Post Office Won’t Deliver Mail Ballots. Trump Fights Sports Host.

The Post Office is supposed to deliver the mail. So why is it suddenly being pulled into election battles?

A proposal tied to a Trump directive could put mail in ballots at the center of a fight over voter lists, federal authority, and who gets to decide how elections are handled. Why should that concern every American, regardless of party?

Then I shift from politics to sports. At least that’s how it starts.

A famous sports commentator makes a remark. The President of the United States gets asked about it. Guess what happens next.

I look at why every criticism, joke, challenge, or offhand comment seems to require a response from Trump. What does that tell us about leadership, power, and insecurity?

Two stories that seem unrelated on the surface. But both raise bigger questions about power, authority, and the growing inability of some people and institutions to stay in their lane.

It’s another look at a world that feels a little crazier every day.

If you’ve enjoyed the podcast and found it informative, and maybe got a laugh or two, then please contribute to keeping this podcast around. 

I’m not backed by Corporate media. There is no outside money other than my own wallet so if you could please contribute to the GoFundMe below even a small donation makes a difference.

https://gofund.me/5d9a419ef

AWorldGoneMadPodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

Quick Welcome And Birthday Shoutout

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is the world on that. This is the world on that.

unknown 0:07

Mad Mad Mad Mad.

SPEAKER_01 0:08

From Studio 19, I'm Jeff Allen Wolf. This is a World Gone Mad. Welcome to the Shit Show. Today is going to be a shorter episode because it's my better half's birthday. Happy birthday, Natasha. Hopefully we will celebrate a wonderful birthday week for you. Okay, here we go.

USPS Plan To Block Mail Ballots

SPEAKER_01 0:31

The Postal Service won't deliver mail in ballots for states that don't hand over voter lists under a plan for Trump's directive. Now the United States Postal Service has one job when it comes to elections. Deliver the damn mail. That's it. Not determine who's eligible to vote. Not create voter databases. Not act as America's newest election police force. Just deliver the mail. But now we're looking at a proposal tied to a Trump executive order that would allow the Postal Service to refuse delivery of mail ballots, unless states hand over voter lists and comply with new federal requirements. Seriously? Think about how insane that is for a second. Imagine if the electric company said, we're not turning your lights on until you provide us a list of everyone allowed to use electricity. Imagine if Amazon said, we're not delivering your package until we personally verify your eligibility. You'd laughed them out of the room. But somehow, when it comes to voting, we're supposed to treat this as normal. Now what fascinates me is how quickly some people have accepted things that would have triggered national outrage just a few years ago. The Postal Service wants to deliver the mail. Fine. The Postal Service wants to improve delivery times. Great. The Postal Service wants to modernize equipment. Wonderful. The Postal Service deciding whether your ballot deserves delivery? Since when was that part of the job description?

Bureaucracy That Becomes Voter Barriers

SPEAKER_01 2:33

And can we stop pretending this is some technical administrative adjustment? That's the trick with so many of these proposals. They're presented as paperwork, procedures, compliance, forms, requirements, bureaucratic housekeeping. But every one of those harmless sounding words eventually lands on a real voter somewhere. Every new hurdle means somebody's ballot arrives late, gets challenged, gets rejected, or never shows up at all. The hypocrisy is almost breathtaking. The same crowd that spent years warning us about federal overreach suddenly seems perfectly comfortable with Washington inserting itself into state election procedures. Apparently, states' rights remain sacred right up until the state does something they don't like, then the federal government can't move in fast enough. Let's be honest about what's happening here. Nobody in America has been lying awake at night thinking, you know what would make me feel safer about democracy? If the post office had more power over elections. Nobody. Not Republicans, not Democrats, not independents, nobody was demanding this. Nobody was out marching in the streets begging for mail carriers to become election gatekeepers. What we're watching is something that's become disturbingly common. Every proposal gets judged by one question. Does it make voting easier or harder? If the answer is harder, somebody in Washington immediately becomes interested. It's like we've reached the point where making voting more complicated is considered a feature instead of a bug. And what really bothers me is how often we're told not to worry. Don't overreact. Don't exaggerate. It's only one rule. It's only one requirement. It's only one change. Funny how democracy always seems to lose one small piece at a time. Nobody walks into a room and announces they're going to weaken democratic participation. They just keep adding obstacles and calling them safeguards. Here's the part I can't get past.

Participation Versus Power In Elections

SPEAKER_01 5:12

Every elected official in this country works for voters. Every governor, senator, representative, county supervisor, mayor, city council member, and president owes their job to voters. So why does it seem like so many politicians spend so much time looking for new ways to make voting more difficult for the people who put them in office? A healthy democracy wants more participation, more voices, more voters, more engagement. A nervous democracy starts putting conditions on who gets heard. And the moment government agencies start moving beyond counting ballots and delivering ballots into deciding which ballots deserve access to the system in the first place, we're no longer talking about administrative efficiency. We're talking about power. That's the real story. Not paperwork, not compliance, not procedure. Power. And every American, regardless of party, should be asking why so many people in positions of power seem increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of letting more Americans participate in choosing who has it. The post office should stick to one task: deliver the damn mail.

