magicalkittycat
14hr ago
See even if we live to see 100% of all the Epstein files unredacted, including those concealed by the Massie/Khanna bill, the mega narrative is never gonna unravel now.
One big issue here: When there's a really really blatant coverup going on, it's hard to trust any claims of "there you go, we gave you everything now". If you're constantly lying and hiding something, suddenly choosing to be truthful and open for once does not rid you of rightful and fair suspicion. Still, plenty of people will be satisfied enough and if you do a proper job from now on you can slowly start to convince them and flip the margins. You don't need every Tom Dick and Harry convinced.
The facts don't matter anymore. Not even the most exhaustive documentary review or adjudicated exoneration vindicating the named individuals is convincing anyone. I checked reddit, well, not to say everyone outright buys the cannibalism and 9yo victim stories, but it's certainly in the ballpark. Maybe the global elite is shitting bricks, except it is less about the contents of these files and more about the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.
Can't be reaping "there's a global elite pedo cabal" theories when it's politically advantageous and not expect people to actually want you to expose the global elite pedo cabal. Play with fire you get hurt.
Or, we can accept this schizophrenic definition of evidence, where any accusation or implication made by anybody anywhere is evidence, and maybe we can agree on the following:
This entire argument dismantles with the simple realization that different pieces of evidence can have different levels of strength to them. Yes a guy claiming he was abducted by an alien is evidence towards aliens abducting people. It's just extremely weak evidence, one that should update you from an absurdly low percentage to a still absurdly low (but slightly higher) percentage.
Edit: Also to note that again, the DOJ clearly found enough evidence to at least start a preliminary investigation into the matter per Todd Blanche's own words.
Big question here then, if allegations don't count as evidence whatsoever, then why would we ever investigate allegations? The response to something that doesn't move the needle at all would be to do nothing, the same way we don't randomly investigate a John Smith of Idaho for possible connections to a murder in Kansas. An example of a true non needle mover towards John Smith would be "it rained in Ottawa today". A needle mover is "I saw John Smith there in Kansas stabbing the victim"
Edit again: Actually even more obvious, if such allegations weren't a form of weak evidence then why do tip lines even exist? We would be wasting resources to not gather anymore evidence or direction on where to go.
Multiple gunshot victims seems like an obvious one, or probably more accurately multiple attempted targets that were shot at. Arguably the former is probably better to use in real life since discerning attempted targets would be hazy, while counting people who were hit is easy and clear. But that's a hit on
That way mass shooting literally means mass shootings and not "mass gun murders".
Because I'm pretty sure if someone fired a bullet at you, you would say you were "shot" with a gun even when you survived! Clearly shooting doesn't depend on how fatal it is in other circumstances.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
It's the logical conclusion. If it requires fatalities only to count as a mass shooting then 100 gunshot victims who all happen to survive would not be a mass shooting under that definition.
If it's obviously absurd to you in the same way it is to me, then perhaps it's a sign to rethink the definition to not be so flawed.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Nobody really thinks an anonymous random or motivated accusation constitutes evidence. There is no evidence Trump raped and murdered a little girl. I think you’re committed to defending this ridiculous definition of evidence because the alternative is admitting that Bondi did not commit some kind of perjury, and you were wrong.
I never said she committed perjury, that requires intent. Ted Lieu's accusations of perjury are quite weak in fact. Because it's reasonable to interpret "there is no evidence" as having meant "there is no credible evidence", the bar showing otherwise is quite high.
However, it is still an untruth as it's called to state that there is no evidence.
That's not exactly the own you think it is. It's hard act outraged about Trump only releasing them when he was forced to by his own promise, when the other party was in a position to release them for years, but didn't, and didn't even promise to.
Yeah, I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue the Biden admin released the files. They obviously didn't.
Doesn't that make it more interesting that both admins might apparently be trying to hide something? Massie made a similar point and just got responded to with insults
"You are responsible for this portion of it". No name calling nor deflection absolves them of their choices now.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
as a mass shooting?
