3 ms·
Because we're seeing the postmaster general, a major Trump donor, take steps that would potentially threaten the efficacy of mail in voting? And while I agree
by dmkolobov 6y ago
Because we're seeing the postmaster general, a major Trump donor, take steps that would potentially threaten the efficacy of mail in voting?
And while I agree with the GP, it should also be noted that we've been saying "this is unacceptable" about a wide variety of things for the past 4 years, and it hasn't really had much effect, as far as reining in the crazy.
It's a scary situation indeed.
- m0zg 6y agoIt's as if, I don't know, mail-in voting were ripe for fraud or something.
- MrRadar 6y agoThis is about interference with the delivery the ballots (both from the election officials to voters and to vice versa), not about the security of the ballots themselves.
- efnx 6y agoBut they’re not and never have been.
- dmkolobov 6y agoIf the past four years have taught us anything, is that just about every aspect of our government is ripe for fraud when the party in charge doesn't care about the well-being of the institutions they supposedly hold dear. It seems like you're trying to make the case that we should listen to the man telling us mail-in votes are fraudulent... because his administration is exhibiting signs of committing said fraud? For what its worth, we've been mail-in voting in Colorado for a while. Works great when the government isn't actively trying to undermine democracy.
- happytoexplain 6y agoVirtually everything is "ripe for fraud" if your definition includes "is theoretically assailable by the US president, directly or by appointee."