The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of midterms

Teflon Don said:
isn't it you guys that have always called it a "living" document? Now all of a sudden you are a strict constructionist?

Spare me your crocodile tears

No mail in voting = No democrat party cheating
Click to expand...
It is a living document, otherwise we’d be stuck in the 18th Century, but that doesn’t mean Trump can ignore it at his will
 
Into the Night said:
It is already being implemented, Pretender.
If a State does not comply with USPS and federal requirements for a federal election, such ballots cannot go out through the mail, and they won't be processed through the mail.

They won't count, since you won't receive them.

States can provide ballots and process them by another means, though. You know, an actual polling place.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that this election may be the most fair in decades?

I hope so. Men and women have died, in part, to assure free and fair elections. Why does the Democratic/Socialist/Communist Party fear free and fair elections. Is it because they might never win another election if they are fair and honest.

One can only hope that the sacrifices of our military will not be in vain.
 
Earl said:
Is it possible that this election may be the most fair in decades?

I hope so. Men and women have died, in part, to assure free and fair elections. Why does the Democratic/Socialist/Communist Party fear free and fair elections. Is it because they might never win another election if they are fair and honest.

One can only hope that the sacrifices of our military will not be in vain.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it is as fair and honest as the 2020 election

Trump’s actions, all based on claims without proof, are not about fair elections, but rather his aim to control elections and create enough chaos so that Americans as yourself think they aren’t fair elections
 
archives said:
Hopefully it is as fair and honest as the 2020 election

Trump’s actions, all based on claims without proof, are not about fair elections, but rather his aim to control elections and create enough chaos so that Americans as yourself think they aren’t fair elections
Click to expand...
Total BS. From the days of old Chicago, Democrats cheat.
 
Federal investigators launch probe in NJ voter registration ...

NJ Spotlight News
https://www.njspotlightnews.org › 2026/07 › federal-in...
Jul 23, 2026 — “In New Jersey, they just admitted 6,600 noncitizens are on their rolls. Many of them voting. Voting in their elections. Illegals on their rolls.

The true number of illegals voting nationally, especially including California, could be in the 7 figures.

These are results for how many illegals have driver license in california
Search instead for how many illegals have driver licences in california
AI Overview
More than 1 million undocumented immigrants have received standard driver's licenses in California since the state's Assembly Bill 60 took effect in 2015.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Hopefully it is as fair and honest as the 2020 election

Trump’s actions, all based on claims without proof, are not about fair elections, but rather his aim to control elections and create enough chaos so that Americans as yourself think they aren’t fair elections
Click to expand...
6 years on and MAGA peckerwoods still cannot provide proof in a court of law
 
Diogenes said:
Brad is still flailing at the same basic observation.


Yes, the rule does not require the exterior of the envelope to contain the word “ballot” or any explicit notice to the recipient that a ballot is inside. The required exterior elements are the Official Election Mail logo, automation-compatible design, and the unique Intelligent Mail barcode that matches the Portal data. Those are what USPS checks. Nothing in the rule mandates language that tells the voter “this envelope contains your ballot.”


Most states already design their ballot envelopes to make that clear to the voter (return instructions, official markings, etc.), but the federal rule itself does not compel any particular notice language directed at the recipient. A state that wanted to use a completely generic-looking but still rule-compliant exterior could theoretically do so.


That does not break the rule’s verification mechanism. The rule is an acceptance-and-tracking standard based on exterior registration and barcode matching, not a consumer-notice or content-labeling requirement aimed at the voter. Brad is describing a design choice that remains available to states under the rule, not a loophole that renders the exterior check meaningless.
Click to expand...
Citation? Or did you just make it up, Marm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top