okay well, when one doctors something generally you’re trying to pass it off as though it’s unmodified. When you redact something, you’re being explicit that something is removed. Make sense?

mm… well I hate billionaires for being exploitative and shit. And I’d like to see their money shared around. But a trust fund is something that one is given by the circumstances of their birth, not something one needs to be an exploitative asshole for. Perhaps their parents are exploitative assholes, sure, but why would I hate somebody just for being born into privilege?

why would you insult somebody for having a trust fund

Even if the list had no apparent omissions, how could you verify it wasn’t doctored? Generally, we don’t tend to consider redactions as the same thing as doctoring.

idk two words that begin with p. What’s your point?

well if you put it together with the epstein files, that might be something

You do realize I was talking about the epstein files right? Seeing as I said “epstein file” in both sentences that I wrote.

Q: […What] does Tiffany have of yours and what does Tiffany have of Marla’s?

DJT: Well I think that she’s got a lot of Marla, and she’s [a] really beautiful baby and she’s got Marla’s legs; we don’t know whether or not she’s got [motions to his chest] this part yet, but time will tell.

sounds like we’ll get a release of the epstein files with one name missing. That seems strictly better than no epstein file release.

okay fine, I don’t really believe in innocent until proven guilty, I believe in “no punishment until proven guilty.” I feel that I made myself clear when I said I neither believed for sure that she was lying nor for sure that she was telling the truth. I don’t see how this is a binary view.

i lost my job earlier this year, so i’m just vibin’. Not exactly ideal but I have some buffer time saved up.

why would you insult somebody for being middle-class

this will work until every country does this.

no that’s fair, it seems like these days it’s impossible to tell people’s legitimate takes apart from sarcasm.

I could imagine the number being derived with a statistical model, but it would probably require you to plug in some priors.

I recognize you say that sarcastically, but if you added /gen it would be exactly accurate.

what do you mean?

Okay for instance, with Trump the evidence is written on the walls. Ideally he should be tried and found guilty, but he controls the courts. That’s its own problem, wouldn’t you say?

Compare this with the 5 hockey players that were just acquitted in Canada. It’s a national scandal. But there was a video of the (ostensible) victim giving what the judge considered to be enthusiastic consent and showing no sign of duress whatsoever. Her story is that she was faking consent because she was afraid of the 5 men. If you asked me if she’s definitely lying, I’d say no; and if you asked me if she’s definitely telling the truth, I’d say no. By the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I’d say the judge made the right call in acquitting the men.

Trump said (well, heavily implied) that the party who pleads the 5th is guilty, not that other parties not present are also guilty.

There’s a practically infinite amount of bullshit coming out of Trump’s mouth we can criticize so easily; I don’t see why anyone would feel the need to transparently mince his words to invent more.