He is being asked by a Judge to provide evidence to his claim that voter fraud is rampant enough. "Legal scholars from both parties, and nonpartisan experts, acknowledge that there is no widespread fraud in US elections".
If he makes a claim, he needs to provide the evidence. This is the basics of burden of proof. It applies to everyone, not just Trump. There is numerous research that states voter fraud is not rampant, and he is yet to provide ANY that it is. Had he said "And here is my evidence", then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Otherwise he can make up any claim and then hide behind it: "Oh the sniffer dogs will eat all the votes", "The post van might crash, catch on fire and burn up all the votes", It might rain and get the votes all soggy" etc. Then if we just reapply your logic of "he believes there is voter fraud" to these claims, then pretty much ANY belief he holds is enough weighting in your view to invalidate the entire system, simply because he BELIEVES it.
My nephew believes in Santa. That doesn't make it true. That's not evidence.
On the matter of the PO: it also cannot be substantiated that it has 'messed up' when a congressional mandate is the cause of it. Every one, again, is sinking their teeth into Trumps unsubstantiated claims that they are losing money because of Amazon etc, but again, he is not providing evidence of that. Breaking Even is what you'd expect a govt service like the PO to be achieving. Most services led by the govt are not meant to generate revenue, but rather provide a service where the costs are covered by that service.
A FedEx quote to deliver a letter from Pine Island NY to Herkimer NY costs $9.87. USPS charges $0.35. Be careful about what you wish for. Lots of rural communities rely on the post, and this is one way to make things very difficult for them.
Real question: Why are Trump claims exempt from the burden of proof? Why do we care more about Gingseng having 100 human studies backing its efficacy than we do about potentially dangerous claims designed to undermine the way in which people cast their vote? Why do we jump down the throats of people on this forum parroting bro-science, asking them to provide evidence for their claims when we don't apply that logic into far more important matters? This doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, the US has invaded countries over unsubstantiated claims made by Presidents in the past. Iraq has been flattened because Bush said they had weapons of mass destruction. When will we hold the claims of those who lead us to a greater standard that we hold the bro-sciencers of this forum?
You are missing some nuance here in that I am not arguing that there is wide spread fraud (for one thing). He has always stated the post office doesn't do its job. Lets look at it this way, if he has that belief then he would be disenfranchising voters if he let the post office handle it.
The democrats have a different belief. They think it is disenfranchised voters to not allow mail-in.
Only, mail-in voting has never been the way we do this in America - so have we been disenfranchised voters this entire time?
But more importantly, the USPS now confirms they cannot do their job - so who is right?
What I am saying is also that everyone is .asking it out like his denial of funds is some sudden turn. No, the turn would be if he allowed those funds. He is sticking by what he has said he believes in, which I know liberals are not familiar with that tactic. It doesn't make his belief right or wrong. But having the PO state they can't deliver kind of makes him look like he may be right there.
And to your point, just because we haven't seen voter fraud doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we can suddenly start doing things to open the door to it. So he can't come up with the evidence, they allow mail in voting, and then there is fraud - what then?
Do we have any evidence that generalized mail-in voting works? I mean, the dems are the ones requesting the change, don't they have the burden of proof? Why are they fighting so hard for this?
And Covid is not a valid answer because all the restaurants and everything is open and there are huge groups of protesters/rioters all over the place that have been deemed acceptable by the party that wants mail in votes.
I wasn't saying Trumps claims are exempt from the burden of proof, just that his actions are in line with his beliefs from well before the mail in voting came up.
As far as the your statement about a $0.35 letter, you summarized the issue in a simple mis-statement below....
I'm just trolling lol. I'm not even for Biden. I would likely vote Republican if it were literally ANY other Republican
I can agree that I would hope we could get someone better in there. But I am not sure how anyone doesn't see that all the same criticisms against Trump are even more pronounced in Biden.
there's an idea. Although, i'd rather not because you guys have rampant Covid lol. Plus i wouldnt know who to vote for.
Wait, you are missing the entire point again! YOU DON'T NEED TO COME. If you can get a ballot, have it sent to my house. I can take care of it for you. I can even take care of who to vote for!
*note to the NSA, I am joking for effect and have no intent of doing this.
OK, but lets go back to the crux of the issue, because this isn't even the point. The issue being raised is this:
Is it, or is it not, an issue to target the Post Offices efficacy to deliver votes to where they need to be rather than going through the appropriate channels to exclude no-excuse mail in voting.
Before you answer, consider if you'd let Obama or Biden undermining certain methods of legal voting for Republicans. If you can't honestly say that it isn't underhanded, then that's the issue that is being raised.
But he is not excluding democrats - he is excluding everyone. The mere fact that you see this as an affront to democrats voting proves that it is that side that sees it as a benefit and an angle to steal an election. And Obama didn't fire up mail im voting while he was in office and as far as I can tell, every republican was fine with that. Further, you make an argument that mail-im voting in Florida has helped Republicans...so how is this hurting democrats if this is all on the up and up?
OK?
I haven't encountered a person that has been to Idaho, does that mean that place doesnt exist? If you exclude things based on whether or not you have personally experienced it, then a lot of things dont exist. Have you been to NZ? If not, do I even exist to you? Lol
The headache I have debating with you lets me know you are real. (Just playing, I enjoy the debate).
I have never seen a lion though, so those aren't real.
A FedEx quote to deliver a letter from Pine Island NY to Herkimer NY costs $9.87. USPS charges $0.35. That's a 3 hour drive. If i'm paying $10 for a service that costs a competitor $0.35, you better believe I expect more from them. Although, say goodbye to me posting anyone a birthday card any more.
That's the difference between privatization and a service.
And here is the key mistake. It doesn't cost the competitor $0.35 cents. It may cost them $4. Just because a company/service/entity charges a price does not mean they are making a profit. For all we know, FedEx may have a lower cost than USPS (and likely does). USPS just has a lower price to the consumer. And rightfully, of course you will use the 35 cent service every time you can - yielding in a loss of revenue that increases each time a sale is made.
We are going to lose a little on each sale that we make. But we are going to make it up with volume!
But I get your point about expecting more. Of course.
However, your point about the birthday card is the key - exactly like I have been saying, in this hypothetical world people are sending BDay cards because it is 35 cents to do so, but the gov't is losing $3 or $4 every time this happens - how ethical is this? Sinking a system to send a bday card you would choose not to send if you had to pay for it on a basis of the real world cost of resources.
Man, these discussions are complex and hard to type out haha.