Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 10, 2026

Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year's primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency's Office of Inspector General.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

NEW: The U.S. Postal Service's new mail voting rules overstep the authority granted to it by Congress, pro-voting groups argued in a brief asking a federal appeals court to keep the rule frozen before the upcoming elections www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ ...

[image or embed]

-- Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) 10:55 AM · Sep 8, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year's primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency's Office of Inspector General. Election experts say the findings call into question the agency's ability to meet even greater demands for the November election that are under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is by design.

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2026-09-10 01:08 AM | Reply

... Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year's primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency's Office of Inspector General. ...

imo, by the intent of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-09-10 01:09 AM | Reply

LET'S SET THE PEDO ON FIRE

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-09-10 01:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4 | Posted by americanunity at 2026-09-10 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Isn't the the argument Bill Johnson has been making?

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2026-09-10 11:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Eb,

From the article,

"An inspector general's audit found a lack of training for post office staff"

This article is supporting and proving my point.

Human error has always been part of my objection to mail-in ballots. What Trump is proposing is more closer to absentee ballot handling which has more checks and balances.

Anything that involves moving uncounted ballots that are handled by humans increases the risk.

This article is saying people in the post office didn't receive adequate training. That can happen at any point in the ballet handling.

There's other things that can occur with people, too.

The people handling ballots can just get tired and more inclined to make mistakes at that point.

Or some who may just not take their job that serious.

Or not enough staff so ballots bottleneck.

I am considering not only the next election, but the next 10 elections or 20.

I've always said "Don't put in systems that just meet your needs today. Put in systems that will meet your needs in the future"

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 12:07 AM | Reply

" Human error has always been part of my objection to mail-in ballots. What Trump is proposing is more closer to absentee ballot handling which has more checks and balances."

Absolute nonsense.

Mail in ballots ARE absentee ballots. Every one of them is watermarked, serialized, and tracked. The armed services have been using mail-in ballots for over a century and a half. Oregon has been doing it for 30 years.

If your theory was correct, we'd have thousands of complaints and questionable instances. Where are they? WHERE ARE THEY??

The real problem is, ANY steps taken to add another barrier will doubtless cause a magnitude more votes suppressed, than illegal votes thwarted.

As has been shown, even with a 99.99% accuracy rate (impossible, I know) it would take 4,400 YEARS for voter fraud in your home state of VA to equal the LEGAL VOTES suppressed in ONE ELECTION CYCLE.

You're not trying to protect the vote. You're trying to suppress "certain " legal voters you'd rather not vote.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Mail in ballots ARE absentee ballots.

Well, duh.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-09-11 01:11 AM | Reply

Eberly loves Trump.

Just like BJ Boi.

He's a lying bitch.

Voter suppression is his latest ,"Who Cares" gotta protect those Ballots.

Nobody is That Stupid, except, Maybe, BJ Boi.

Nah, even he's lying too.

#9 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-09-11 03:39 AM | Reply

Q: What do the post office and JC Penny's have in common?

#10 | Posted by john_savage2 at 2026-09-11 04:52 AM | Reply

Oregon's vote by mail has worked wonderfully for years, but then, there is a system for all voters to go online and make sure that they ballots were received and counted.

#11 | Posted by Hughmass at 2026-09-11 06:32 AM | Reply

>they ballots were received and counted.
they ballots was received and counted.

#12 | Posted by john_savage2 at 2026-09-11 06:46 AM | Reply

Vote by mail cannot be hacked.

Vote by mail has a paper trail that can be examined and verified.

That is why stinky hates vote by mail.... except when he does it.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-09-11 08:40 AM | Reply

... Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year's primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency's Office of Inspector General. ...

What does this even mean? How are mail in ballots handled differently than any other mail by the Postal Service? Isn't it just prepaid mail that has a delivery address? What extra training is required?

#14 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-09-11 08:55 AM | Reply

American elections are a system

A system of voting

No system is ever perfect.