Key word here is not mass, it's shooting. A shooting does not require a death.
If a gunman were to shoot at one hundred people but happen to just barely avoid killing them, leaving all of them severely injured, crippled, or in coma, would this be a mass shooting or not?
What if they shot at one million people and through just insane luck, none died? I can't call that a mass shooting apparently.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
“u/magicalkittycat participated in a child sacrifice cannibal ritual on Mount Clinton. What, that’s a solid accusation, that makes it evidence, you have to refute this now, there’s evidence!”
Yes that is evidence normally. It's not strong evidence, but someone saying they witnessed it is a tiny adjustment upwards for Bayesian reasoning. It might be from say, .000001% to .0000011% or whatever, but yes it is evidence.
When you call random anonymous tip line accusations about child rape “evidence” you’re implicitly asserting that they’re credible. Otherwise, what kind of gotcha language game is this?
You can debate how useful that evidence is, I don't think on its own there is much. But it does exist.
In fact, there was enough evidence to at least cause a preliminary investigation into Trump. The Trump DOJ itself acknowledges this.
The Justice Department looked into sexual misconduct allegations against President Trump in connection with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but did not find credible information to merit further investigation, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said on Sunday.
Why would they have investigated further at all unless the allegations had served as Bayesian evidence towards possible guilt?
Or what, is Pam Bondi getting angry at obvious bullshit supposed to be a crime now because Ted technically rigged the question?
He didn't ask if Trump committed a crime or not! He asked if the DOJ knows about the presence of any underage girls at the party Trump and Epstein had attended. She could have said "no, we are not aware of any" or something along those lines. Instead she falsely claimed there was no evidence of any crimes.
Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people.
Random witness testimony might not be great evidence, but it is a form of evidence. Pam Bondi's claim was specifically "there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.". That is just factually wrong.
If she said "there is no convincing evidence" or "no strong evidence" that would be an opinion of hers. If she said " no admissable evidence", she'd likely be corect.
But instead, she stated a blatant falsehood. Written witness statements are often not very useful in court due to the inability to cross-examine, but "not useful evidence to prosecute because it's inadmissible in its current form" is also not the same as "not evidence"
magicalkittycat
1d ago
In the context of discussing mass shootings obviously.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
The Trump administration is currently releasing the files. You can argue that they're being forced to so it doesn't really get them any credit.
Yes, they are being forced to. We know this because the only reason the law even came about is became they double backed on their own promises to release the files to begin with.
But in that case, nothing that's been revealed so far seems to justify all the hullabaloo.
Which is exactly a point I addressed, there's still tons of files left completely unreleased and even what was released is known to have tons of unnecessary redactions.
I think you dramatically underestimate the work involved in releasing sensitive materials. Dozens of bored overworked lawyers combing through millions of files by hand navigating an impossible mandate to release everything, all at once, now, but also nothing that violates national security.
It is February 2026, Trump was elected in January 2025. While I understand it wasn't going to be an immediate priority, over a year is a pretty good length of time for them to fulfill their promise when it's one of the easiest to do. The only reason it needs to be rushed at all now is because they double backed and engaged in a coverup.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Ok well I think that's a ridiculous definition as I already explained. The idea that distance to a hospital or a shooters aiming skill makes a meaningful difference seems laughable.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Well, whether it's true or not, the important thing is you've found a way to blame MAGA either way.
"Found a way". There's a very simple mechanism for the Trump admin to use that they refuse to, release the Epstein files as required by law and that they've been saying they would do since before they even won the election!
I didn't have to find a way, it's a giant glowing neon sign with a huge flashing arrow pointing at the way.
Congress passed a law demanding 200 pizzas for the high school football team's championship game half an hour before closing and is shocked that all 200 pizzas aren't out piping hot and ready by the time the call is done. As in, what exactly do you think it looks like to process and release documents? There's just a big button Trump is refusing to push?
