Its weird, I’ve heard him talk a lot about mail in ballots but never heard him make this precise distinction. You got any quotes which back up what you’re claiming?
Not who you were responding to, but here are a few. The problem is he calls them absentee voting / ballots not mail in ballots which makes it confusing when looking it up.
> Absentee voting is great. You request – I'm an absentee voter because I requested, I got, and then I sent in my vote. So that works out very well. That's what we've had. But now they want to send in millions and millions of ballots.
> Absentee Ballots are fine because you have to go through a precise process to get your voting privilege. Not so with Mail-Ins.
> Absentee Ballots are fine. A person has to go through a process to get and use them. Mail-In Voting, on the other hand, will lead to the most corrupt Election is USA history. Bad things happen with Mail-Ins.
So, if you have the time and energy to go through an arbitrarily painful process, you can always vote.
Texas just announced they are going to shut down more polling locations in the upcoming election. I wonder if it will happen to be in a Democrat concentrated region.
Unless the absentee process is guaranteed to be frictionless, it is inviting more rat fuckery.
Is it actually exploited for fraud though? It doesn’t matter if they send me 10 ballots - I can still go to jail for voting more than once.
I think you’re giving too much credence to someone whose argument was disingenuous. It was never about the security of elections, it was about people using mail-in ballots to not vote for him.
We absolutely do know. Study after study has found actual voter fraud to be practically non existent. What does happen a tiny but measurable amount of time: John Smith signing on the line of the wrong John Smith.
Actual, intentional rampant fraud has not been documented.
I’m sorry, but how can you demonstrate that there is no fraud when the identity of people voting is not verified? You simply can not. At best you can say the ballots cast are all for registered voters, but not that they actually cast them.
It's disingenuous to invert the issue. It's not some matter of "don't like", but rather defaulting to not believing a habitually lying con artist. That is the smart thing to do, right? The real question is why so many people insist that everyone needs to continue trying to steelman his lying-by-induced-confabulation. I'm sure he did say something that backs up what you're saying. I'm also sure he also said a lot of things that directly contradict it.
The original title is:
> Whistleblower: USPS Defied A Court Injunction To Build An Untested, Undocumented Ballot-Blocking System
[flagged]
Its weird, I’ve heard him talk a lot about mail in ballots but never heard him make this precise distinction. You got any quotes which back up what you’re claiming?
Not who you were responding to, but here are a few. The problem is he calls them absentee voting / ballots not mail in ballots which makes it confusing when looking it up.
> Absentee voting is great. You request – I'm an absentee voter because I requested, I got, and then I sent in my vote. So that works out very well. That's what we've had. But now they want to send in millions and millions of ballots.
> Absentee Ballots are fine because you have to go through a precise process to get your voting privilege. Not so with Mail-Ins.
> Absentee Ballots are fine. A person has to go through a process to get and use them. Mail-In Voting, on the other hand, will lead to the most corrupt Election is USA history. Bad things happen with Mail-Ins.
> Absentee good, universal mail-in very bad
So, if you have the time and energy to go through an arbitrarily painful process, you can always vote.
Texas just announced they are going to shut down more polling locations in the upcoming election. I wonder if it will happen to be in a Democrat concentrated region.
Unless the absentee process is guaranteed to be frictionless, it is inviting more rat fuckery.
Voters in mail-in states expect their ballot to be mailed to them automatically w/o having to make a request.
Is it actually exploited for fraud though? It doesn’t matter if they send me 10 ballots - I can still go to jail for voting more than once.
I think you’re giving too much credence to someone whose argument was disingenuous. It was never about the security of elections, it was about people using mail-in ballots to not vote for him.
> Is it actually exploited for fraud though?
We may never know, every single time I see or hear this comment there is never any data/proof to back it up.
Remember: nothing was wrong with how we vote in 2016 and this suddenly became an issue in 2020.
We absolutely do know. Study after study has found actual voter fraud to be practically non existent. What does happen a tiny but measurable amount of time: John Smith signing on the line of the wrong John Smith.
Actual, intentional rampant fraud has not been documented.
I’m sorry, but how can you demonstrate that there is no fraud when the identity of people voting is not verified? You simply can not. At best you can say the ballots cast are all for registered voters, but not that they actually cast them.
And then in 2024, somehow not an issue again. Crazy how that happens.
It's disingenuous to invert the issue. It's not some matter of "don't like", but rather defaulting to not believing a habitually lying con artist. That is the smart thing to do, right? The real question is why so many people insist that everyone needs to continue trying to steelman his lying-by-induced-confabulation. I'm sure he did say something that backs up what you're saying. I'm also sure he also said a lot of things that directly contradict it.