundation has every possible bias and motivation to find and report any such fraud. Yet even they fell short. This isn't a close call. Now if you wish to dig some rabbit hole to the contrary to crawl down into be my guest. But I won't be joining you in that endeavor.

Justice Department has issued subpoenas for Nevada voter data, state’s elections chief says

The Justice Department has issued several subpoenas to Nevada’s secretary of state seeking voter information, marking another effort by the Trump administration to insert the federal government more directly into the administration of elections.

The office of Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, which oversees elections in the state, said Friday it received “seven voter-related DOJ subpoenas from the FBI over the last three months.”

Aguilar, a Democrat, slammed the DOJ’s move to seek the information, saying in a statement that the administration is overwhelming states ahead of the midterms.

“The federal administration is inundating election offices with investigations and questions ahead of the election, and making sweeping claims of election fraud to the public before any investigation is done,” Aguilar said. “We will continue standing up for Nevada voters and remain focused on running a safe, secure and transparent election this fall.”

It is unclear what information the Justice Department is seeking in the subpoenas. CNN has reached out to the DOJ and Aguilar’s office for more information.

The subpoenas follow a slew of baseless allegations of voter fraud from the Trump administration and subsequent crackdown efforts.

President Donald Trump still claims without evidence that the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, was rigged, and the DOJ earlier this year searched the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, which has long been at the centerpiece of Trump’s claims.

The Department of Homeland Security this week began a surge in its efforts to investigate voter fraud in nine states, including Nevada. The department previously pushed states to share their voter rolls for audit and has vowed to withhold grant funding from those that refuse to adopt a broad set of election reforms.

The administration on Thursday also asked the Supreme Court to give the US Postal Service sweeping power to withhold delivery of mail ballots, setting up a showdown at the high court less than two months before the midterms.

Earlier this summer, DHS announced that an audit of public voter rolls had identified more than 250,000 registered noncitizens in four states, including 16,000 in Nevada.

But behind closed doors, the department acknowledged to the state’s top election officials that it had “confirmed” just 185 of them, according to internal records reviewed by CNN. Another 6,200 were labeled “higher confidence matches” — but still required further vetting.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/05/politics/doj-subpoena-nevada-election-midterm-voter

I see enough questioning about various states election oversight to make me wonder. The easy way to clear it up is to open up for a look. Not doing so makes it appear the state has something to hide. I agree that states have to power to control the vote, but not so much with the idea it should be under a cloak of secrecy.

So Guilty By Accusation. I get it. Very American of you.

Maybe take the time to read the lengthy article I am about to post ... if not I can cherry pick a couple of paragraphs for you to choose to willully ignore....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/07/trump-midterm-elections-rule-of-law-democracy

Legal veterans lead fightback against Trump’s ‘full-out assault on democracy’

Advocacy groups expand legal challenges and condemn president’s ‘self-serving attempts to take over midterms’

Critics say Trump, the DoJ, the USPS and the Department of Homeland Security seem to be laying the groundwork for further attacks on the nation’s election rules, citing Trump’s false claims about election fraud and his radical plans to change voting rules.

In July in a televised speech, Trump falsely portrayed the nation’s voting system as riddled with fraud and condemned voting by mail and non-citizen voting. “Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt,” Trump claimed without evidence, even though he voted twice by mail this year.

Trump, who continues to blame voting fraud for his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, also charged that non-citizen voting, which is illegal and historically minuscule, poses a “crisis of election security”. Trump’s fixation on noncitizen voting is belied by a database from the rightwing Heritage Foundation that only cites 100 cases over a quarter-century.

Also buried in the article is the clue - if anyone wanted to pay attention - as to exactly 100% why Trump and his simpleton fanboys want to restrict voting by mail: ""About 50 million Americans, the majority of whom are Democrats, vote by mail, according to reports."" ---- Yes - it is that simple.


On one side you have countless examples of investigations proving negligible voter fraud. You also have the majority of the 50 million who vote by mail voting for Democrats.

On the other hand you have - no evidence, you have no basis for claiming there is mass voter fraud or that 'mail in ballots are inherently corrupt' -- you have fear momgering, emotions, what-ifs and you have a whole lot of votes that if you can reduce or restrict, makes it easier to win, or maybe not lose so badly. . . . Yes, it's that simple.

