At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.

No, it's not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren't working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.

They, by your own description, are not 'turning around' and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don't support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn't it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?

I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.

Considering that I'm the one in this thread who's objected to the map's misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?

Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.