Trump Versus Stephen A. Smith

SPEAKER_01 6:46

All right, let me talk about the war. No, I'm not talking about Iran. I'm talking about Donald Trump versus Stephen A. Smith, sportscaster. Stephen A. Smith is one of the most recognizable sports commentators in America. He's the star of ESPN's first take TV show. And Smith rarely goes a week without making headlines. Before Game 3 of the NBA Finals, the first finals game this series played at Madison Square Garden in New York, Smith commented on reports that Donald Trump would be attending the game in person. Smith then jokingly said that if the Knicks lost, it'd somehow be Trump's fault because the Knights should belong to the Knicks, the city, and the fans, not another appearance by Donald Trump. The Knicks lost game three. As Trump was leaving New York, a reporter asked him about Stephen A. Smith's remarks, and also noted that Smith, who has occasionally been mentioned as a possible future presidential candidate, had said he'd blame Trump if the Knicks lost. Trump responded back to the reporter by saying, I think Smith's a nice guy, but you need a certain aptitude to run for president. You need a high IQ, Trump said. I'm not sure that Stephen has that. I don't think he does actually. The following morning on the sports TV show First Take, Smith fired back about Trump's remarks. Smith reminded viewers that before the game he had said, this president has no business showing up in New York City. I am dead serious. It is selfish, it is narcissistic, it is ridiculous that Trump is coming to game three in Madison Square Garden. Smith argued that Trump's presence disrupted traffic around Madison Square Garden, impacted local businesses and their revenue, complicated access for fans, interfered with the atmosphere surrounding the first NBA finals game in New York in decades, and turned what should have been a celebration of the Knicks, the city, and the fans into yet another story about Donald Trump. Responding to Trump's IQ remarks directed at him, Smith said this about Trump. I could put my IQ up against yours any day of the week. He also challenged Trump directly and asked him, Why have you been avoiding sitting down for a conversation with me for over a year? Smith doubled down on his belief that Trump's appearance became a bigger story than the game itself. He argued that security measures disrupted businesses and fans around Madison Square Garden and mocked Trump for appearing to fall asleep during the game, saying, The brother wasn't awake. And then directly asking Trump rhetorically, if it was that important for you to be there, why did you look like you were asleep? Smith ended by saying more extensive commentary about Trump would come later on his own platform away from ESPN, which is a very intriguing comment by itself. Now maybe it's just me, but how does the President of the United States keep ending up in these conversations? Seriously? We're talking about a sports commentator discussing a basketball game, not a cabinet secretary, not a foreign leader, not a military commander, not an economic advisor. And that's not to minimize the importance of Smith's comments about Donald Trump. A sports commentator talking about the Knicks basketball team. Yet somehow this became worthy of a presidential response. And that's the part I can't get past. Every single time somebody criticizes Donald Trump, jokes about Trump, questions Trump, challenges Trump, or simply says something he doesn't like, Trump seems incapable of letting it go.

Why Every Criticism Becomes A Feud

SPEAKER_01 11:16

Every criticism becomes personal. Every disagreement becomes a feud. Every challenge to Trump becomes a score that needs to be settled. At some point you have to ask yourself, why? We've seen this movie before. We just saw it recently with Kristen Welker when she pressed Trump on questions he didn't want to answer. We've seen it with female reporters. We've seen it with journalists who simply refused to accept Trump's first answer and asked a follow-up question. We've seen it with judges. We've seen it with political opponents. We've seen it with former members of Trump's own administration. The names change, but the reactions don't. The moment Trump feels challenged, questioned, criticized, or pushed outside of his comfort zone, the conversation almost always becomes personal for Trump. A president of the United States has one of the most demanding jobs on earth. Wars, intelligence briefings, economic reports, trade negotiations, national security concerns, natural disasters, foreign policy crisis. The list never ends. Yet somehow there's always time, or seems to be time from Trump to respond to another celebrity, another journalist, another comedian, another athlete, another commentator, another person who bruised Donnie Boy's ego. We've seen it so many times that most people barely notice it anymore. And maybe that's the real problem. We've normalized behavior from Trump that would have been considered bizarre from any other president. Imagine a president spending his time responding to talk show hosts, sports talk hosts. Imagine a president treating every criticism as a personal attack against him. Imagine a president who always seems more focused on who's talking about him than what he's actually supposed to be talking about. That's not strength. That's not confidence. That's definitely not leadership. The strange thing is that truly confident people don't behave this way. Truly confident people don't feel compelled to answer every critic. Truly confident people don't need to win every argument. Truly confident people. That's why this story isn't really about Stephen A. Smith. Definitely zero disrespect to Smith. It's about a president who seems to be unable to ignore even the smallest slight. And after nearly a decade of watching this pattern repeat itself over and over again, I think the question isn't why Stephen A. Smith responded. The real question is why the president of the United States keeps feeling the need to respond.

Insecurity Hiding Behind Power

SPEAKER_01 14:29

Because when every criticism becomes a feud, every disagreement becomes personal, every joke becomes a battle that has to be fought by Trump, it starts to look less like confidence and more like insecurity hiding behind power. Look, Wolfback, let's be honest. The bottom line is that this is about an old, insecure, narcissistic man who thinks he has all the power in the world. When in reality, he's just a scam artist who's finally getting caught for the things he does and says. That's today's insight into a world gone mad. If

Support The Show And Final Message

SPEAKER_01 15:15

you've enjoyed the podcast, if you found it informative, maybe you got a laugh or two, Jen. You know, please contribute to keeping this podcast around. I'm not backed by corporate media. There is no outside money other than my own wallet. So if you could please contribute to the GoFundMe in the description below, even a small donation makes a difference. I'm Jeff Allen Wolf. This is A World Gone Mad. I'll be back Friday. Until then, I urge you the Wolfpack. Remain skeptical. Question everything. Please don't lose hope. And most of all, stay alert.

SPEAKER_00 15:55

There is chaos in the world. Can't you see? And we need to stand up and preserve a democracy. This is a way of this is a world time.