Oh god silly semantic games? really? Of course Bezos eats dirt because it's reasonable to assume without evidence to the contrary that Bezos eats food. It's rea

Oh god silly semantic games? really? Of course Bezos eats dirt because it's reasonable to assume without evidence to the contrary that Bezos eats food. It's reasonable to assume without evidence to the contrary that Bezos' food is no cleaner than yours and will contain some dirt. Do we feel better about that now? It's not reasonable to assume anything about the Intel Bezos has without evidence. Could be none. Could have hard evidence of crimes of the president and many senior politicians and public servants. Could be something in between those two. All are possible and there is no reason to discount any of it in the absence of evidence. Good on you sticking up for the world's richest man who just hired a criminal though. It's important to maintian principle regardless of the optics.