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

Yes, "'BD' talking BS" like Pit posting 11 letters and thinking he made a point, instead of giving more evidence of BS.

It made just as much of a point as the post I was replying to. Just in a more efficient manner. It's not my job to disprove every meaningless word of BS you post regardless of your belief to the contrary.

Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions ahead of midterms

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they’ve used for years and have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast.

It represented a stark defeat for Trump on an issue he consistently has emphasized as vital to ensuring election integrity even though there is virtually no evidence of fraud with mail ballots.

The Supreme Court majority wrote that the administration’s push to implement the restrictions this year is likely to lose in court, though the brief emergency order didn’t detail its reasoning. Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

The Trump administration had asked the justices, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the Postal Service “has broad authority to regulate the mail” and likely does have the power to enforce Trump’s restrictions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, agreed that the restrictions should not go into effect for the midterms but indicated he might rule in favor of the Trump administration if the issue comes back before the court at a later time.

Mail ballots are already being sent to voters

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn’t comply.

The administration’s efforts had the potential to be especially disruptive in states that send out ballots entirely by mail. Washington’s Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said the decision means work “to carry out a safe, secure, and accurate election” can continue ”without having to upend our election processes to meet unrealistic ballot mail requirements.”

In Arizona, another largely vote-by-mail state, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said “it is crucial for us to continue rejecting the notion that access and security are mutually exclusive when it comes to running strong elections.”

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican serving as the state’s chief election officer, said on social media that the Supreme Court’s decision means “Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal.”

The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but have in the past framed the restrictions as commonsense changes aimed at keeping elections secure.

State officials and voting rights groups pushed back

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing that the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would “virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election.”

A whistleblower report, meanwhile, said the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because problems with the not-yet-operational portal meant a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

Some states don’t have the infrastructure to quickly pivot back to in-person voting, according to court documents.

The League of Women Voters, a plaintiff in the case, called the proposed restrictions “an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting” and said it would have thrown elections into chaos. “Voters should never be caught in the middle of a political power warfare,” said CEO Celina Stewart.

Lower courts agreed to block Trump’s plan, including a preliminary injunction issued by a judge nominated by the president.

But the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that federal control of the Postal Service allows them to set rules for mail ballot handling and that compliance was possible.

The federal government won an early procedural decision at the Supreme Court, but the justices pointedly did not decide the legality of the plan.

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, including as recently as this year.

A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that mail voting fraud occurred in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ma...lawsuit-78a4fbeb48d9c5fd27d1c865529fc65f

And of course trump is having his usual temper tantrum melt down on his Truth Social account because he didn't get his way. AKA- Another typical day.

The report


Extrapolating from non-comprehensive sources of admitted limited scope and claiming broad conclusions is bad science. "We have reason to believe" might as well say we performed Olympic level mental gymnastics to fit some data to our conclusions.

Like you, and others, they seem to conflate what was found with what occurred. Those two words aren't interchangeable.

Unfortunately, Charles Bukowski seems to have been right about confidence.

I do agree with one thing from the report as far as looking ahead:

States have all of the comprehensive data needed to accomplish that........

States provide public voter roll data and general election integrity reports, though the specific statistics and depth of illegal voting data vary by state.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/fact-check-trump-noncitizens-voter-rolls/73174655

And yet, the article you were quoting characterized it as something needed in the future. And you fail to mention the accurate part of their concern.

Unfortunately, your comprehension of what comprehensive actually means appears to leave a lot to be desired.

There are states that could and probably should be more transparent. That has nothing to do with the federal government stepping in to interfere. Speaking of comprehension.

I have concerns about this federal government interfering. Yet, I also feel we should have a better government that should be able to look for malfeasance. Instead of a blanket ruling that the federal government can't look, I think setting a framework where this and future (hopefully, as unlikely as it may seem) better governments can look with guardrails in place to prevent their manipulation would be a better precedent to set.

Trusting the States/Courts because you don't trust the Feds seems a bad basis for trust to me. The whole "no" evidence argument bothers me because it seems to assume that criminals are stupid and just purposefully leave a plethora of evidence out in the open. Unfortunately, our government institutions appear to be full of sophisticated criminals that are good, to varying degrees, at hiding their tracks. If instead of assuming those creating the records/"evidence" with regards to voting are good you allow the possibility that they are creating the records dishonestly in the first place, it would make the difficulty of finding evidence of fraud expected.