Unfortunately, the legal system deciding cases isn't as definitive as far as truthfulness as one would like. The judiciary has the appearance that it has been infected with politics just like most of the other institutions in this country. It gives the appearance that it's not about the law or truth or justice, it's about politics. A Biden appointed judge ruled on the case in Nevada (Anne Traum.) The federal government doesn't have all the evidence because the Judge said the state didn't have to provide access to the evidence. How could anyone prove anything if they aren't given access to the evidence? You can't see all the evidence because you don't have enough evidence seems problematic to me. If that's where the investigation starts, it's practically impossible to prove anything.

Effectively hiding evidence gives the appearance that there is something to hide.

Again, I'm not claiming fraud is or isn't a problem. It just seems problematic that the only ones actually allowed unrestricted access to the evidence are the ones that would have helped perpetuate the fraud, if it happened.

Yes, some samples were checked by Trump designated investigators, but they don't appear to have been entirely random samples. In one case, a random sample of 100 ballots was initially designated for review, but then ~1500 more were "freely" offered. However, that offering may have been curated. (Otherwise why offer it?) An overwhelming number of ballots vetted as good thrown in with a sample of potentially fraudulent could make any anomalies statistically insignificant.

Or in Michigan a judge ruled a statute to video surveil mail in ballot boxes only applied to boxes installed after a certain date despite no such language in the statute. May that be a valid interpretation of the law? Perhaps. But, I can also see how that interpretation gives the appearance that opportunities to commit fraud are intentionally being kept possible.

On one hand, some people look at it as there's no evidence, so it didn't happen. On the other, some people look at it as they are hiding the evidence, so it must have happened. I'm more why not show all the evidence and see what actually happened. It likely won't happen because of the cost, so I'll probably continue to have doubts.

You'll probably be "happier" in your beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.

Regardless of the fraud or not, I believe Trump should never have been President. Never even on the ballot. But, the system is what it is, for better or worse. To me, it seems mostly worse.

The idea was good. The machinery that has surrounded it is, seemingly, flawed, if not outright corrupt.

At least you openly admit that it's an "appearance" and used the word "seemingly".

That in no way provides any evidence or factual basis that it's "flawed, if not outright corrupt."

Correct.

Meanwhile, You and mgh have not proven that it "definitely" isn't despite making such a claim. My argument is with the false certainty.

You are comparing, on one side of the debate, multiple state investigations, multiple court decisions in different districts under both R- and D-appointed judges, and the Heritage Foundation (Right Wing — or Right Leaning, depending on how you want to describe it). And you want to ignore all that weight of evidence, data, information — whatever you want to label it — but it is the ONLY metric that exists.

Worse than ignoring it, without any basis in observable reality regarding these specific pieces of information, you want to dismiss them as if they are all unquestionably tainted/worthless/incompetent.

On the other side of the ledger we have... exactly nothing. Nada. Zilch.

You have feelings and fears and emotions and what-ifs. You have, from the Right — who have a damn strong motivation for wanting to prevent or restrict mail-in voting because it overwhelmingly leans Democratic — a constant construct of words to describe a fear of things that MIGHT HAPPEN. COULD HAPPEN. Or, if they DID HAPPEN, they have completely and utterly failed to produce evidence to back up these wild claims.

And to this complete lack of A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G... you choose to give MORE WEIGHT and MORE SUBSTANCE than the actual observable pieces of data and metrics that we have.

That is either agenda-driven... or simply contrarian... or troll-like.

If you could provide one specific example of: "The 64 court cases were questionable because, in this court case 'X', the information was tainted/misrepresented/manufactured/omitted..." OR "All the states that investigated the validity of their voter records (despite some of the red states having a desire to substantiate the fraudulent activity) had faulty methodology because they did this/used that/omitted this..." ..... If you could do that I would have a concersation about the merits of what you bring to the table. But not with the current status quo of your argment that rests on essentially nothing. And we don't have to agree - that's fine. But we sure as heck don't need to keep talking about it when there is nothing to discuss. I can't reason with your fear or emotion that allows you to conviently dismiss everything on one side, while putting enormous faith/trust/weight of conviction on the other where there is nothing.

