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?
I haven’t looked too much into it though, if someone can add more detail I would be interested too!
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 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.
I asserted that a, b and c are true. I am 100% sure about that. I have not asserted anything beyond those in this thread (or elsewhere). If you can rebut a, b, or c I would be very interested, since I prefer to become more right over time.
In order to make a stronger claim than I am making, I would need to do more work. Where that work isn't "looking things up on the internet", it's "performing professional level legal analysis".
Beyond that, as you say, would require legal analysis and courts, and there has been a lot of hand wringing and not much legal analysis and the courts have mostly ignored the issue.
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.
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?
Wrestling is a different beast but boxing is heavily regulated in the US