Literally no system

Errors in the voting system can be either an invalid vote is counted (generally considered voter fraud) OR an eligible voter's vote is not counted (generally considered voter suppression).

It is an irrefutable truth that the ability to have invalid votes count on a significant basis approaches nil

As an aside, even if invalid voting occurs the system does not prevent either side from using this highly inefficient method of voter fraud, thereby, inherently, there is partial balance in how actual voter fraud would play out. IOW, since both sides of the election can insert invalid votes there is a natural way of these countering each other, making the impact of inserting invalid votes as even less effective.

That is because sufficient invalid votes need to be inserted into the vote tally that would a. change the results of the vote and b. offset any counterbalancing invalid votes. This is an incredibly high hurdle to get over.

Consider that in general the entity committing voter fraud will have imperfect knowledge of how many invalid votes are required or will prevent suspicion. Too few and the results do not change, too many and red flags appear due to polling and voter turnout numbers.

It approaches an impossibility to insert sufficient invalid votes in an election on a meaningful basis.

Therefore, the incentive to insert invalid votes simply is negligible.

The capacity for the system to REJECT or DENY valid votes is infinitely greater that it is to insert invalid votes

To insert an invalid vote, one has to create a voter OR to change a vote OR to impact individual voters.

That is a far more difficult task than to PREVENT a voter from casting their vote.

All one has to do is to place regulatory hurdles in the path of voting or make voting onerous or limit access to the voting process or categorize certain voters as ineligible at the time of voting (assuring the process to validate a vote is onerous) thus denying their votes are tallied or scare voters from the election process.

So, I ask the basic question.

Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-11 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Danno,

"Mail in ballots ARE absentee ballots"

You're wrong.

Absentee ballots are mail-in ballots.

But not all mail-in ballots are absentee ballots.

#16 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Danno,
"Mail in ballots ARE absentee ballots"
You're wrong.
Absentee ballots are mail-in ballots.
But not all mail-in ballots are absentee ballots.

#16 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 01:53 PM

And the handling of them is different, how?

And how is it any different than ordinary mail for the Postal Service? Why would it require extra training?

#17 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-09-11 02:41 PM | Reply

But not all mail-in ballots are absentee ballots."

Stupid non-distinction.

If the ballot is mailed in, the voter is ABSENT from the polling precinct on Election Day.

ZERO DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 04:22 PM | Reply

-------- Johnson knows less about the mail than he does about the --------

#19 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-09-11 06:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Mr blue,

"how is it any different than ordinary mail for the Postal Service? Why would it require extra training?"

That was the crux of the article at the beginning of this thread.

#20 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 06:37 PM | Reply

Dan,

"Stupid non-distinction."

The process of handling ballots starts before they are ever returned.

Absentee voting and universal mail-in voting are distinctly different systems in how ballots are issued, sent out, tracked, and handled through the process.

Some steps may overlap once the ballots are returned, but that does not make the two systems the same, nor does it eliminate the different types of risk involved with each.

I think you're focusing too narrowly on one part of the process and missing the bigger picture.

#21 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 07:05 PM | Reply

" Absentee voting and universal mail-in voting are distinctly different systems in how ballots are issued, sent out, tracked, and handled through the process."

Why'd you move the goalposts, dumfuq? You don't get to add "universal" at will.

I made a clear statement, and now you're misrepresenting what I posted by changing the parameters.

Either retract your lie, or explain the difference in handling an absentee ballot versus a mail-in ballot ... because there is NONE.

BOTH are issued, serialized, watermarked, tracked, and more.

You're misrepresenting the truth.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 07:36 PM | Reply

And, for the 300th time, if you have any proof of universal mailing ballot shenanigans, link to them

And if you don't have proof, after being asked 300 times, have the class to admit as much.

The fact of the matter remains: nearly 6 years after the 2020 election, you have absolutely zero cases to prove your cockamamie theories.

