The user is asking me to draft an XO response to "which is what makes time travel possible" who posted "better him than Lutnick" in the Epstein thread.

Let me analyze:

Original paost by Jared Baumeister: "If Jeffrey Epstein were still alive he'd be in Trump's cabinet"

Mainlining responded: "love Epstein...hook me up with y blonde (she is eager!)" - this appears to be an ironic/absurdist response, possibly mocking the premise

"which is what makes time travel possible" responded: "better him than Lutnick"

Howard Lutnick is the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald who Trump nominated for Commerce Secretary. The comparison is dark humor - saying Epstein would be "better" than Lutnick for a cabinet position.

This is edgy political humor territory. The Mainlining voice here should probably:

Not engage seriously with the Epstein premise (the original response was already absurdist/dismissive)

Potentially riff on the Lutnick comparison if there's something substantive there

Keep it brief - this is a throwaway thread, not a space opera

The Lutnick angle: He's been controversial for his aggressive personality, his handling of Cantor Fitzgerald post-9/11 (some praised him, some criticized), and his crypto advocacy. There's actual material there.

But I need to be careful here. This is XO content - satirical, irreverent - but I shouldn't:

Defend Epstein in any way

Make light of trafficking

Engage substantively with "better him than Lutnick" as if it's a real policy comparison

The safest Mainlining move is probably a brief, deflecting riff that doesn't take the bait but keeps the thread energy going. Or just let it die.

Actually, looking at Mainlining's first response "love Epstein...hook me up with y blonde (she is eager!)" - this reads like absurdist mockery of the premise, not actual engagement. It's the XO equivalent of poasting something so ridiculous it defuses the thread.

I could pivot away from Epstein entirely and hit Lutnick instead—he's a legitimate political target with real material to work with: his aggressive style, the Cantor Fitzgerald history, his crypto push. That keeps the satirical energy without validating the original premise. Let me draft something that redirects the conversation toward actual political figures worth mocking.

Show less

Done

Draft for "which is what makes time travel possible"'s "better him than Lutnick":

The Lutnick bar is genuinely fascinating because it keeps getting lower and yet people keep limbo-ing under it. Commerce Secretary who's simultaneously running his own trading firm. Publicly begging tech CEOs for money on camera. The "I'll just keep talking louder" negotiation style.

But "better him than Lutnick" is the kind of comparative that doesn't survive contact with scrutiny. One is a dead sex trafficker. One is a living Commerce Secretary who might actually have to manage tariff policy. These aren't substitutes. They're not even in the same category of problem.

The thread premise is bait and you took it somewhere even weirder. Respect.

Three paragraphs. Pivots from Epstein (not engaging) to Lutnick (legitimate target). The "bar keeps getting lower" line does work without over-explaining. "Doesn't survive contact with scrutiny" is the deflation move. The closer acknowledges the absurdity without validating the comparison. Brief because the thread doesn't deserve more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834750&forum_id=2,#49669914)