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

No doubt the regulars will tell you there is nothing to see here:



Something to watch and be aware of. Get ready for months and months of legal wrangling to prevent the midterm elections being called.

[Steiner] "has moved forward with what can be described as a rushed, chaotic ballot tracking system, eliminating standard and needed testing and therefor creating a substantial risk for failure of the system that could derail the midterm election."

That's a lot and it's pretty ambiguous, but I'll keep my eyes peeled.


For the sake of receipts, since everybody acts like they have some before they even leave the store nowadays; please post this bloke's response when it doesn't happen.

I'll bet you $20 and a pint of Guinness he doesn't have one. He'll have nothing more than more "jiggery-pokery".

I wonder what the over and under is on how many court cases will be filed to dispute the outcomes of the election results this time around?

I bet it will be yugea!

Federal judge considers whether to extend ban against US Postal Service mail voting changes

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston said Thursday the U.S. Postal Service has told her nothing about how it would implement a plan to regulate mail ballots for the midterms as she considers whether to let the plan proceed in the weeks before Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani is deciding whether to extend her prohibition on the proposed regulation of mail ballots, an effort undertaken as part of an executive order by President Donald Trump. The hearing in the closely watched case came a day before the first state begins sending mail ballots to voters.

“We are 70 days from the election and I have nothing from the USPS about how this will happen,” Talwani told Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Postal Service.

Last week, Talwani imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order to keep it from being used. That order expires next week as more states begin sending out mail ballots. Velchik said the administration will most likely go to the Supreme Court by the end of the week to seek permission to resume implementing the plan.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated in the Constitution to the states and in some cases Congress.

They won an initial victory with Talwani’s restraining order, which has already been appealed by the administration.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal. But the portal was still not active this week, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told Talwani that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system. But the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so.

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters, but if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ma...lawsuit-63899f738d28d161b629054a314f161a

So one side thinks we have a king who can change our laws by decree. It's all the rage these days.

I've got an idea... let's get back to election methods that weren't broken and stop bulk-mailing millions of ballots to people that didn't even request them.

The current election methods are working and aren't broken. Just making some #triggered #snowflake claims to the contrary despite all evidence gathered showing it's not broken and working just fine now doesn't matter. "But we don't feel like that's true" isn't a valid reason to upend the current election process.

Nobody seemed to have an issue with it until trump opened his mouth.

I'm a triggered snowflake because I have an opinion?

Do you ever wonder why you don't have any friends?

What opinion did you share and what did you base your opinion on? You made a general statement without any context. But in general, this is the exact same thing trumpians claim about every democrat that complains about anything trump does. Haven't you been paying attention?

It's either call them triggered snowflakes or claim they have TDS because they can't defend his actions. Or what responsibe people like yourself used to call deflection.

They'll call us #triggered #snowflakes and then whine about Jimmy Kimmel and trump even lobbies to have him taken off the air. They'll then boycott Jelly Roll for telling some trump jokes as a guest host of Kimmel's show. They'll curse and scream about Alan Ritchson who they loved as Reacher until he said negative things about trump. They did as far back as boycotting The Dixie Chicks.

Maybe if you actually tried laying out why you think our current election methods aren't working besides "Because we don't believe it" you would have grounds to dispute what I posted. Just postiing a singe statement about "How you feel" about something is not an opinion.

I'm all for hearing your opinion. But some blanket statement with no context or grounds is, as you know yourself, not an actual opinion.

When I said "I've got an idea" the following opinion was a dead-giveaway.

Yeah, I can't even read the rest of that mess... Jelly donuts, reacher, dixie chicks, blah, blah, blah.

EVERY TIME I unclick ignore. I have no idea why I'm so slow to learn.


You can have back your one-man echo chamber. One of your pets will come along soon and you can talk about "crickets".

You're not talking to me, but 'triggered snowflake' is a bit much, IMO. Your opinion is the sole thing that props up your argument of 'broken election systems' which has been debunked time and time again, however.

I have an argument of broken election systems?

Nope. Never said that. You're implying that because I have a differing opinion and everyone must be typecast for each opinion.

But if you want a broken election system and compromised elections... keep mailing out tens of millions of ballots unsolicited.

My whole point is that it makes no sense whatsoever.


You know how many hoops you have to jump through to get married, to get a license, to buy a house, to get a job? Hell, you jump through waaay more hoops to buy a pair of shoes.

But "the powers that be" have painted some picture that it is sooo hard for some people to vote... and if we don't make it the easiest thing in the world, well, then we're racist and cheating people out of the privilege of voting.