If folks had their ballots taken from them by housemates, they would've come forward. IN DROVES. That's human nature, logic, and macrostatistics.

You lose on all three topics.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 07:41 PM | Reply

"I think you're focusing too narrowly on one part of the process and missing the bigger picture."

I think you can't find any good reason to suppress more votes than you'd protect, so you lie about the efficacy of ballots.

Telling, of course, you've refused to admit it would take 4,400 YEARS to find the amount of voter fraud in your home state of Virginia you'd suppress in ONE ELECTION CYCLE.

And that with an unreachable 99.99% accuracy.

You're not trying to protect the vote, you're trying to make sure "certain" people have to jump through worthless hoops before legally casting their legal vote.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:09 PM | Reply

Dan,

"You lose on all three topics."

"Why'd you move the goalposts, dumfuq? You don't get to add universal' at will."

I did not move the goalposts.

There have always been two types of mailed ballots in this conversation as far as I'm concerned which are absentee ballots that are requested by the voter, and ballots that are automatically sent to voters.

I didn't change a thing. This is how I have understood and viewed the distinction from the beginning of this topic years ago and I assumed other people did too.

What I'm only now realizing is that you apparently were never including the very part of the process that makes absentee voting and universal mail voting distinctly different in the first place which is how the ballots are issued and sent out.

At this point, this conversation has become pointless.

You and I simply aren't going to agree on this until there are significant changes in the system nationwide.

Then we can talk about it again.

#25 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 08:09 PM | Reply

"I did not move the goalposts."

That's a lie. You inserted "universal". That's not what I stated.

" There have always been two types of mailed ballots in this conversation as far as I'm concerned"

I don't give a schitttt how concerned you pretend to be. Your statement is a lie.

Mail-in ballots ARE Absentee ballots. Duh.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:13 PM | Reply

Your statement is a lie.

You can count the number of times BillJohnson has told the truth on one hand.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-09-11 08:15 PM | Reply

" At this point, this conversation has become pointless."

The facts remain: you have ZERO proof for your pretend concerns, and can't explain why you want to suppress more votes than you'd preserve.

You're a vote suppressionist with no evidence, and no valid reason to keep legal voters from casting their legal votes.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:18 PM | Reply

" Then we can talk about it again."

Not until you have proof of your theories and are willing to explain why it's okay to suppress more votes in your home state in one cycle than voter fraud you'd find there in 4000 years.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:23 PM | Reply

" you apparently were never including the very part of the process that makes absentee voting and universal mail voting distinctly different in the first place which is how the ballots are issued and sent out."

What a riot.

You can't even find proof when using Universal Mail-In Ballot systems which have existed for decades, in places like Oregon and Utah, and in the case of the armed services, SIXTEEN DECADES.

Your theory fails, everywhere. Even in UMB situations, you offer ZERO PROOF.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:32 PM | Reply

Dan,

"Not until you have proof of your theories"

And also not until you actually read my posts and stop applying your same narrow vision to that.

#31 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 08:40 PM | Reply

Mail-in ballots ARE Absentee ballots. Duh.

No they aren't. It's not surprising DeflectionDan doesn't know the difference.

electiondesk.org

Chain of custody is the biggest difference, and it's exactly what the Carter/Baker Commission stated.

At this event, panelists discussed ways to secure absentee and vote-by-mail processes so that Americans can vote safely from home and voter participation can increase.
www.bakerinstitute.org

#32 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-11 08:45 PM | Reply

"not until you actually read my posts"

I've read your posts.

There's NO PROOF in any of them.

Theories with no proof, after a century and a half, are wishful lies.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:46 PM | Reply

"No they aren't."

Only in reasons for being granted, NOT for handling procedures.

They even admit as much:
Key distinction:
Absentee voting is often conditional. Mail-in voting is usually open to all eligible voters.

You're a fuggin' moron, posting the article without actually reading it.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:49 PM | Reply

"the Carter-Baker report warned: "Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.""

