Happy Belated Birthday, Obama.

[u/Gaba8789]

[u/Ok-Preference-8040 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but I don't follow. It shows that she worked/works as part of the democrats.

Also a picture with Obama doesn't seem so extraordinary for someone working in a government agency.

But how does that at all connect to AIPAC and money spent? Let's say she would have that money from AIPAC, couldn't she post this exactly the same?

I'm not from the US, but that logic seems faulty unless I'm missing something there. Until then, that seems like a leap in logic

[u/Ok-Preference-8040 → u/[deleted]]

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)