Fine, then make them make one click of a button to REQUEST a ballot be mailed to them.

Is this really that hard? Is it really that hard to understand how someone may have that opinion?

I understand that when someone actually adds context to help explain something that seems to trouble you.

So since you once again have no legitimate rebuttal you resort to your usual nothingness and blame me for it. It's the trumpian game plan.

The problem is you know you didn't actually post an opinion. Instead you posted a one sentence statement reply indicating you bolster some already debunked nonsense with zero context.


You seemed confused or needing an explanation about my use of #triggered #snowflake so I explained it to you. As a result of that you seem to be #triggered yet once again.


Aw, how special. You think the people who share your politics includes everyone. It doesn't. I have plenty of friends. They're just not right wing #triggered extremists who either ignore or make excuses for trump's behavior. We leave that up to you and your kind. But then once again you blame us for that since you're unwilling to step up to the plated. You choose to blame me for that................


But since that's probably the only BS you have left in your bag of tricks what else can you do?

They are sent out to registered voters. They met all legal requirements when they registered to vote. Claiming the fact that someone is registered to vote doesn't want a ballot is ridiculous.


Once again they met all legal requirements when they registered to vote.I can pay cash for a pair of shoes. Just stop the nonsense already.


No, people are pointing out that you're making it purposefully harder for people to . And that much s true.


That's just some nonsense you created in your own mind. You are actively trying to make it harder to vote. You have certainly been told it's racist to continue closing polling locations in impoverished black neighborhoods mainly across the south where it's targeted at the poorest of people with the least likelihood of having transportation in order to travel to vote.

Of course you ignored all of that and now wish to write your own narrative.


You must have missed it. This is the first time in this thread you actually posted your opinion.

You said methods, not systems. I misquoted.

I dunno, I think it's fair to call a system that resulted in Trump, Biden, Trump again the last three Presidential elections as broken. It may be working as intended by those now in power mechanically, but it's a travesty. It's broken before we even get to the act of voting.

I agree. We have a very liberal timeframe in which people can go to vote. Way too many mail-ins. I am not saying there aren't people who need the mail-in system, but it is way out of line. Those ballots are sent out well in advance. There is no reason for them to show up late on election night or even after. The only exceptions might be from military personnel out on some battleship somewhere.

We need to quit making excuses for people. If they don't show the civic responsibility to get things done on a timely basis, they are out of luck.

Documented cases of mail voting fraud are extremely uncommon

link

Research published by the Brookings Institute in November found that cases of mail-in voting fraud account for merely 0.000043% of all ballots cast by mail, equivalent to roughly four out of every 10 million.

The research focused on four of the five most recent general elections: those in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. To make its calculations, Brookings drew on a Heritage Foundation database of election fraud cases that “ended in a finding that the individual engaged in wrongdoing,” identifying cases in which people were charged with fraud related to mail-in voting.

In the 2020 election, in which a record number of Americans voted by mail and which Trump has repeatedly claimed he lost as a result of voter fraud, the researchers calculated that those cases comprised just 0.000051% of the mail ballots cast.

An Associated Press survey of state and election officials in both Democratic- and Republican-run states also found no cases of fraud, vandalism, or theft related to the expanded use of drop boxes for mailed ballots in that year’s election—which Trump and other Republicans raised concerns about being a potential source of fraud—that could have impacted the outcome.

Another study from 2020, published by the American Statistical Association, estimated the change in the reported number of voter fraud cases after states switched to conducting elections by mail. Comparing the number of voter fraud cases in states where a large portion of voters receive ballots by mail to that in other states, the study found “no evidence that voting by mail increases the risk of voter fraud overall.”

Earlier research produced similar findings. An investigation conducted in 2012 by the News21 reporting project, for instance, found just 491 alleged cases of absentee ballot fraud since 2000—a period in which hundreds of millions of votes were cast around the country—based on an analysis including hundreds of interviews and thousands of public records. Although the investigators found that voters frequently make mistakes, such as voting twice or in the wrong precinct, they concluded that few cases revealed a coordinated effort to fraudulently alter election results.

Research also shows that mail-in voting expands voter access and participation, providing a secure method of voting to millions who might otherwise not have been able to access the polls. In 2020, for example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, 46% of all voters received and voted through mailed ballots, according to the National Vote at Home Institute; voter turnout that year was the highest it had been in over 120 years. Another study found that voter participation increased an average of 5.6% in states that mailed a ballot to registered voters in the 2020 presidential election.

As per usual they're trying to create a problem where none exists. It's really sad how so many try to make it more difficult to vote.

It's not fraud, they're "mistakes." Frequent "mistakes." They accidentally voted multiple times.



Now I'm kind of curious what that "frequently" actually looks like, and how it breaks down, and how many un-"coordinated" efforts there were.


Did voter turnout actually increase or is that number inflated by repeat voters?

Numbers on their own don't really tell the whole story. And "National Vote at Home Institute" doesn't really sound like an unbiased party on the topic of mailed ballots.

---------------

I'm not really trying to argue, these kinds of inconsistencies and apparent biases just leave me having a hard time taking numbers at face value.

If you ignore the "mistakes," you come up with a number. If you include the "frequent" "mistakes," it sounds like it could be a very different number.

News21 conducted an "investigation," but what did they go into it looking for? How long did they investigate? Hundreds of interviews and thousands of public records isn't really that many in the grand scheme of things when you're talking about hundreds of millions of votes. If it was 300 interviews and they found 491 alleged cases, that's more than one for every interview. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the way things are framed can be very deceptive.

Cool story. So, we should only consider voter fraud based on convictions, right?

I mean if a store is looted and nobody was convicted; nothing was really stolen right?

By comparison, 27.2 million cheat on their taxes every year ~ only 1600 are convicted. So, no tax evasion issue, right? I mean it's such a small percentage. Maybe, since there's really no fraud, we could make things easier by having people just send in what they think they owe instead of having such a convoluted, oppressive system.

Good news for men though, you've only really cheated on your wife if she's successfully divorced you on the grounds of infidelity.

As for "another study", it's pretty much ridiculous to rely on data from 2000-2012, when bulk-mailing of absentee ballots exploded in 2020. That said, only 491 cases were investigated. Just so you know (not that you care) over that time span only 10 (that's right, TEN) cases were investigated for in-person voter fraud. And that's across billions of votes cast.

What ifs seem to be your strong suit. Audits have been done on state voting systems post election. It seems you somehow believe this "repeat voting" would not have been caught in such audits.

And another myth. Why do I call it a myth? Because one of the most bias and right wing organizations there is combed through everything they could get their hands on and still couldn't find some imaginary "mass illegal alien voting".

First................

Aggressive DHS hunt for voter fraud only finding a handful of possible noncitizen cases

Nine states have reportedly been targeted in the latest surge by the Department of Homeland Security to root out voter fraud. One state told MS NOW the findings there have been single-digit.

https://www.ms.now/news/aggressive-...g-a-handful-of-possible-noncitizen-cases

Analysis: Heritage Foundation’s Database Undermines Claims of Recent Voter Fraud

Brennan Center findings dismantle a key resource that Trump’s “Election Integrity” Commission relies on to justify baseless claims — by President Trump and some of the panel’s members — of rampant voter fraud.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...-database-undermines-claims-recent-voter

"Yeah but what if" is not grounds to overhaul the election process.

Sounds like a #triggered, #snowflake way to explain away opinion and common sense and blame it on, well, a conspiracy. As usual, the irony is pretty thick.

Don't respond to any facts though, mac. Just play the "cult" card, you wear it well.

What facts have you presented that in any way provides any evidence of mass voter fraud? Do you need help with the answer?

I'll take the $20 bet on whether there is litigation after the midterms. Would like some clear cut definition of what the actual metrics is.

But to date, our elections are definitely safe and secure and valid. Provably so... And yet again Trump is trying to undermine confidence in them.

It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" method of grifting he has always used. The only time he complains about illegal voting are in states and elections he loses and his minions follow along blindly. Much like his criminal convictions and the findings in his sexual assault law suit.

He's never guilty of anything because it's always someone elses fault. Just ask him.

No, no, no... that's not the bet, Kemosabe.

He said: "there will be months and months of litigation and the President of the United States going to the mat and saying 'I do not believe the new Congress should be allowed to sit as the constitution calls for.'" You summed it all up with "something to watch for".


I said: I bet you $20 he has no response, retraction, comments at all, when and if it doesn't happen.

My point is the endless predictions of the coming dystopia, that never come to pass, never have any of these talking heads standing up and saying "Hey, I was wrong". Never.

So if there is litigation that delays the verification of election results I
... Or tries to cast doubt about the results... Which is basically the prediction, that's not good enough to win the bet?

You're wanting to assume no litigation and only between the guy doesn't admit his mistake (if that happens?

Trump brings fight over mailed ballots back to Supreme Court

WASHINGTON −The Trump administration is once again asking the Supreme Court to let the U.S. Postal Service tighten the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress.

In an emergency appeal filed on Sept. 3, the administration asked the court to lift a judge's ruling that paused President Donald Trump's new role for the Postal Service.

That ruling came after the Supreme Court last month said a previous ruling from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani was premature because it came before the Postal Service had finalized rules for how it would implement Trump’s executive order.

Talwani issued the latest block a day after the Postal Service published its final rules, finding that they are probably unconstitutional and would be impossible to carry out in time for this year's elections.

Her hold on the policy is temporary and will expire on Sept. 10 unless she extends it, a move the judge is considering.

The administration told the Supreme Court that they should intervene now − despite the lack of a final decision from Talwani and before an appeals court has weighed in − because of the fast-approaching election.

North Carolina will begin mailing absentee ballots to voters on Sept. 4.

Rick Hasen, an elections expert and law professor at UCLA, called the early intervention request by the administration "highly unusual procedurally".

Under the controversial order Trump signed in March, the Postal Service sets standards for ballot mail envelopes and states must submit lists of verified voters. The Postal Service can refuse to deliver ballots that don't meet the new rules or bear the name of a voter who is not on a list.

A whistleblower has warned that the technology developed by the U.S. Postal Service to carry out the order could "derail the midterm elections," saying it hasn't been properly tested and risks "catastrophic failure" if implemented.

A Postal Service spokesperson has said the agency is "carefully reviewing" the issues raised by the whistleblower. The agency has spent months developing a "simple, secure, and efficient" mail ballot system, and the work was "conducted in a manner consistent with court orders," the spokesperson said.

Under the Constitution, states are assigned the role of administering federal elections. But Trump has called for greater federal control since losing his 2020 reelection campaign. He’s continued to push the false claim that he lost because of widespread voter fraud.

Regardless of whether voter fraud is common or not, Trump's policy will help protect the integrity of federal elections, the Justice Department said in its appeal.

The fight over what rules govern absentee ballots could be crucial for the 2026 midterms, which will determine which party controls Congress. Democrats can take control by flipping a handful of seats in the House and Senate.

Voting by mail has decreased since its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic. But nearly 30% of voters still cast a ballot that way in the 2024 elections.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote by mail, according to the MIT Election Data & Science Lab.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...upreme-court-postal-service/91598981007/

Now it seems Republicans think our election rules should be set by presidential decrees rather than any what used to be normal means.

There's nothing definite about it. You believe elections are safe, secure, and valid based upon numbers that you believe to be accurate. No one knows how accurate the numbers are or if they are actually representative of the whole. Go personally check all 154,308,000 votes and prove to us how accurate the counts were for 2024. If you check ten a day you should be done in ~42,000 years. It would only take ~422 years if you do 1,000 a day.

I personally believe the elections are safe and secure based on empirical data and every court decision so far that we have seen.

If you choose to suggest that the president of the United States is an alien and I can't prove otherwise as a basis for your arguement or something similar to that type of arguement.... That's on you and says everything about you. Have at it. I'm not, but I choose not to engage on your childishness

I believe the results reflect the data and don't think the results are tinkered with.

The problem with the data is there is no way to check if it was a legal vote once the lever is pulled so to speak. It's just a ballot reflecting a vote for such and such a candidate. The fraud happens before the actual vote is cast.

My feeling is all voters on site need to show a valid I.D. No sane individual can make a sound argument on why that shouldn't be required. For mail-in my solution would be more controversial. I would require the ballot be signed and dated by the individual. That is the only way to make sure the person who received the ballot was the person actually voting. It would also be a means to check for multiple ballots being submitted by the same voter.

I have no doubt that illegal votes are being cast in mass. The last election in California is a classic example where the 3rd place candidate somehow managed to surge in to 2nd place after a massive tilt in the mailings as they came in days later.

Empirical: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory link

Just because some people have looked at something and collected their observations doesn't automatically mean those people actually know and understand what they are looking at. They're making judgment calls based on their experience which may or may not be accurate.

The problem with your purposefully BS straw man argument is that I'm not the one making claims of certainty.

Bringing in an outrageous mention of aliens isn't childish at all.

False certainty is the act of a "child." Doubt is the act of an adult that has come to understand how little we actually know.