And if anyone has perused the Heritage Foundation's website, you'll know they're worried about CULLERS, not individual voters.

The plurality of vote fraud is done by Canvassers, Cullers, and Campaigns. You know...the kind VOTER ID wouldn't change.

Meanwhile, VA averages one voter fraud conviction PER DECADE. And BillJohnson wants to prevent THOSE TWO VOTES...even if it's at the expense of THOUSANDS of legal voters.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:57 PM | Reply

"Chain of custody is the biggest difference"

Yep. Cullers.

Meanwhile, math morons pretend tens of thousands of folks could get their ballots purloined...

...and ZERO victims would come forward.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 08:58 PM | Reply

Dan,

I already discounted your Heritiage Foundation information in one of my posts.

But since I saw today how narrow you think, you probably never realized it.

#37 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-11 09:29 PM | Reply

"I already discounted your Heritiage Foundation information"

REALLY??? How and where? I think you're lying, again.

But it's typical for you: Once again, you pretend to know more than the experts themselves...AND ALL WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 09:33 PM | Reply

Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?
#15 | Posted by truthhurts

I'll ask again

Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-11 10:08 PM | Reply

There are two central lies employed by vote suppressionists:

An additional barrier to voting won't be an additional barrier to voting.

And yes, that's as idiotic as it seems.

If we take actions we know will suppress 10,000 votes, and folks get wind of our scheme and show up in greater numbers, that means we didn't suppress ANY votes!

(Narrator: Yes, yes you did. Your plan's overall failure doesn't mean you didn't suppress votes.)

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-11 10:10 PM | Reply

Can (will?) bill present an alternative to mail-in voting that will not disenfranchise a massive number of voters?

Will the number of voters disenfranchised by any alternative to mail-in voting far exceed any number of fraudulent votes?

For those wondering the answers are no and yes

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-11 10:12 PM | Reply

Does bill know that dumb has a "b" at the end?

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-11 10:13 PM | Reply

President Piggy ""Most people don't know that 'dumb' has a B at the end. You know, they think it's D-U-M, and that's okay." "

Thanks magat scum

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-11 10:14 PM | Reply

Truth,

"Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?"

You mean requiring people to show ID and vote in person?

Is that the suppression you are referring to?

The answer to your question is voter fraud.

#44 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 02:35 AM | Reply

(This is a message about mail-in ballots...comparing the moving of files over a network to moving paper ballots, in simplest form)

In the world of networking, data is transferred from one computer to another using different protocols (or rules) depending on what the application requires.

TCP/IP transfers data while keeping track of what was sent, what arrived, what didn't arrive, and retransmitting what is missing. TCP is called a Connection Oriented Protocol.

UDP/IP sends the data without establishing that same end-to-end confirmation. It does not, by itself, acknowledge each delivery or retransmit what is missing. It also does not have the same built-in controls as TCP for confirming that everything sent actually arrived. UDP is called a Connectionless Protocol.

That's the analogy I'm making.

Traditional requested absentee voting is more like TCP. A specific voter initiates the transaction by requesting a ballot, that request is verified, a specific ballot is issued to that voter, and there is a defined transaction to track from the beginning.

Universal mail-in voting is more like UDP. Ballots are broadly sent out first, without the voter initiating the transaction by requesting one. Not every ballot mailed out will necessarily be returned because the voter may decide not to use it and vote in person instead.

That's the distinction I'm trying to describe. One process begins with a specific voter requesting a ballot, which adds a verification step before the ballot is issued. The other begins by broadly distributing ballots before knowing which voters will actually use them.

I'm not saying the technologies and voting systems are literally identical. This is a rough comparison, but I just want people to generally see the difference between the two systems that use mailed ballots and why that difference matters.

Both mailed ballots may look alike when they come back, but one began with a verified voter request before the ballot was issued and the other did not. That extra front-end verification means the system itself is already doing part of the work before the ballot ever goes out.

In my view, that should improve the integrity of the election results while requiring less manual work later, because part of the verification and control is built right into the system processes from the very beginning.

