DougBH
82
It is not the job of the federal government to subsidize a state plan. If Democrats want everybody voting by mail for suspicious reasons, then their state needs to pay for it.
Hawk92
83
If you can go to wall mart with a face mask and physical distancing then i think we can make a case for in person voting.
If the Federal Government subsidizes campaign mailers and junk mail, why shouldn’t they also subsidize voting by mail?
Hawk92
85
The only reason the democrats are pushing mail in voting so heavily now its because this is the only way they can cheat the system. And making sure Joe Biden wins that way. Lets be realistic its almost oct and sep. The democarts haven’t being campaigning heavily for Joe Biden and Republicans are getting more registered voters then the democrats.
DougBH
86
What if the state wants them all hand delivered by courier? No…
And the Feds should not be subsidizing campaign mailers and junk mail. You get no argument from me.
I have no idea what this has to do with what we’re talking about.
Bulk mailings are the main sources of revenue for the Post Office.
DougBH
88
Really? No idea? wow
Well, that part of which you claim is from federal subsidies for campaigns, if it is as you say, doesn’t help the taxpayer does it? Its one part of the government bailing out another part for the benefit of incumbents.
Campaigns aren’t a part of the government. They get the bulk mail rate because they mail in bulk - just like The Pennysaver.
DougBH
90
First you say that the Federal government subsidizes campaign mailers as bulk mail. Then you tell me that bulk mailings are the main source of revenue for the post office. Now I am confused.
I don’t know why you’re confused.
Bulk mail is subsidized in the sense that it is cheaper than sending a single letter. Discounts are given for buying in bulk.
Even though the Post Office makes less money per piece of mail, bulk mailing makes up such a large percentage of mail that it represents the vast majority of revenue for the Post Office.
If that were true UPS would no longer exist because it would have been bankrupted decades ago.
They are faster, more efficient, and very competitive on price.
People will have more than a month to get their ballots in.
The predicted surge numbers are a fantasy.
It’s also very simple for the PMG to simply issue an order that ballots take first priority.
We also have the issue that the vast majority of those ballots will being mailed locally, not therefore burdening the nationwide transport system even if they were all mailed on the same day.
They have 3 full weeks of early voting, absentee voting and mail in ballots.
This is no excuse.
Price is all they’ve got. They treat packages like gorillas, that’s a fact and USPS has better overall service.
JayJay
97
No UPS isn’t because you are comparing apples with grapefruits.
DMK
98
Why not have something like a Fed Ex box that you see on almost every corner which is secure with something like a bank deposit drop to prevent anything coming out once it goes in.
Pick up and transport would be overseen by the election office. The cost of stamps would possibly pay for or offset the costs of the secure boxes and any travel costs to do so.
There should be two people to keep each other on the level and I’d love to see body cams for review that all proper procedures were followed much like a chain of evidence.
If that were true they’d be out of business.
No I’m not, I’m simply stating facts and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
JayJay
101
Yes you absolutely are and yes I absolutely can.
First you start with the remits and then you work from there.
UPS could never do what the post office does at a price point people like.
