3 ms·
It’s not about privatizing the service, it’s about disrupting their ability to process mail in ballots for the election. If they wanted to privatize it, they c
by thereare5lights 6y ago
It’s not about privatizing the service, it’s about disrupting their ability to process mail in ballots for the election.
If they wanted to privatize it, they could have don’t it at any time during the past four years.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> It’s not about privatizing the service, Yes it is. > it’s about disrupting their ability to process mail in ballots for the election. True, but those are complementary not mutually exclsuive motivations.
- jrobn 6y agoThat’s like saying genocide is ok because we need to decrease our population. They are mutual exclusive motivations.
- eropple 6y agoHe isn't saying it's okay.
- jrobn 6y agoHe’s trying to justify that it is okay because it’s about privatization...months before a crucial election year. Doesn’t make sense. It’s gaslighting.
- aarpmcgee 6y agoAre we reading the same comment?
- happytoexplain 6y agoYou're looking for an enemy where there is none.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 6y agoNo, I'm saying that both causing the postal service to fail to politically justify full privatization and interfering with mail-in voting for perceived benefit in the immediate upcoming election are actual motivations of the policies being implemented by the executive branch that impede USPS function. I don't think either of those motivations is okay, in fact, I think the action being taken on either basis alone would be, and a fortiori them being taken with both motivations is, a serious abuse of executive power.
- ghthor 6y agoI dont know, I support this action. I'd rather defund the USPS then the police force. Rebuilding the USPS using solid business fundamentals would be good for everyone.
- thereare5lights 6y ago> Yes it is. I don't play along with excuses. As I said, if it was really about that, they had numerous opportunities in the past four years.