#45 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 04:34 AM | Reply

" That's the analogy I'm making."

Your analogy is meaningless. Mail-in ballots are handled the exact same way as absentee ballots.

The ONLY difference is some states have conditions for voting absentee.

THAT'S IT.

And, as we've seen from another current thread, lies about cheating are the main driver for voter fraud. The most common reason given by someone convicted of voter fraud is I was convinced the other side was doing it.

It's the fault of liars without proof.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 07:29 AM | Reply

" In my view, that should improve the integrity of the election results"

Your state has TWO voter fraud convictions in the last 19 years, plus 8 cases of (easily caught) felons voting.

That's an average of one conviction every two years. How much more integrity do you want???

Any attempts to "improve the integrity" will certainly suppress more legal votes than thwart illegal ones.

I'd ask why you're willing to suppress 1000x the legal votes you'd protect, but I think we all know by now.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 07:36 AM | Reply

BillJ,
The situation you describe in #45 assumes voters get their mailed ballots stolen regularly.

If that actually happened, you'd have thousands of folks coming out of the woodwork complaining of victimhood, especially since votes can be tracked and confirmed by the voters. Those who got cheated would be screaming it from the rooftops.

Instead, you have NONE.

Anyone with a room temperature IQ would realize that is statistically impossible.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 07:48 AM | Reply

That was the crux of the article at the beginning of this thread.

It really wasn't though. There was never a mention of what training and policies were to blame and how it was different than normal mail.

The real crux was that most facilities weee found to be fine and that 99% of ballots arrived at their destination in a timely fashion, showing that there is very little concern for mail in voting.

#49 | Posted by MBlue at 2026-09-12 08:50 AM | Reply

ruth,
"Which is a bigger danger to the democratic process-voter fraud or voter suppression?"
You mean requiring people to show ID and vote in person?
Is that the suppression you are referring to?
The answer to your question is voter fraud.
#44 | Posted by BillJohnson

Then you don't live in reality

Older Citizens: Approximately 18% of citizens over the age of 65 (nearly 6 million people) lack a valid photo ID.
Black Voters: Roughly 25% of voting-age African Americans (about 5.5 million people) do not have a government-issued photo ID.
Latino Voters: Around 16% of Latino voters lack a qualifying government photo ID.
Low-Income Earners: About 15% of voting-age Americans earning less than $35,000 per year do not possess a valid photo ID.

Impact of Eliminating Mail-In Voting
Eliminating mail-in options entirely would fundamentally alter how a large portion of the electorate participates:
Overall Usage: Data from federal election surveys shows that approximately 29% of all voters cast their ballots by mail in recent major elections.
Affected Groups: A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate.

It is a simple obvious fact that if you put hurdles to voting tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of eligible voters will not or will be able to vote

That is a simple fact

If you think fraud ANYWHERE comes close to that number of votes, you are literally insane.

#50 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-12 09:56 AM | Reply

Truth,

"A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate."

I don't believe a total ban on mail-in voting would ever stand a chance.

Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it.

So why are you even bringing up a total ban to me when I have never proposed one?

#51 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 10:31 AM | Reply

Truth,

When I refer to "fraud," I'm not only talking about fraud committed by individual voters.

I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.

Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.

I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 10:47 AM | Reply

" Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it."

Need it? Based on whose determination, yours?

Fact is, every legal voter should be allowed to choose how they cast their legal vote. Including ones who simply want the guarantee BEFORE ELECTION DAY their vote has been received and counted.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 10:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level"

IOW, Counters. One of the " three Cs" responsible for the plurality of vote fraud.

Yet ANOTHER aspect which wouldn't be affected by enhanced voter ID.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 10:55 AM | Reply

Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.

Of course you do.

Projection is confession for republicans.

