USPS in Trouble

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
1,217
Points
113
If you look at the donation pattern it fits their story perfectly. Just another criminal republican...
Law and order only applies to Black people...
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Today in the mail I received a large post card from the USPS. Couldn’t miss it. The front asked me to plan ahead if I was going to vote-by-mail and the back actually provided a nice check-list on how to make sure my vote is secure and on time and counted.

This is clearly a miscalculation in the “election fraud in broad daylight” scheme that Trump is conducting.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,761
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
If you look at the donation pattern it fits their story perfectly. Just another criminal republican...
Law and order only applies to Black people...
Yeah, lefties are much more covert. They stifle free speech with cancel culture, which is totally legal. Say something they don’t like, lose your job. Don’t do things the way the mob wants you to, we’ll burn you down.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
1,217
Points
113
Yeah, lefties are much more covert. They stifle free speech with cancel culture, which is totally legal. Say something they don’t like, lose your job. Don’t do things the way the mob wants you to, we’ll burn you down.
I have never defended cancel culture...
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
So, Marc E. Elias states that the Colorado federal judge "did not mince words about the false mailings (sic) Dejoy had @USPS send out" (in post cards to Colorado residents, and I gather, to residents in all states since it was a generic post card, never intended to have specific per-state instructions).

These were not "false mailings" - they were actually quite useful generic absentee/mail-in voting instructions that would be useful to most voters who might be contemplating voting by mail,

The judge states that "the notice gives Colorado voters false and misleading instructions about how they should vote ... and does not advise voters of alternative methods to cast their ballot." The affidavit then lists three "erroneous beliefs" that a Colorado voter might mistakenly believe - ostensibly due to reading the postcard. I'll address each one below along with the lack of advisement of alternative methods of voting. In his temporary injunction ruling, the judge goes on to excoriate the Post Office, stating "the Court is deeply troubled by the challenged conduct intentionally undertaken by these Defendants" (i.e., the Post Office).

This is a frivolous law suit, rubber stamped by a stupid judge that does not understand English grammar apparently. Quite ironically, the rationale for the judge's ruling is loosely that "there may be lots of Colorado voters that are as stupid as he (the judge) is and as ignorant of English grammar as he is, therefore since these idiots perhaps don't understand common English and common logic, we should prefer to not tell them anything at all about voting, rather than try to help them understand the general procedure."

This is ridiculous beyond belief! The USPS sends out a useful informative general set of recommendations for voting, geared toward guiding them through the trickery of mail-in voting, and the judge injunctively bans them. At a high level, the postcard has recommendations (to make things go more smoothly for the voter) that are not mandates. This is obvious from the context to most readers. Could the USPS have added a disclaimer saying that these are just recommendations but not mandated requirements? To help any linguistically challenged voters get the meaning? Sure, and in hindsight I think they should have done so for the dummies (including the judge) that could not figure out that obvious point simply from the context.

But I found the recommendations (and Website) on the postcard to be quite useful, actually. The actions of the judge would (if I were in Colorado) explicitly deny me a nice public service helping me suss out the Ps and Qs of voting in my state, simply because they are not specific enough to that state. The USPS chose to include a pointer to a Website that gave all those specifics. If I were the Postmaster General, I'd learn the lesson for next time, to send out 50 different postcards to 50 different states, customized to the known voting peculiarities of each state. Lesson learned. But for the judge to deny me (also a legitimate voter who has the right to vote as a fundamental right) useful information on how to vote, just to CYA for the voters who can't read common English, is a travesty. Much better to put it in several languages (for sure including Spanish) on each postcard - to help alleviate reading-comprehension issues among immigrants.


First, let's list the substantive contents of the postcard (I added the ellipses and indexed them):


If you vote by mail ... (my bold - perhaps the USPS should have bolded this too?)


We're committed to providing you a secure, effective way to deliver your ballot. Use this checklist to prepare:

(a) Start today. Give yourself and your election officials ample time to complete the process.

(b) Rules and dates vary by state, so contact your election board to confirm. Find links at usps.com/votinginfo

(c) Request your mail-in ballot (often called "absentee" ballot) at least 15 days before Election Day.

(d) Once received, follow the instructions. Add postage to the return envelope if needed.

(e) We recommend (my bold) you mail your ballot at least 7 days before Election Day.


