“It’s very specific”
reply“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...
replyHere is one instance among many.
What does that have to do with anything discussed here?
replyWait'll you hear about the Comstock Act and what the USPS has done to enforce that.
[flagged]
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."
replyI 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.
replyHow does the article you linked support your point that mail-in voting is abused or rife with fraud?
replyThe 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.
reply>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
replyBut even with being supplied that information, your modus operandi didn't change. You just went right back to speaking to me about how "right" you were to not consider my point to begin with and how "wrong" I was not to supply you with the thing you required. What difference did it make in my giving you a crumb of what you asked for? Zero. You know why? You aren't really interested in my point of view. You are captivated by your own.
All right Mike Lindell calm down
reply