Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

No. Words mean things. People here [rightly, IMHO] jump on OAM because he'll often make some bombastic statement or statement with no possible nuance and when challenged say "you know what I meant."

In 2016, the Russians did not rig the election and no credible source anywhere has claimed they did. To "rig" an election would be to mess with the vote such that legitimate votes were not counted, illegitimate votes were cast and counted, or the vote totals were changed/modified, and thus the outcome of the election was NOT what the voters actually cast their ballots for.

In 2016, the Russians engaged in a state-sponsored campaign [mostly via social media as I understand it with the aid of biased news web sites] to spread misinformation and disinformation and influence the outcome of the election. Essentially all they did was try to change perception of one candidate relative to the other. Basically they were surreptitiously campaigning for Trump, not rigging an election. However, in no possible way can this be called "rigging" an election.

None of what the Russians did would really be actionable, to be honest. If the Trump campaign had colluded with them, however, that would have been a major problem. But that wasn't proven.

It's now 2020. The claims are that the election was rigged, that it's a fraud, that fraudulent votes were cast, that the counts are incorrect, etc. This is a much different claim than what the Democrats claimed about 2016.

That's why it is not factual. The Democrats didn't claim in 2016 that Russia rigged the election, they claimed that Russia was influencing the election for Trump and believed that Trump colluded with Russia to do so. The didn't claim that the vote wasn't legitimate. Now the Republicans are claiming that the election was actually rigged and the vote counts aren't legitimate.

Two different claims. You're the one putting words in the 2016 Dems' mouths here to claim it's hypocrisy, but that's not accurate.

Well let's be clear who you're talking about when you say "The Democrats" in the above.  Are you talking about the DNC?  Hillary herself?  Or just people that vote Democrat?  Or people in the media that choose to report things in... how should I say it... a "Democrat-slanted manner?"

Because I know quite a few people that voted for Hillary, and who didn't understand exactly what was done with respect to Russian influence, and who most assuredly stated outright that Trump and the RNC and the Russians rigged the election.  And there were also, most certainly, some... "Democrat-slanted media members"... who reported it that way as well.

They might have meant something else, but that's not what they said-- they said it was rigged, and further they were certain that there was conclusive proof that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. 

I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying, but since I agree with you that words mean something, I think it's important to be clear about who and what we're talking about.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

Warren said it was rigged, but she was referring to the primary in this case.  The term "rigged", as noted, means different things to different people.

If we sat there and said that "X doesn't say Y", and looked at the dumbest and most easily-led subset of "X", you'll find someone who says "Y". So I am naturally referring to the ones with power, influence, position, etc at or near the top. They weren't saying "rigged".

In other news, since I had the China Virus back in March and then recovered, I went on a weight loss mission.

Not a diet, a lifestyle change. I still eat what I like and drink (too much). It's about when and why you eat. Pretty cool.

I started April 8.

Hit the 40 pound mark today.

Gonna go for another 30 still. Should be done by April.