[From https://www.9news.com/article/news/...ement/73-932f58cb-b14f-4e21-933b-994ef55b6008]


Here are the (numbered) erroneous-belief objections, along with my point-by-point analysis of them.


(1) They must request a ballot at least 15 days before the election.

This is in reference to point (c) in the THEN part of the postcard text. The judge may have a nit-picky point on this one. It should be obvious from context that the entire set of bullets in the THEN part of the text are really just recommendations, not mandatory requirements. However, the authors of the postcard would have been better to include in bullet (c) that this is a recommendation, not a requirement. Bad on them. They did use the word "recommend" in bullet (e), so why not also use it in bullet (c). This is the only part of the entire complaint that has a tiny bit of merit.

Yet it should be fairly obvious to any potential voter that understands anything at all about the process of voting, and maps that understanding onto what has to happen for absentee/mail-in voting, that the only true deadline would be for the postmarking of the actual ballot when you mail it in. In (e) they are suggesting that you mail it in 7 days early, and 15 - 7 = 8, so it ought to be quite obvious (to anyone with sufficient intelligence to vote) that the extra 8 days is to give you local election officials enough time to process your request, mail out the ballot to you, and for you to receive it in the mail. Certainly, that's why the authors didn't label this as a recommendation - they though it was obvious from the context. So, to the extent that some people (occasionally even people on tOTB) don't get context, perhaps they should have explicitly noted in (c) that this is a recommendation, not a requirement.

But is that one tiny-little-bit of valid complaint against the wording of the postcard enough to warrant the Cancel-Culture-like halting of the mailing of the otherwise useful (to 99% of the potential voters) postcard to whomever has not received one already? Absolutely not. Indeed, but the ruling of this idiotic Federal judge, only about 75% of voters probably got the postcard, and per the injuction, the USPS had to do a monumental effort to cull the remaining 25% from the postal system process (where they resided at various stages). By doing that, the idiotic judge, who cites Tashjian v. Rep. Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986) in recognizing the fundamental right to vote, has actually himself denied full protection of the right to vote (under said statute) to the 25% of Colorado voters who did not receive the useful instruction. Since the other 75% did receive the useful instructions on the postcard, that implies an unequal protection under the law of those voting rights - and is grounds for a viable lawsuit under various Civil Rights acts.


(2) They must (my bold) mail their ballot at least 7 days prior to the election.

The THEN part of the postcard, bullet (e), says "We recommend (my bold) you mail your ballot at least 7 days before Election Day" and that is explicitly a *recommendation*, not a mandated requirement. I mean, it's got the words "we recommend" right in the sentence. There's no way any literate reader could get "must" out of reading "recommend." Any would-be voter (or federal judge) that is so dumb that they can't understand the meaning of the word "recommend," well, although they do definitely still have the right and opportunity to vote, the country might be better off if they didn't vote. Nevertheless, the fact that the postcard does not provide a glossary to define what the word "recommend" means, does not invalidate the value of the instructions on the postcard to 99.9% of its target audience. The judge and the would-be semi-illiterate voter can always ask a literate person what "recommend" means.

By the way, it is generally common knowledge that (if you vote by absentee ballot or other mail-in approach) the ballot needs to be postmarked on or before election day. The reason that they *recommend* that you mail it in early, is several-fold: first, just in case it does get sidelined in the mail system for a couple days, it's still likely to get found and delivered and thus counted; second, if you want to, you can call or go in person to see if they received it. Recall that Trump actually suggested that, and some ignorant people who also do not apparently understand English grammar, took his meaning to be a recommendation to vote twice. Which only goes to show that, the simpler explanation accompanied by a Website is better than a complicated explanation.


(3) They may not vote if they lose their ballot.

Point (3) is just ludicrous. Nowhere on the entire postcard does it say or imply that if they lose their ballot, they're hosed. It should be obvious that if you lose your ballot, you need to put Plan B in action, so the first logical step would be to try to find out what Plan B is, right? The postcard gives them a pointer to their state's voting Website, so that would be the place to go, obviously, or else travel in person to the County Clerk's office, or DMV, or whatever, and start asking questions. If you don't have a computer or tablet or smartphone to access the provided Website, go to the Public Library. Again, it's better to keep the explanation simple and rely on the brain of the reader to properly interpret it. The statement on the postcard would be a total mess, if the author was mandated by some (apparently illiterate) judge to put in an explanatory comment to disambiguate any and all possible misinterpretations by people who can't really read all that well. Those people should seek help from a friend, instead.