What we have done is provide a trove of evidence in the form of court cases lost, investigations which came up empty, including one from the most far right wing source possible, The Heritage Foundation and accusations based on zero substance having been shown to support them. A successful lawsuit costing 780 million dollars for trying to claim voting machines rigged the elections. I understand for some people nothing is ever enough.

In turn what you provided was "appearance" and "seemingly".

So you just roll with that.

And I understand that the "evidence" is not all likely to be 100% cast iron .... little in life is "100% perfect" or however you want to phrase it. But acknowledging that something is not likley to be perfect - and then tossing everything associated with it out 'just because' ... seems insane. It is insane.

I don't dismiss them. I question them. I don't make claims of "unquestionably." You're the one repeatedly expressing certainty.

You seem to see the "ONLY metric that exists" as certainty. I see states effectively investigating themselves and courts decisions being made based on those investigations and not allowing the federal DoJ to investigate them being the "only metric" problematic.

On one hand, I do see why this particular DoJ is problematic. I can see why some rulings may have been made with that in mind. On the other, I see problems with setting legal precedent based upon trying to hold off this particular DoJ.

Metrics don't impress me on their own. I have to dig into how they came about. My digging raised questions for me. You trust the metrics.

One could also make the argument that Democrats only want to keep things as they are because mail-in voting overwhelmingly leans Democratic. That sword can cut both ways.

Observing the data and metrics isn't actually observing what the data and metrics represent. You seem to give all the weight to some surface numbers. I'm not giving more weight and substance to anything, I'm still trying to weigh.

They think dems or the left won’t get off the couch to come vote… we’re going to show up in huge numbers to rid ourselves of this scourge.

The federal DOJ has proven themselves to do trump's bidding. ie... He gave them a direct order to go after certain political opponents and they followed those orders. If you're going to start questioning things at least question things there seems to be some legitimate reason to question.

I question them, too. Yet, hiding information, even from them, breeds distrust.

States sell their voter files. link Somehow the federal government requesting similar information isn't allowed? For 600 bucks, you can get the New Mexico voter files with Name, address, birth year, political party, county, precinct, and district information of registered voters. Somehow providing the same information to investigators is an undue burden? Yes, they wanted additional information like SSNs, but if they have all that information you think they couldn't track down the SSN?

The whole voting apparatus just seems sketchy, and that was before I knew about states being able to sell voter information for profit.

Even your own link shows that several states do NOT just openly sell their voter data base. And even many of those who do restrict the manner in which it is used.

If you had said that "some states" sell their voter data base you would have been correct. But then that's not what you stated at all.

Just so other posters don't have to wade through that gibberish on their own, there are four different categories that varies from state to state. Requester restricted, Requester restricted and usage
restricted, Usage restricted and Open.

[quote]Voter files are digital databases of information about registered voters that each state is legally required to maintain. States can sell voter file information to individuals or groups, and each state has developed its own guidelines regarding these sales.

Pointing out that the DOJ is using government overreach to "require" states to turn over such records isn't remotely suspicious.

So on one hand you admit you don't trust the DOJ and let's face it, they have filed charges against people they don't have enough evidence to bring them to court, have had to drop cases they filed and followed trump's orders in going after his political enemies. And you find "Yet, hiding information, even from them, breeds distrust"?

It seems odd you wouldn't find it more distrustful to believe the DOJ wouldn't make false claims and false allegations if given this information this close to an election to build even more mistrust in our election process. Only to find later, which has often been the case they were wrong after the fact. Giving your opponent the ammunition to misuse and lie about isn't a logical answer here.

This is a case where you think finding mistrust in people who have already proven track record they can't be trusted makes the more sense than the other way around. But nothing about that is new.

I didn't say all states. I said states plural, which is true. Then I specified the one that I had previously commented on, which is also true and verifiable there in the link. And it is one of the Open usage states.

Distrusting one thing doesn't make me magically trust everything against them. Liars can be lied about. There aren't just a good side and a bad side. There are lots of grey sides. If there's nothing to hide, why hide it? Maybe this time Trump's side is the bad side. Maybe next time the sides are reversed. Maybe the ones looking are good, and there are frauds hiding the truth. I'm not a big fan of allowing information that should be searchable to be hidden being set as legal precedent.

What "grey side" is there to the FACT that the DOJ has proven on several occasions to be nothing but an extension of trump's revenge tour? How much will it take before you give up that "grey side" BS on behalf of a corrupt DOJ?


