LogFAQs > #948285782

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I didn't replace your original hypothetical.

My hypothetical was if Texas was able to prove their case, which alleged that voting laws in respondent states were changed illegally and allowed too many people to vote.

You're arguing a hypothetical where the respondent states changed their voting laws and allowed not enough people to vote.

You 100% did change the hypothetical and you changed it to the polar opposite of what it originally was.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I said that was the outcome of the changes to the law being made illegally.

Which is wrong on several levels.

The laws weren't changed illegally, which has been established dozens of times in court, and Texas's case never alleged the outcome you're suggesting. They were, in fact, alleging the exact opposite of what you're saying here.

Seriously, how do you not understand this after it has been explained to you numerous times in this topic?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's me saying "That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions.It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue."
Me saying you said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations goes "You said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations."

Please define what the phrase "every issue" means in your definition and how it differs from "all situations".

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Being in the middle is not about finding a middle ground in every issue.

Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!