You are creating an example that doesn't exist here. On January 2, 2021, President Donald Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to overturn the state's 2020 election results. The only states targeted in all of this are states where trump himself has accused them of cheating because he lost in those states.

None of this is anything close to what you're making it out to be. Misdirection can be a thing of beauty when applied correctly, but not here.

Saying you trust a single party whose leader has already shown he is willing to go to almost any length to change the election results makes no sense.

Trump lashes out at Supreme Court justices, saying his appointees ‘are not the people I interviewed’

President Donald Trump upbraided Supreme Court justices as "shells" beholden to "crazed" liberal interests in a lengthy online screed a day after the court blocked his plan to execute dramatic changes to mail-in voting ahead of the midterms.

"These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday.

None of the justices Trump appointed to the court during his first term — Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch or Amy Coney Barrett — noted disagreement with the majority opinion blocking the mail-voting changes.

Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said they would have allowed the rules to go into place.

Trump, furious at the decision, decried a number of other rulings handed down by the court that blocked aspects of his agenda. That includes rejections of his plans to limit birthright citizenship and enact sweeping tariffs.

He said the court was "costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won't be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal."

"It is a Court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country's history," he wrote. "It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love!"

The Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment on Trump's post.

Later Tuesday, Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration would comply with the latest Supreme Court order, though didn't rule out trying to pursue changes to mail voting in the years before the 2028 presidential election.

"President Trump's efforts to make sure that we have free and fair elections are not going to stop just in November or after or thereafter. So I expect you're going to see that work continue," he said.

Blanche defended Trump's harsh criticism of the justices, describing the president as "very frustrated" by the ruling.

"He has every right, and indeed he should communicate his concerns with the Supreme Court whenever he has them. This isn't the first time that he's done it, and it won't be the last," Blanche said.

Despite Trump's protestations, the Supreme Court has handed him significant wins, including a 2024 ruling that found presidents have broad criminal immunity for official acts.

The court also recently allowed construction to continue on Trump's White House ballroom project after preservationists sued to have the work halted.

Still, Trump has grown disillusioned with the conservative justices he appointed that have not ruled in his favor during his second term.

"The Supreme Court has really let our Country down!" he wrote Tuesday. "Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America."

By comparison, he praised Alito and Thomas — the two most reliable votes for upholding his agenda — as "legends."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-lashes-supreme-court-justices-140142780.html

As per usual we have trump throwing his typical temper tantrum because the SCOTUS didn't bow at his feet and follow his demands and in this case he has his AG Todd Blanche supporting his temper tantrum and attacking the highest court in the land. Let me guess, it's the people who point such things out that's the problem?

"beholden to "crazed" liberal interests" = THE CONSTITUTION

I'm not the one saying I trust anything. I'm the one saying I don't blindly trust something else because someone else says they are trustworthy and threw together some numbers.

My problem is that you don't actually know what "this" is. You've got a bunch of lousy assumptions about data with its own questionable assumptions.

You're the one that keeps trying to misdirect by keeping your "nose" and attention permanently tied behind Trump while ignoring anyone that doesn't want to keep sniffing the foulness you seem to need to roll in to the exclusion of all else.

Yet that has been in no way what I have done or are doing. What I have shown you, unless you're totally ignoring it, is that trump did in fact try to strong arm Georgia Secretary of State into changing the election results. What I have shown you is the states this administration has targeted are only states trump has made baseless claims of election fraud in. That isn't saying you should trust anyone. It showing you why you shouldn't trust someone. That's a distinct difference.

And yes, everyone including the Heritage Foundation have failed to produce any evidence to even suggest any mass voter fraud is taking place. It's not some "random set of numbers" it's a cumulative totality of numbers from different sources. I realize that lacks DNA results but it's at least a very strong indication. Far more than you have seen anywhere else.

But the overall point in all of this isn't complicated. No matter which party is in charge of the federal government at any given point in time, what you're suggesting is that they should be trusted to oversee elections in all 50 states. That they should have the power, thus the ability to manipulate, control and set the parameters which could upset the balance of power over our entire nation.