They were saying they would release the files almost a year before it was even passed. But even if we assume that no redaction work was being done during that and they were just blatantly lying about their plans during the first few months, they still had tons of time to prepare as it was being drafted and passed.
What objection would you have with Epstein in this scenario?
What objection could I possibly have against pimps and prostitutes? Trading "your girls" for favors or whatever else isn't reasonably different from direct payments.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
I agree that most likely every radical claim about Epstein and his connections are unlikely to be true. People make shit up about things with way less incentive to lie over after all.
But there is still plenty of evidence that something weird was going on there and that something is damning for powerful people. His finances are mysterious AF, a lot of his associates apparently have some sort of revolving bipolar disorder on how they see him and Maxwell (like Lutnick who claims to have been so grossed out back in the mid 2000s he would never share a room with Epstein again, only to take his family to the island a few years after), and there's been a constant coverup behavior of who knows what across two admins.
It's suspicious as hell and that suspicion is not negated by idiots online making stupid or wrong allegations. Maybe the kid is hiding an animal he found outside under the rug instead of his toys he didn't clean up, there's still a bump in the carpet anyway.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Iran-Contra was a crime, but not a mistake - it succeeded in its goals. Failure to take Iran seriously as a long-term enemy was a mistake,
Well yeah that's what I mean. Iran Contra was an issue because he subverted Congressional will illegally, not because he was wrong about helping anti communist forces.
From a general right-wing perspective, Reagan's biggest mistake was no-fault divorce.
Maybe from the big government right wing perspective, but the libertarian sided right wing view doesn't have much issue with leaving a relationship for any reason you want. Why should the government be involved with any of that to begin with? It's only "necessary" because the government insists on tying things like tax breaks and benefits in relation to marriage. We didn't need big government to affirm love before, and big government is not the solution for affirming love now.
From a right-populist perspective, it would be GATT.
Another great example of how capitalism and populism don't co-exist as ideas very well.
But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.
This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. The Trump admin has already had to unredact some of the files already because of how many there are. And that's despite the incredibly short time limit and restrictions they're allowing the senators to see the unredacted files for.
If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files? This is the equivalent of walking into a kid's room after you told them to clean and they have that stereotypical cartoon bulge in the rug and saying "ah well must be clean then"
But ok sure, let's assume it really is just a nothingburger. Well that's what they get for spending years apparently lying to the public and courting the "conspiracy theorists" with bold claims. You can't just keep talking about the elite pedo rings you're gonna drain the swamp of, get into power and then say "nothing here". The only reason this even blew up is because they made releasing the files a whole spectacle, claiming they had the client list and other important details right there on Pam Bondi's desk and they would hand out information to journalists only to completely 180 and decide to hide everything.
Edit: And also, it seems pretty clear he was acting as a high class pimp even if all the women he pimped out were adults. That's still bad that he would have been running a fancy prostitute esque service for the elites, even if it's at least not a pedo ring.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
I don't draw that major of a distinction in a mass shooting between the successful murders and the attempted murders. If the difference is simply in something like the school's distance to the hospital or the shooters aim, it seems irrelevant.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Not much Reagan has ever been wrong about. Well, maybe Iran Contra but that's really only because he subverted Congressional will. He was right that the US should be supporting anti communist forces, he just should have accepted it wasn't viable at the time. Maybe acknowledged the aids crisis a little faster too but really, what would even the best president on that have been able to do? I can't see much different, they're politicians not doctors and medical researchers.
There's actually a very easy choice of "embrace individual responsibility" and stop blaming people for the actions of other just because they're in a tangentially related group. Most people of basically any demographic you can think of are law abiding citizens, even the black population with the highest rate still only has a third with a felony conviction of any kind, yet alone violent felonies.
Individual responsibility cuts both ways. Criminals should not be defended and forgiven because "oh but they're just poor" or "but society left them behind!", and innocents should not be blamed for the acts of criminals. Whether they be responsible gun owners who haven't inappropriately used their firearms or a trans person who hasn't committed violence.
With freedom goes responsibility, a responsibility that can only be met by the individual himself.
