Comment by thataccount
4 hours ago
It's actually very specific. Look up the previous abuses of the US Postal Inspections Bureau and you will see exactly what I mean and why I've said it the way I've said it.
4 hours ago
It's actually very specific. Look up the previous abuses of the US Postal Inspections Bureau and you will see exactly what I mean and why I've said it the way I've said it.
“It’s very specific”
“Just look up vague abuses that I’m claiming happened with no evidence”
>https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-postal-service-is-running-a-r...
Here is one instance among many.
What does that have to do with anything discussed here?
Wait'll you hear about the Comstock Act and what the USPS has done to enforce that.
1 reply →
"Specific" would involve some sort of detail about what these abuses were, or when they happened, or something beyond just "previous abuses of the US Postal Inspections Bureau."
I figured you were clever enough to do your own searching, but since you didn't take the minimum effort to punch it in a search engine, I gave one example in an above post.
How does the article you linked support your point that mail-in voting is abused or rife with fraud?
The fun thing about being extremely vague is that it's inherently unsearchable. I can do a search and find reports of USPIS abuses, but I have no idea if they're the ones you're referring to or not, because you didn't say what you were referring to. And I'm not about to spend a bunch of time trying to work out which ones you meant and how they might connect to voting by mail when you can't be bothered to give even the slightest bit of information.
2 replies →