Broken Government

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-07-2020, 05:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they haven't.  If you disagree please give an example or two. 


I don't know many people who disagree with that sentiment.  However, what constitutes that is clearly up for debate and neither side has a monopoly on the solution.  However, none of this detracts from my original point.  You, and others of the same thinking, want to change the rules because those rules, which we have operated under for over 200 years, didn't give you the results you preferred.  I get that, but don't expect me to agree with it or not call it out for what it is.

Impeachment wasn’t that long ago.

But don’t worry he is working on a new way to rig the election.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-07-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure they have.


Your argument eats itself.  They want to change the rules because they lost.  It's no different than the Bengals wanting to change the results of the '05 playoff game because Carson got Kimo'd.  You lost under the same set of rules that have been in placed for over two hundred years.  You want to change them because you lost.  No amount of Fred spin changes that simple fact.

And that is a terrible example considering the rule change that followed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 08:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Impeachment wasn’t that long ago.

But don’t worry he is working on a new way to rig the election.

Clinton was impeached too.

(10-07-2020, 08:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And that is a terrible example considering the rule change that followed.

Did they change the rule to make it an automatic win for the team that suffered the injury?  No, they made it a personal foul to hit the QB below the waist.  So you still would have lost, you just have been closer to midfield when you punted.  

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure they have.


Your argument eats itself.  They want to change the rules because they lost.  It's no different than the Bengals wanting to change the results of the '05 playoff game because Carson got Kimo'd.  You lost under the same set of rules that have been in placed for over two hundred years.  You want to change them because you lost.  No amount of Fred spin changes that simple fact.

So I see you refused to show how the rule would only work for one party.

The Presidency and control of Congress has consistently swung back and forth.  No one is saying make a rule to help only the Democrats.  We are saying get rid of minority control of the government.  That same rule would apply when the Democrats were the minority the same way it does when the Republicans were the minority.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did they change the rule to make it an automatic win for the team that suffered the injury?  No, they made it a personal foul to hit the QB below the waist.  So you still would have lost, you just have been closer to midfield when you punted.  

So your are admitting that a rule change was proper even though it was not just to help one specific team win?

Doesn't that kind of disprove your claim that the only reason we want to prevent minority rule is to help one side?