They always suspect others of the very fraud they are committing or are planning on committing.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 11:17 AM | Reply

Truth,
"A total ban on mail-in voting would heavily restrict participation for military members stationed overseas, citizens living abroad, the elderly, and voters with disabilities who depend on mail infrastructure to participate."
I don't believe a total ban on mail-in voting would ever stand a chance.
Traditional absentee voting is necessary for people who need it.
So why are you even bringing up a total ban to me when I have never proposed one?

#51 | Posted by BillJohnson

So, just a ban on blanket mail-in-voting

Replaced by those people having to a. show ID and b. show up at the voting booth

You do realize that will disenfranchise 10s of thousands if not millions of voters?

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-12 11:24 AM | Reply

When I refer to "fraud," I'm not only talking about fraud committed by individual voters.
I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.
Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concern that this may already be occurring.
I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnso

So, iow, you want a conspiracy theory to drive voting policy that will inevitably, unquestionably, disenfranchise 10s of thousands if not millions of voters.

IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven to justify disenfranchising 10s of thousands if not millions of voters.

Would you not agree that that is appropriate?

How many people would have to be involved for this conspiracy to play out?

You are aware that election boards are bipartisan, right? The people that count and certify the votes are bipartisan, that there are bipartisan vote watchers. You understand that right?

That ALL of the evidence of this systematic fraud at the state level has been laughed out of court due to lack of evidence.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-12 11:29 AM | Reply

Truth,

"IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven"

I agree with you.

Congress should pass a law to audit state election records (only audit) to see if all laws are being followed.

Yes...system fraud at state level should be proven or verified none found.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 11:35 AM | Reply

Trump should pass a law to audit state election records to see if all laws are being followed.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-

FTFY

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2026-09-12 11:42 AM | Reply

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson

Did you take the Trump/MAGA oath to cheat like hell in the next election?

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2026-09-12 11:46 AM | Reply

Congress should pass a law to audit state election records (only audit) to see if all laws are being followed.

Funny ( strange funny not ha ha funny ) how you think that the party that eviscerated the 1965 Voting Rights Act could be trusted in any way to determine if ALL state elections are fair and free of fraud.

And note party leader is encouraging you to cheat.

And yet you still trust to be fair minded?

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state."

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 12:01 PM | Reply

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson

Did you take the Trump/MAGA oath to cheat like hell in the next election?
#60 | POSTED BY ZED

Of course he has.

Dear Leader has spoken.

You do not question the authority of your god.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 12:09 PM | Reply

Zed,

"Did you take the Trump/MAGA oath to cheat like hell in the next election?"

What exactly have I suggested that could be described as "cheating"?

As I see it, all I've suggested are ways to improve voter authentication, election accuracy, and voters confidence in the election results.

#63 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-09-12 12:12 PM | Reply

"IF it were happening, this "systematic fraud at the state level" it should be proven"

Why? Do you wait until banks are robbed to lock the vaults?

Do you wait until people die before you administer vaccines?

Why not make elections as safe and secure as possible?

Systemic fraud is allowing ballots without dates to be counted, but it's perfectly legal, so where is the fraud.
newsaddicts.com

Why have any cutoff date? Just count until your preferred side wins! It's legal, so it's not fraud!

#64 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:18 PM | Reply

What exactly have I suggested that could be described as "cheating"?

Anything they don't agree with is "cheating" or "racist" or .... its all silliness.

#65 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:19 PM | Reply

I'm also talking about the possibility of systemic fraud at the state level, including collusion among state officials or others involved in the election process.
Personally, I believe there is enough reason for concernthat this may already be occurring.
I don't think the possibility should simply be dismissed because it doesn't fit the traditional idea of what voter fraud looks like.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnson

Imagine a whole society living in this kind of insecurity, and what they have to do to soothe it.

#66 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2026-09-12 12:20 PM | Reply

" Why? Do you wait until banks are robbed to lock the vaults?"

Of course not.

But under the guise of "protecting " the vote, you'd disenfranchise 100x the votes you'd thwart.

