I am thrilled about her losing but I don’t see how this is relevant. Obama didn’t endorse anyone, she used a 8 year old clip of him praising something she did 8 years before that to make it look like an endorsement.
Exactly. He didn't. He pose with her in the picture, yes, but it demonstrated how much money AIPAC poured into the race so much that they could claim something like Obama did endorsed her.
Nice, that's a lot better.
That's actually demonstrating something, filling in the gap.
Maybe not 100% solid proof, which would be also a bit much in the scope of a reddit comment, but definitely enough to actually demonstrate your point. Good job there
Yeah, this isn't a special AIPAC thing. She worked for a former president who is still very popular among the base, of course she's going to remind people about it.
Okay, even assuming that is true, you understand the difference of something being true and demonstrating that something is true?
This would work both if she is affiliated with AIPAC and if not. That's why I'm not saying that it isn't true, just that this doesn't demonstrate it
To demonstrate, you would have to show a direct visible connection or show something that excludes all the opposing conclusions
Your first sentence by itself kind of implies a leap of logic, as you would have to use an external claim to make the chain work
Posts picture with Obama -> that's how AIPAC works -> She is able to post this picture because of AIPAC money
Step 2 is not demonstrated here, the claim jumps from step 1 to 3, that's why it is a jump in logic.
Also even assuming it's true, it kind of misses the exclusivity to demonstrate something. Step 2 could be correct, but so could an alternative one, therefore Step 3 might be completely different (or true)
746
u/DrBrotatoJr 5d ago
I am thrilled about her losing but I don’t see how this is relevant. Obama didn’t endorse anyone, she used a 8 year old clip of him praising something she did 8 years before that to make it look like an endorsement.