You know, for a guy who has so often times in the past leaned towards the side who is concerned about the overreach in government it seems odd to me you support them trying to take rights away from the states to conduct their own elections as the constitution allows for. Instead you seem to side with their actions to try and interfere and give them ammunition with which they can twist, lie and misuse in a very short time table allowing no time with which to research or disprove any allegations they just make up out of thin air. And remember, not to believe that is a very real possibility would be to ignore their obvious track record to this point.

You do realize your question could also be used as an excuse to allow our government to have multiple cameras on every corner, pointed in every direction with facial recognition to follow our every move, right? I mean what do we have to hide, right? At least that's what the Chinese government has done based on that very question.

Where do you draw your line in the sand?

That's one of the reasons you don't just "turn everything over" to this administration. That and the fact it may not be legal for them to demand it in the first place. I would never have expected you to go to bat for the federal government. Especially an administration that has plainly laid every reason out on the table not to.


And maybe if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground every time they landed. There is a distinct pattern that has been laid out in front of you and in your zeal to be a contrarian you have decided to ignore all of that based on "maybe this time".

1. It's "dark grey." That doesn't make the states "white."

2. There are private lives and there are public lives. If you're voting in a federal election, the federal government should be able to verify the action wasn't fraudulent. That doesn't mean they should be able to punish you if you vote against them legally, but they would be an injured party if you cheated, or the state cheated for you.

Governments pretty much already have the right to cameras and facial recognition on public land. They aren't exercising it everywhere, but that's more a matter of cost than ability probably. I know speed trap cameras are popping up all over where I'm at.

What you do in your own home that doesn't effect other people has a right to privacy. Unfortunately, the results of elections effect everybody. If Trump has a diabolical plan to ham handedly lose the lawsuits, so he can fix the next election and no one is allowed to check it because these rulings are in place, is that a good thing? (Probably not Trump personally, but the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes)

3. A problem with patterns is that they can be broken. Another problem with them is that people have a tendency try to see them even when they aren't there. When operating in this mode, people have a tendency to undervalue and/or ignore things that don't fit the pattern they think that they see.

Still shilling for a known corrupt DOJ that has been proven to do trump's bidding I see. All elections ran in a state are to be controlled and ran by the states. Not directly interfered with by the federal government. The fact that this administration and trump himself especially has been making allegations with zero evidence to back them up for over a decade now should make this even more clear.

Then there are people making excuses to the contrary.

If the law only affected "Trump," I wouldn't be arguing. Legal precedent doesn't work that way, unfortunately. You're not supposed to apply the law differently for different people. The because it's "Trump" part is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, or at least it is supposed to be.

Effectively, setting it up so the people who could have benefited from the fraud are the only ones who can investigate that fraud seems ...fraudulent. While I appreciate privacy concerns, I'm for government transparency. When those two things intersect, I lean towards the transparency. (And when "some" states are selling the data how private is it?) When the results are Trump and Biden, I want to know exactly what the hell happened.

If you're not supposed to apply the law to differently to different people why is it only blue states and swing states they are demanding this information from? Can't you see how that helps answer your own question?

It was plainly pointed out to you that the DOJ has bent at the knees for trump. Yet you claim that has no meaning. If it's "the law" that matters, if they had any evidence to support their claims there would be grounds and cause for such information to be turned over. Yet every time they have tried to obtain such evidence in support of their accusations they have not been able to. So since when is "the law" dictated according to empty accusations and suspicion with no grounds to base them on?

You are advocating for these records to be turned over on the basis of government transparency to the very people who have deceived people, brought forth false charges and have been anything but transparent in calling out anything but transparent and honest in their zeal to go after their political enemies.

For some reason you can't get past the fact that the very people who claim if they win it's fair but if they lose it's rigged. You seem blind to the fact that those saying it's "heads I win, tails you lose" aren't going to give anyone and unbiased and factual result if their findings. You can't see through the charade where the only people they want to investigate are the very people and locations they claim are their political enemies based on allegations with no substance.

Here are the nine states the DOJ has demanded voter information from. Washington, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New York and Connecticut.

If the "law is the law" can you point out why these are the only nine states they have targeted and none of the other 41?

Either you can't see it, refuse to see it or are purposefully pretending you don't see it. None of those options is flattering.