And here's another point. I have never seen you advocate for allowing the federal government to have such control over the states before. Never have I see you think that power should be concentrated by one side to open the door wide to impact the will of the people as a whole.

You somehow seem to advocate that our entire election process be controlled by one central power. The power of the federal government. That's so far out of character for you it makes it obvious to me you are dong this out of being a contrarian rather than being based on anything close to your sincere or your honest beliefs.

Your once again making this about Trump and strong arming the Georgia Sec o St is exactly the "keeping your "nose" and attention permanently tied behind Trump while ignoring anyone that doesn't want to keep sniffing the foulness you seem to need to roll in to the exclusion of all else" I was talking about.


It may be a cumulative collection of data from different sources, but it's not all the possible data. It's not a guaranteed accurate collection of data. It's also a very specific type of data that was looking for a particular thing that probably/possibly isn't very indicative of the actual underlying situation. You seem to be assuming people would want to prosecute things that benefited them when the opposite would be true.


It's not about control, it's about oversight and accountability. "Blue" states are generally overseen by "blue" politicians. "Red" states are generally overseen by "red" politicians. People rarely tell on their own groups when it could damage themselves. I see that as problematic. The Federal government transitions back and forth, while the states are, generally, more static. Parties investigating themselves seems to rather disincentivize pointing out issues that party benefited from. It's also about the scale of the undertaking. To accurately check everything would take a large investment in manhours, it's a ginormous task. If not the Fed gov, then who? It should go unchecked?


It only seems to be that way to you because you don't want to be wrong, and you've made some straw man position to make yourself right. I've never said anything about control anywhere. Again, oversight is not control. I'd say get AI to do it, but I don't trust AI to actually know what its looking at and someone, probably biased, would still have to program it. (and I'm strongly considering becoming a luddite besides.) I don't love the Federal Government option, but they are the most likely to find fraud if it is there, or are at least could be more incentivized to try to. I would want some sort of guardrails in place to prevent oversight from turning into control. Perhaps there could be a better more independent option, but I've yet to hear it proposed. Requiring congressmen/senators to actually do boring, menial, time consuming work in some sort of rotating red checking blue/blue checking red arrangement might actually go towards them earning their paychecks. Ha- politicians working, yeah, that's probably a pipe dream. The next time a politician closely reads hundreds of pages of documents will possibly be the first time.

I just don't see state governments as inherently better than federal within their scope. Their nature also seems even more "incestuous" as single parties tend to dominate for longer periods of time, not that politics altogether isn't its own shallow pool.

If you have decided to believe this is about oversight rather than control that's a you issue.

Ignoring factual information about how trump did in fact do everything in his power to strong arm strong arm Georgia Secretary of State into changing the election results has nothing to do with "'keeping your "nose"' and attention permanently tied behind Trump". It's prima facie evidence that this is about control and not oversight.

Showing the fact they only wish to investigate states trump, while showing no basis in evidence, has accused of cheating is yet at the very least circumstantial evidence this is a targeted effort to use control not oversight in our election process. Oversight in our election process would be investigating all states equally. I'm quite sure you are aware on that.

No amount of twisting and manipulation to try to make that about me on your part can change that.

Situations aren't restricted to being about a singular thing. Every singular thing is actually connected to other things. Your apparent short sighted fixation on Trump is seemingly focused on control. My long term, big picture concern is about oversight at the moment.

It's not about ignoring factual information. It's about weighing that information against other considerations that you seemingly refuse to look at.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove a legal case. I'm considering long term ramifications. To me, it seems that failing to consider ramifications is a significant portion of how we've ended up with where the country is at. Focusing on all the bad stuff Trump did leading up to the election in 2024 only led to Trump getting elected again because they seemingly didn't give enough attention to other things like immigration and the economy. Your insistence on only focusing on one thing quite possibly isn't the great idea that you seem to believe it is.

If you're "weighing that information against other considerations" your scales need recalibrated.

The ramifications I feel you need to be concerned about is giving the federal government, no matter who is in power at the time, the total power to influence and control the elections in all 50 states more troubling than any points being discussed in this topic.

The ramifications I feel you need to be concerned about...

GTHOH!

I hope you don't give up your day job for a career in stand up comedy.