(4) The postcard does not advise voters of alternative methods to cast the ballot.

The entire statement on the postcard is one large IF-THEN statement. The IF part is "If you vote by mail ..." and the entire remainder of the content-body of the postcard is the THEN part. When you say, "if you vote by mail," that implies that most likely there is another way of voting. Well, if you don't vote by mail (and your state does not have online voting) then the only remaining possibility is voting in person. The reader of this post card (with 99.999% probability) already knows this, from their civics class or their citizenship training. It should not need to be said that there is in-person voting, and obviously voting by mail is an alternative to that. The judge is saying in his ruling, "I'm not going to let the USPS send voters a helpful checklist to help enable their voting and make their voting go smoothly and help ensure that their right to vote is not abbrogated" just because the postcard refrains from stating the obvious.

Besides, the whole postcard being an IF statement on "if you vote by mail," that should tell the reader that this whole postcard doesn't apply to them if they intend to vote in person. So the judge is banning the USPS from sending out useful voting-by-mail information, just because the text does not belabor the subject terribly badly in hopes that the lone voter that both does not comprehend English grammar and does not understand the most basic thing about symbolic logic, is perhaps still going to understand it. That's an impossibility. Any extra text to explain things in more detail is likely to confuse said voter even more. I mean, what would the judge prefer, anyway, perhaps a 3-page dissertation covering every single one of the permutations and combinations of what questions might come up regarding mail-in voting (perhaps subcontracting out the writing of such to @CutDownTheNet, lol) and printed in 7-point font to fit it on a postcard in two languages, or something more simple that follows the KISS principle, and points to a great Website for further details. The judge is quite literally knocking down this USPS postcard overview of mail-in voting, exactly because it complies with the KISS principle.

Besides, the text points to the good Website https://about.usps.com/what/government-services/election-mail that it put together, which leads the voter to their specific state's voting Website, and that site is surely going to talk about both in-person voting as well as absentee ballots (or other form of mail-in voting). The above USPS helpful page starts out with ...

"If your state allows mail-in voting and if you choose to request or return your ballot using the mail, we encourage you to explore resources available from your state and local election authorities. They can provide information about processes and policies specific to your state." Following that, among other useful information, they have a clickable button "Find your state election website" to take you right to your state's (e.g., Colorado's) voting Website. What could be more simple? Seems like a useful USPS postcard and Website to me!


Instead, after this useful postcard goes out to 75% of Colorado voters, a ridiculously stupid judge bans the remaining 25% of Colorado voters (who also might benefit from it) from receiving it, while the judge halts the remaining postcards from being mailed, and contemplates his navel to decide on what else he can do to deny 25% of Colorado voters equal treatment regarding their voting rights. What a shame.
Today in the mail I received a large post card from the USPS. Couldn’t miss it. The front asked me to plan ahead if I was going to vote-by-mail and the back actually provided a nice check-list on how to make sure my vote is secure and on time and counted.

This is clearly a miscalculation in the “election fraud in broad daylight” scheme that Trump is conducting.
I found this postcard to be quite useful. @Spoofin found this postcard to be quite useful. Millions of Americans found this postcard to be quite useful. Thanks, USPS!

One Colorado judge, who seemingly thinks that the average Colorado voter's literary and logical skills are in the toilet (just like the judge's skills seem to be, also) ruled that only 75% of Colorado voters are allowed to receive this useful and innocuous postcard containing suggestions for voting by mail and planning properly for doing so, and for the other 25% of Colorado voters, the judge mandates that the Post Office throw these postcards into the trash.

WTF?
 
