Yeah he either doesn’t understand the process and hasnt decided to work out what’s happening, or he’s intentionally deceptive. Either way, I think it’s very stereotypical American thinking to presume everything is binary and no nuanced conversations can happen. “You asserted a thing, but didn’t specify x while doing so, therefore you’re against x”. It’s letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Another thing is that law can and should be left open to interpretation in many cases. That’s not always the best thing, see financial law etc, but you can’t set up a framework for every scenario. However, you can define a list of obvious things and if someone does something against the spirit of the law, it can be amended and/or someone can prosecute to further define. Laws can be changed and judges make rulings that set precedent.

Idk, I’m coming into this late but it’s arguing in bad faith so im frustrated.