These are not "traditional mass shootings style school shootings"
How are they not? These don't seem to be "gang member just shoots another gang member" shootings, they include multiple victims and motivations outside of gang affailation. Evergreen, Antioch and FSU seem to have been motivated by neonazism (Ikner of FSU even used a Hitler profile picture and called his gaming account Schutzstaffel), not gang violence.
Lincoln University shooting is barely covered in the news, it was basically just dropped right away. Which really is just another piece of evidence towards society not really caring about mass shootings that we don't even have followup on a 7 person attack.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
School shootings in general are very rare but just looking up some real quick there seems to be a few "traditional" mass shootings style school shootings that weren't big news.
Evergreen high school
Antioch High School (this one is interesting because he was a black kid but radicalized by white supremacist and neonazi groups online)
Florida State University
Lincoln University (maybe doesn't count depending on how technical we want to get, happened at a homecoming event on campus)
There's also stuff like this where a guy was shooting right outside of a high school. Like should we not count it if they don't take a foot inside but they're literally next to it? Idk
Yeah even with how rare these mass school shootings tend to be, you probably haven't heard about a good chunk of them anyway.
Nobody cares about shootings, including school shootings, anymore and they haven't for a long while. South Park was making fun of this all the way back in 2018.
This has actually gotten significantly more coverage than the average school shooting gets, there was this one school where a shooting happened two years in a row and basically no one has heard about either!
The Rhodes-Ewing shooting occurred one year before another gunman allegedly opened fire inside the same school, injuring four students and a teacher. That incident, which took place this past April, led to 17-year-old Tracy Denard Haynes Jr. being charged with five counts of aggravated assault in connection with the mass shooting.
It might not seem like this recent one is getting much attention, but it's actually an outlier just because you've heard about it to begin with!
magicalkittycat
3d ago
The main denaturalizations US history are pretty much entirely of three categories.
- War criminals
- Nazis
- People who committed fraud during naturalization.
I think we can all agree that "Being puerto rican and singing at the super bowl in Spanish" is not anywhere close to that. That would be a huge fence tear down with an unconvincing argument of "but he triggered me"
magicalkittycat
3d ago
He sang in Spanish at the fucking Super Bowl for 15 minutes. I know we don’t officially have a language, but it’s English - which also happens to be the world’s language.
Yes he is Puerto Rican. They speak Spanish, and his songs are in Spanish. Again this is the inevitable result of taking ownership of land and people that are Spanish and not trying to incorporate them much into the rest of the country.
It was also devoid of white peoke completely -
There were white people there, including one of the most famous white musicians in the world. Unless Lady Gaga isn't white enough for you. Maybe you're one of the rare holdouts who still hate Italians.
Even assuming it works and we never come across a power that manages to beat us or disrupt us in a significant manner (there's a reason peace is the default), genetic engineering and technology is multiple times more efficient for this purpose.
Because we already have a better method, it's called markets. They're naturally efficient and have consistently proven themselves to be better than centrally controlled economies. It's one of the reasons why even slavery has died off too, the free market is simply far more efficient than wasting resources on enforcement of what essentially becomes a mini form of a centrally controlled economy. Slave ownership helped to keep the American south in the past while markets industrialized the North and made them richer.
The empire model didn't go away because of morals. If that was the case, then the empires would have outcompeted the moral pussies who ceded power and they wouldn't be gone to begin with. The empire model is gone because it is inferior to the market. You notice how the three examples you gave of modern empires all failed?
The British empire kept losing territory and power, not just the US but plenty of other colonies. The American South lost to the North. The USSR racked up loss after loss until it fell apart. Over and over again the empire model is filled with losers.
The market model keeps winning. The US, one of the earliest and most ardent embracers of capitalism who largely kept war away from us is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. While Europe was ruined by war, we innovated and grew. The only thing now that is even close is China, and that's despite them having significantly more human capital to rely on because they insist on self sabotage with communism.
More options
Context Copy link