There's not a single person who's given a one single good reason why 1000 voters should be suppressed so two illegal votes don't get cast.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 12:22 PM | Reply

" Systemic fraud is allowing ballots without dates to be counted"

Now you've moved the goalposts to the few ballots mailed ON TIME, but not delivered for 2-3 days.

It used to be a postmark by the post office was proof. But some president (guess who?) Got the post office to stop putting dates when they receive the vote.

And courts have held that a certain amount of days (three, usually) to accept ballots is okay.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-12 12:25 PM | Reply

Just count until your preferred side wins! It's legal, so it's not fraud!

POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

How about we count the votes until they are all counted?

Like in the Before Times when we all realized understood and accepted that election results take time, it's a sign that the process is working and that election officials are ensuring accuracy.

#69 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 12:29 PM | Reply

When people say American democracy is a free and open process....

This is what they mean ...

#70 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:30 PM | Reply

Proving fraud at the state level could hurt Republicans too.

They are most Proven voter fraud cases.

But if the Suppression factor is the reason it's clear that's a risk Trump is willing to take.

#71 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-09-12 12:31 PM | Reply

How about we count the votes until they are all counted?
~ Donorbot

Yes exactly, just keep counting until whoever you want to win wins .... of course that will be until when they are ALL counted. As DefelctionDan says .... DUH...

You seriously can't be this incredibly stupid.

#72 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:32 PM | Reply

GFY lying commie spyboy wannabe.

While the press may often declare winners on Election Day ...

The OFFICIAL results are not final until EVERY vote has been counted and every process followed.

Election officials work hard and go through a long, thorough process of counting ALL the votes, checking and double-checking their count, auditing the results, and eventually going through the final, mandatory legal step of certification.

That's how democracy works.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 12:36 PM | Reply

If there are no limits on when ballots are due, they'll keep arriving until the pre-selected winner has won.
Carter and Baker lay this all out clearly regarding fraud in third-world countries, but like crime, America has elected to go the third-world route.

This is Soviet ballot counting perfected. Putin couldn't imagine a fairer system to get him elected again and again.....

#74 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:37 PM | Reply

Onenut, you are assuming ANYONE believes that Trump actually wants a fair election.

He's openly calling for people to "Cheat like Hell".

He's Shit his Pants Terrified of a Fair Election.

That's why he's openly calling for Cheating.

If he was confident of winning would he be calling for for people to "Cheat like Hell"?

#75 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-09-12 12:38 PM | Reply

As I see it, all I've suggested are ways to improve voter authentication, election accuracy, and voters confidence in the election results.

#63 | Posted by BillJohnson a

You were asked if you have taken Trump's oath to cheat like hell.

This is your movement and your Leader.

Just be honest.

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2026-09-12 12:40 PM | Reply

While the press may often declare winners on Election Day

Of course they do, for the elections that have gone the way the "party" wants.

But it didn't happen in the LA Mayor contest did it? No no ..... they waited and waited, because they knew ...

Then the very second Nithya Raman got 1 vote over Pratt... THEY CALLED IT .... not suspicious at all .... ;)

#77 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:40 PM | Reply

Onenut, you are assuming ANYONE believes that Trump actually wants a fair election.

No my assumption is no politician wants a fair election.

Your assumption is that only the other side cheats

#78 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-09-12 12:41 PM | Reply

If the vote is a valid vote it should be counted.

Period.

GFY with the rest of your commie agitprop.

#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-09-12 12:48 PM | Reply

The other side accepts defeat without a murmur.

Did Trump? He incited INSURRECTION, he Solicited the Georgia Secretary of State to "Find" 11,000 odd votes to flip Georgia. No other President in AMERICAN HISTORY has Ever done anything similar.

Hillary accepted Defeat Gracefully after being convinced of victory. She Showed up at his Second Inauguration.

Trump Whined for years about being "Robbed".

What a Pussy.

He's a Toddler in a Man's body.

#80 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-09-12 12:51 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort