>> Now, in terms of what effects this might have, at least until the Supreme Court overrules
it. The judge ordered the Postal Service to reverse any instructions for mail carriers
to leave mail behind postal facilities. To stop requiring trucks to leave at set times
regardless of whether the mail is ready.
And to allow return trips to distribution centers to ensure timely delivery. Now these
are some of the changes that like long serving postal employees have gone on the record in
any number of awesome reports on this. By a lot of different outlets saying, it makes
absolutely no sense that these restrictions have put in.
I know what needs to be done to deliver the mail. These are completely artificial obstacles
that are being set up. And additionally, and this is potentially even more directly, linked
to the ability to handle the surge of mail in ballots. The USPS must also treat all election
mail according to first class delivery standards and replace or restore the equipment required
to do that.
Any request to reconnect to replace any decommissioned or removed sorting machine must be directed
through the court for approval unless the USPS has already approved it. So you don't
get to tree ballots and things like that like junk mail, which is again, we should be able
to have some sort of bar.
Make it a little bit more subtle when you're trying to stop the American people from being
able to weigh in. That's the question. >> I mean, a lot of junk mail is very likely
first class mail anyway, but like, that's >> Is it?
>> I think we should, I don't know, but I think, we should say that.
Trump is treating and I think that should be on T-shirts and posters is Trump is turning
your ballots into junk mail. We want to treat it right cuz, obviously, we do, but he wants
junk mail and he wants to treat like junk mail. And there were standards before like
all, the extent to which I get frustrated with like how a politician feels they need
to sound when giving a speech the basically all that is Mike Pence.
Which is like the I'm gonna do this and, and the Ted Cruz and all that. At least there
were certain things that they wouldn't do, because they understood what it would mean
for democracy. And the easiest way to typify this is Jeff Sessions was the biggest bootlicker,
corrupt racist shill.
But even he when it came to like the Russia investigation was like, this would be too
corrupt and Trump has no problem with that. And truly like there's some certain criticisms
Trump gets for assigning people to be in charge of certain conditions that I think are illogical.
In my opinion, it's fine to put someone in charge of a commission who typically is not
like a career bureaucrat or has criticized that.
Like, put someone in charge of a regulated regulation, a body that puts out regulations,
who has been against regulations. I don't think that that's enough to criticize the
appointment, but so often, it's people who have a vested financial interest in pulling
back these regulations. And not a financial interest that relates to a bunch of other
people who run businesses.
Like there's I would put a business person in charge of certain business regulating bodies.
Because a lot of them, especially when it comes to small businesses, there's a lot of
the regulations that affect businesses. The big businesses have a way to get around it
and the small businesses get completely like, torn apart by them.
Because they're held to the same standard. I think you can put a small business person
in charge of a business regulating body because there needs to be representation for them.
But in terms of what Trump has done putting Louis to joy, who has a financial interest
in having the responsibilities of the post office.
Farmed out to a company that he runs and owns, that is where we need to draw the line. Because
it's not just that it's also Trump's reliance on digize personal financial interests to
help Trump essentially undo the fabric of democracy and that's not all.
>> Yeah, I mean, it's multiple levels of financial conflicts of interest both in terms of where
he has worked in the past.
Where he will immediately go back to working when he's out of the Trump administration.
But also his past donations seemingly buying this spot. I just I disagree to some extent,
I think, look, if you want to say that simply being opposed to the core mission statement
of an agency.
I would say maybe that shouldn't cause you to be sort of unqualified for it, although
I'm not even sure I get to that, but to say that it's not enough to be criticized. Like
if you're putting like a guy who represented like the Fossil Fuel Trade Union or something
like that, as the head of the EPA, I think that definitely merits criticism at the very
least.
And to Joy, thanks to his actions and God help him if we ever get access to the communications
that almost surely plotted this out. This seems like maybe it's not breaking laws, but
it certainly seems like it should be breaking laws to do this to so manipulate an agency
like the Postal Service.