Last edited:

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,326
Reaction score
908
Points
113
So, Marc E. Elias states that the Colorado federal judge "did not mince words about the false mailings (sic) Dejoy had @USPS send out" (in post cards to Colorado residents, and I gather, to residents in all states since it was a generic post card, never intended to have specific per-state instructions).
Obviously, like everyone else on the site, I didn't read more than the first couple lines of your post. But I'm curious, why the "sic" designation here?
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Obviously, like everyone else on the site, I didn't read more than the first couple lines of your post. But I'm curious, why the "sic" designation here?
To note that they called it "false mailings" (their words) but to parenthetically note (without actually stating such) that this is a ridiculous accusation. sic is normally used to mark that something is spelled wrong. I stretched the usage to note that this is ridiculously semantically wrong. Perhaps I should have just said that in a separate sentence. But then again, you wouldn't have gotten to that sentence anyway.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Obviously, like everyone else on the site, I didn't read more than the first couple lines of your post. But I'm curious, why the "sic" designation here?
You should read it. There was nothing erroneous on these post cards at all. CO apparently mails everyone in the state a ballot automatically and they were worried these post cards would make people think they need to request a ballot (like other states). Apparently this was going to confuse the voters to the point they wouldn’t know what to do with the ballots they then receive in the mail? One of the dumber things I have read.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,326
Reaction score
908
Points
113
To note that they called it "false mailings" (their words) but to parenthetically note (without actually stating such) that this is a ridiculous accusation. sic is normally used to mark that something is spelled wrong. I stretched the usage to note that this is ridiculously semantically wrong. Perhaps I should have just said that in a separate sentence. But then again, you wouldn't have gotten to that sentence anyway.
True story.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
2,177
Points
113
To note that they called it "false mailings" (their words) but to parenthetically note (without actually stating such) that this is a ridiculous accusation. sic is normally used to mark that something is spelled wrong. I stretched the usage to note that this is ridiculously semantically wrong. Perhaps I should have just said that in a separate sentence. But then again, you wouldn't have gotten to that sentence anyway.
A true Trumpanista. When you don't know the right words, Just invent definitions.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,326
Reaction score
908
Points
113
You should read it. There was nothing erroneous on these post cards at all. CO apparently mails everyone in the state a ballot automatically and they were worried these post cards would make people think they need to request a ballot (like other states). Apparently this was going to confuse the voters to the point they wouldn’t know what to do with the ballots they then receive in the mail? One of the dumber things I have read.
I need executive summaries and a link to more information from CutDown, rather than the current strategy. But hey, they're his posts. He can do what he wants.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Just to be clear:
- Sending out post cards saying to request your ballot well in advance when some State's automatically send the post cards to everyone = Voter Fraud Intent
- Publicly saying that no ballots will be discounted even if the signature doesn't match the one on file = Public Service. NO Voter Fraud Intent.

And, these things are said with a straight face.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,720
Reaction score
1,124
Points
113
Spoofy should stick to the Football Board. The OTB is a very serious place. Very few people have what it takes to participate. Spoofy is not one of them.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
1,217
Points
113
Just to be clear:
- Sending out post cards saying to request your ballot well in advance when some State's automatically send the post cards to everyone = Voter Fraud Intent
- Publicly saying that no ballots will be discounted even if the signature doesn't match the one on file = Public Service. NO Voter Fraud Intent.

And, these things are said with a straight face.
Do you know anything about signature verification. Who the fuck would verify them and who is qualified? I would bet there are very few people qualified to verify a signature in the United States.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Do you know anything about signature verification. Who the fuck would verify them and who is qualified? I would bet there are very few people qualified to verify a signature in the United States.
If you would have actually read my posts you would know my complaint isn’t in not verifying signatures it is in what possible benefit is there in publicly announcing you won’t be verifying them in ballots? The motivation is crystal clear to anyone without a bias. I don’t expect you to see it.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
1,217
Points
113
If you would have actually read my posts you would know my complaint isn’t in not verifying signatures it is in what possible benefit is there in publicly announcing you won’t be verifying them in ballots? The motivation is crystal clear to anyone without a bias. I don’t expect you to see it.
Well I guess I would just assume anyone with a brain could realize that it would be impossible. I am all for maximum transparency so I really don't have an issue. You seem to look for ill intent in everything, settle down....
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Well I guess I would just assume anyone with a brain could realize that it would be impossible. I am all for maximum transparency so I really don't have an issue. You seem to look for ill intent in everything, settle down....
You make me laugh. Too rich.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
17,522
Reaction score
2,720
Points
113
Any updates on this sorting machine scandal?
I'm assuming the post office is swimming in undelivered ballots by now.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
Any updates on this sorting machine scandal?
I'm assuming the post office is swimming in undelivered ballots by now.
You have to rotate the bullshit paranoia narratives every couple weeks before they get fully debunked and MSM has to actually address it; that whole post office thing is ancient history, a couple of whack job theories ago
 
Top Bottom