*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

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

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

[Poopadoop]

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

See this is where you're struggling with the workings of logic.

The conclusion is most definitely not A. If it was, the answer given would have been A.

[TheSpoonald]

The conclusion is most definitely not A.

no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.

[Poopadoop]

no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

[TheSpoonald]

The conclusion is not A.

How do you know? It still could be

[TheSpoonald]

You see a field of berries. You don't know which berries are poisonous. But you know which berries are not poisonous.

So you only eat the berries that you know are fine.

Can you conclude that the berries you didn't eat are fine? no, you can't conclude that. You can't conclude that they are poisonous either. There is no conclusion. You just don't know. You just know that some berries exist.

But they still very well could be fine.

[TheSpoonald]

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

NO. THIS IS WRONG

[TheSpoonald]

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

I really don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill. But the logic should be really simple.

If A, not B
If inconclusive, could be A or B

if you're using the word "therefore" then you are inferring information that is not in the Mueller report.

[Poopadoop]

have a look at this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ump-obstructed

Investigation of obstruction of justice could still move ahead. “We conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” the report stated. It notes that the president could still be prosecuted after leaving office through resignation or impeachment.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report concluded. In other words, if the evidence had given the special counsel an opportunity to clear Trump of the charge of obstruction, Mueller would have taken it. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” In other words, there is just too much evidence of obstruction.

[TheSpoonald]

have a look at this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ump-obstructed

PAAAAHHHH - FUCKING - THETIC

There isn't a single syllable in that entire thing that makes a case for obstruction. It just says "don't lose hope dems, it might still could maybe possibly somehow someway still happen if we're all really good boys and girls this year"

PS - Does this mean we are moving on from you retarded A/B game? Just because something is cannot be concluded to be A, doesn't mean it's not A.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and just because you keep going on about how it's ok to lie to the public

Few people remember this, but the obstruction-of-justice article against Nixon held the president accountable for lying to the American people — not when he was under oath, but when he made public statements about Watergate.

ruh roh!.jpg