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.

Stop talking such utter nonsense.

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..."