Why are "rigged" and "stolen" lumped together? I thought one means the rules are unfair (legal), and the other means the rules were broken (illegal). These are... very different, no?
They were factually changed outside of the normal process right? The question is whether a state of emergency justified the change? I wish everyone wouldn’t get so mouth-frothing when stuff like this is discussed, it makes it hard to tell what is really going on.
I didn’t read this article, but I believe the switch to mail in ballots (at least) was made by the executive branch in many places where legally speaking it is supposed to be made by the legislative branch. I believe the process change was justified under the COVID related emergency orders. Kind of hard to tell whether it was above board or not.
I haven’t looked too much into it though, if someone can add more detail I would be interested too!
Did courts not review this? I'm curious which states are alleged to have done this illegally (and how that would've affected the outcome) because for example I thought I saw it was upheld in Pennsylvania:
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-mail-voting-ballots-...
I haven’t been specifically following the updates, but I haven’t seen the executive vs legislative distinction challenged or decided in any court. I assumed it would be but I haven’t seen anything. The linked article seems to be about a technicality related to envelope formatting, not about who can change the election process.
You didn't read the article and you say you haven't looked into it much but twice in this post you've made assertions about legally questionable/illegal actions.
Your posts here are a perfect example of why we need to fight disinfo so strongly because people will parrot random things they hear all over the place and by second level it becomes truth to many.
I use soft language because this is a sensitive topic that has become hyper politicized and I am not a partisan (both of the current parties are extremely gross).
I said that I haven't read this article. I do assert that a) state electoral process is generally decided by the legislature b) leading up to the 2020 election the mail-in ballot option was greatly expanded in many states c) in at least several states, the ballot option expansion was enacted by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, as part of the emergency response.
Which of the above isn't true?
Getting into details, I am not sure exactly how many states were involved in (c), or whether the (c) possibly could have affected the outcome. Figuring these out would require significant analysis. I would have to go state by state and read the electoral process laws, and then find the state by state records of electoral process change, and then cross reference those, etc.
I haven't seen this analysis done anywhere, but I would be grateful if anyone could link such an analysis since I am still curious. It seems like people generally don't get into the details, they just start yelling.
You said it would be too much work to go through state by state but you still make strong assertions in you're the three points above. You are speaking from ignorance and declaring things in multiple places and your excuse is that you believe these things and it would be too much work to find the truth. That is the problem.
> "Rigged" can mean lots of things, including something being illegally stolen. Such as a rigged boxing match.
Perhaps this is just my ignorance of boxing but I dare say that example didn't enlighten me. I can't think of any case in sports (or elsewhere) where I've seen "rigged" to mean illegal conduct. I thought that's generally called something else, like a foul.
> Taking a dive in a fight (losing) in order to fix the fight (for those gambling on it) would be an example of a rigged fight.
That doesn't make sense... the fight is rigged (and you're claiming this would be illegal in the fight) because people happened to gamble on it? I've never seen a sport where the legality of a move depends on whether some outsider had gambled on it.
Wouldn't it be the gambling that would be rigged at that point, instead of the fight?
OP’s boxing example was a perfect illustration of the common use of the word rigged. It’s rigged because the outcome was predetermined but not presented that way to the outside viewer.
But it's still legal, no? That's my point. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's an entirely different beast from illegal conduct. US elections have always been rigged (see: legally required electoral college) but they've never been "stolen"/"illegitimate" AFAIK.
If the fighter is paid to take a dive, then the fight is rigged and the bettors on the outside know which way to bet. It's fraud, and yes, generally illegal.