*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Here's some questions for you:

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

[TheSpoonald]

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

Because if you're lying to obstruct justice, then it means you're talking to a sworn law enforcement agent investigating a crime. That's worse than lying to your auntie. In Trump's case, he wasn't lying to an officer. He was lying to Twitter. Lying to your Auntie is worse.

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

It depends. Were you talking to a sworn law enforcement officer? If so, he's probably trained to ask questions like "did you see that happen? Or did someone just tell you about it"? So I don't see how that situation could possibly result in OOJ.

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

Ivanka. Because she's a fucking goddess.

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

I'm actually not the person you wanna talk to about this. I think 12 year olds should be allowed to buy bazookas.

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

Ask Israel

[Poopadoop]

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

[TheSpoonald]

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

[Poopadoop]

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

You don't need complicated analogies unless you're trying to obfuscate things.

It's really really really simple.

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

End of story.

The question was not: 'what do you do if you see mist?'.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

I'll give you a hint: the correct response is 'no'.

The follow-up question was: if you insist on answering 'yes' to the above, are you an idiot?
(the answer is 'yes, you are')

We'll make it even more interesting and fun for kids now. If you insist on refusing to answer 'no' to the above, what does that make you?

[TheSpoonald]

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

[Poopadoop]

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

No, we're still trying to get you to accept that the conclusion isn't A.