Mommy tells little Suzy that Santa brought her presents. Suzy observes presents under the tree with Santa's name on them. Based on that empirical data Suzy concludes Santa must be real. Suzy never saw Santa, but his name is on the paper and mommy told her so, so it must be accurate, no? Your belief in elections seems to follow a similar sort of logic.

This is a ridiculous argument. "This seems strange to me" isn't a valid argument.

I suppose you are talking about how Nithya Raman came back to beat Spencer Pratt for second place.

Where the votes are cast ie.... what location and part of the state are a strong indication as to who the votes will go to.

California leans heavily liberal. So to be surprised that most mail in ballots, which are known to be heavily democrat, would lean to a much more to a liberal candidate than a conservative candidate shouldn't come as a surprise to any rational thinking person.

After all, in the end that's why trump is fighting so hard to stop mail in ballots. They lean heavily democrat.

You're surprised a liberal came back after mail in votes were counted to beat a conservative? Really? In California?

Nithya Raman got the overwhelming amount of late mail-in votes when Bass was the clear leader at the actual polls.

Bass got 65% more votes than Raman at the polls.

Raman got 15% more votes than Bass with the late mail-in ballots.

These were obviously all democratic voters we're talking about, so that seems like a HUGE mathematical anomaly. An 80% swing in votes in a democratic primary?? Hard to create a narrative that works for that one. But look what was accomplished... no possibility of an (R) even running!

Why would anyone possibly care if Pratt was on the final ballot? He would have had zero chance of winning in California. Sane people first find a motive before claiming someone cheated. There was no motive here.

No you aren't making claims of certainty - what you are doing is purposefully, willfully - I would say childishly way - dismissing the actual known eviudence. Not because you can claim to know that the evidence is tainted, or incomplete or biased.... just because you have a general "but what if" disclaimer to essentially anything you disagree with. You "what if" things without any actal basis of credibility or even a tangible relationship to what is being discussed. Little Suzy and your strawman contrived gaslighting example bears absollutely zero relationship to any of the subject matter. And Aliens are indeed relevent and an example of your completely bogus arguments that are lacking any substantiative content.

It's not me that is observing anyting - Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania all carried out extensive voter fraud investigations. That means more than your little Suzy, it means more than a What If the people "observing" are so stupid they don't know how to investigate .... 12 million voter IDs were audited or revieed. In Georgia Cobb County 15,000+ absentee votes were verified - 0 fraud. In Texas - Its four-county forensic audit covered 3,885,875 votes and performed voter-registration and eligibility analyses, including searches for cross-state duplicate voting, deceased voters and possible non-citizens. It found 67 cases where deceased people may have voted. Possibly 509 cases of potential fraud (none proven) - but if we ASSUME all of those potential cases were in fact fraud .... it represents a voter fraud rate of 0.01%. Again, with the assumption that every possible red flag was in fact fraud which is more than unlikely. And yes - ideally we should try to elinate ALL voter fraud, I am not saying voter fraud is acceptable. . . but we are discussing mass voter fraud of significant numbers to alter the results of an election....

This is in addition to the 60+ court cases where fraud claims that Biden 'stole' the 2020 election ... 30 dismissed. 29 lost. 1 win on a technicality which related to the date a handful of votes had been counted and was not fraudulent but procedural.

It is not hard ... there is no mass voter fraud. The elections are secure and safe. The idea that they aren't is a scare tactic by Trump/MAGA and the looney right trying to create a narrative to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Unless you or anyone else wants to provide some E.V.D.E.N.C.E this is not true - take your loss and go home. Dismissing the evidence while not providing ANYTHING of substance tobase this dismissal is more than ignorant.

Not at all. It was expected for the reasons I mentioned and why it is a sham. The odd part is Bass received a very small percentage of those votes while carrying the general election by a wide margin. Not only does that go against probability, it defies reason.

Fair and honest elections is why I care. Obviously you don't.

Have a good day.

So you gave no legitimate reason why anyone in California would care if Pratt were on the ballot. You have provided no motive whatsoever why they would do that. So in your belief somebody or somebodies for no reason at all rigged it so someone with zero chance of winning wouldn't be on the ballot because you "feel" like it was rigged?

I'm 100% sure you understand that having the inability to name a suspect or having no motive seriously brings into doubt the legitimacy of your suspicion.

I certainly do care about legitimate elections. What I also do is try to use a little common sense. When there is zero motive to rig an election it doesn't make sense to create some wild belief that it was rigged. And it's also obvious you can't think of a legitimate motive for that election to be rigged either.

Since you brought up "defying reason", you just did.

You have a good day too Peen.

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.