Do you think that politicians are not already trying the convince people to vote for them strategy?

Furthermore this polynomial must take values between 0 and 1 on all possible inputs.

If you are not smarter or better than anybody, why should I listen to you?

Why miss it? They're all on steam.

And killed way more than that by scraping USAID.

If you produce more oil than you consume, you are being paid the global price more often than you are paying it.

In what world is beating the US military in an uprising an easier way to change the system than winning a few elections?

I'm not saying that I love everything about our current system. I'm just saying that it is more productive to work within the system that exists than within the system I wish we had.

"youre deluded if you think any of those things wouldnt have happened had the other been voted in"

"i aint arguing hypotheticals"

If you are going to make strong claims about hypotheticals at least have the guts to back up your claims.

How exactly does not voting cause the system to reform itself?

Why do you vote for anybody? Because voting for them leads to better outcomes than not voting for them.

Not all people that you don't trust are equally bad. You could easily have not trusted Harris and still acknowledged that she would be much much better than Trump.

Also, its similar phrasing to "your right to swing your fist ends at my face", which is a known phrase which clearly supports his interpretation.

Nothing he has said in this discussion has contradicted his claimed meaning, so I see no reason to assume that he is being disingenuous about it, especially because if he was he gave up any advantage that doing so could possibly have had by clarifying himself in short order.

It's the fallacy of equivocation only if he actually uses both meanings in his argument. But I think he has been consistently using "end" to mean "extent or boundary" and not "time at which a thing ceases to be".

Yes. There are multiple meanings of the word "end". And he was not intending the one that we both apparently first assumed, but has been excessively willing to clarify it since. That is not "equivocation".

He meant "ends" as in describing the other boundary in extent rather than time. As in "the ends of the Earth". Doesn't imply that the Earth ceases to exist, just that it has an outer boundary.

I'm not saying that lying is reasonable. I am saying that it is not that much of a stretch to call territory that you occupy and plan to annex yours.

1: I am not trying to disregard what you said. I am trying to determine if you are:
A) Looking at different maps than I am
B) Using a different definition of "The Middle East" than I am
C) Using a different definition of "throughout"

Could black people vote in the south during Jim Crowe?
For the most part, no.

Are you saying that Palestinian citizens of Israel cannot in practice vote?

And can you like provide quotes of Israeli government officials claiming that Syrians attacking Syrians in Syria was an attack against Israel?

1: So including all of Saudi Arabia then? Just trying to clarify what your claim is here.
2: Claiming that attacks on territory that you occupy and intend to annex is an attack on you is not that unreasonable.

That law does look pretty bad symbolically, but it doesn't really answer my question. Can non-Jews within Israel still vote? Do they have full formal rights as citizens?

1) Greater Israel is not the entire middle east (at least the maps I've seen do not cover Saudi Arabia).
2) The Golan Heights are actually occupied by Israel. Did Israel also claim that the Syrian civil war was an attack on Israel?

But there are circumstances where saying something has an end *does* mean that it ceases to exist?

Look. I agree that in context your meaning was more reasonable than my original interpretation. But I don't think that it is a meaning that nobody would have and I didn't spend forever to interpret.

So if I say "that is where your life ends" it would not be reasonable to interpret this as saying you would be dead afterwards?

I agree that there are serious issues with both their recent military activity and their general treatment of the Palestinian territories specifically, but this is far from saying only Jews should have self determination.

Do only Jews get to vote in Israel?
Does Israel put its official borders surrounding the entire Middle East?.

You said "that's where their right to self determination ends." I think I reasonably misinterpreted this as you saying that their right to self determination should end, as in no longer exist.

Fine. Self determination cannot be legitimately used to remove the self determination of others but is not forfeited if one tries to use it this way. OK.