we’re all magas now

mig/paul:  maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago?  and make it without miyares.  ~a paul: I didn't question the veracity of the texts.  only the rest.  ~a paul:  "Does an apology matter?" "is it meaningless to apologize?" "never..." "i'm so sorry"  ~a I don’t believe he’s sorry for his actions, but sorry that they became public. - mig I’ve seen comparisons to the Trump 5th avenue comment, but they aren’t anywhere near the same league.  Trump’s statement obviously a joke and wasn’t singling out specific people to be targets of violence.  Jones did target specific people, including children and did so from a place of malice. - mig a: Also... how is it a defense to say that this guy fantasizes about some guy's children dying because he disagrees with their father's political positions? -Paul a: "it was a fantasy, i do not believe he thinks these things" But why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt here? And would you give the same (pretty tremendous) leeway to a non-Democrat? Hypothetical: Text messages leak from JD Vance saying he wanted to lynch Obama. He apologizes. All is fine? He doesn't believe it? Just a fantasy? No. I think it's a really damning insight into their mind. -Paul a: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/04/virginia-elections-jay-jones-texts-00594261 Is politico better? You can choose your preferred news source (except apparently Washington Post). I don't think his comments about wishing the kids dead is disputed. Does an apology matter? Maybe in terms of forgiveness, but I don't think it changes my opinion on his fitness for office. If Trump apologized for his comment would it matter to you? -Paul paul:  if jones had shot one of gilbert's kids i feel like we would be having a different conversation, no?  ~a paul:  "national review" is a bit far-fetched of a source, i'm pretty worried about that honestly, but pushing past THAT.  does it matter that jones apologized for fantasizing about wanting an opponent's (only technically?!  your article stated he was not running for anything) children to die?  i really think that matters not at all really.  it was a fantasy, i do not believe he thinks these things and i AM comparing them to trump jokes.  ~a a: And I know the texts were before recent violence, but the fact that voters were willing to dismiss this after things like Charlie Kirk and the United Healthcare CEO and Trump assassination attempts.... I dunno, it looks really bad to me. -Paul a: Trump is a bad person. We both agree on this. I have never, and will never vote for him. Miyares is not Trump. He is not remotely my ideal candidate. In almost any other election I would not vote for him. But in an election between a normally bad candidate and one with a scandal like this? Yeah, I'll go with normally bad. -Paul a: Miyares is one degree removed from Trump and his bad statements. Jones is the person who made the bad statements, and sorry, I think wanting a political opponent and his children to die is slightly worse than bragging that you can sexually assault somebody. -Paul paul:  "you can't just say 'this person agrees with trump on stuff!' and automatically dismiss him as the worst possible choice"  i didn't do this.  ~a https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5541374-jay-jones-text-scandal/ "National Review also reported that in a follow-up conversation with Coyner, Jones suggested he wished Gilbert’s wife could see her children die so her husband would reconsider his political views on gun violence." -Paul a: I 100% do not regret my vote. You can't just say "this person agrees with Trump on stuff!" and automatically dismiss him as the worst possible choice. Do I agree with Miyares on everything or even most things? No. But I like that there is no evidence he wants his political opponents dead. -Paul paul:  "I think he wants his political opponents (and their children!) to die".  woof, i guess that's an opinion.  but i've seen no evidence of that.  i've read the texts, but i don't think i've heard from coyner.  ~a paul:  "Coyner said in the phone call after"  nope sorry.  what did coyner say?  ~a a: "i'm not following this part" You're saying it's a joke. I'm saying it's not. My evidence is that even Jay Jones didn't try to claim it was a joke. I think this was his honest belief. Will he actually shoot somebody? Probably not. But I think he wants his political opponents (and their children!) to die. I do believe that. -Paul paul:  if you regret voting for trump-lacky maybe i can regret voting for jones.  maybe we cancel each-other out.  (i'll be donna and you can be jack.  they ended up being coworkers later in the show).  "it's an honor thing, right?"  ~a a: Again, he was texting a Republican who kept telling him to stop and he kept doubling down. -Paul a: "you don't see that as an (in poor taste) joke?" No. Did you read the texts and what Coyner said in the phone call after? "Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy" -Paul paul:  no joke texts push the envelope to me wanting to vote for a trump-lackey in 2025-q4.  voting for nobody or voting a write-in maybe paul.  ~a paul:  "What about if a Republican was caught joking about lynching somebody? Would it be waved off as some harmless fantasy too?"  YES i already brought up the fifth avenue joke and the grab them by the pussy joke.  both jokes, terrible, in poor taste.  he apologized for NEITHER of them.  he doesn't give two shits about women.  ~a paul:  "his apology didn't claim it was a joke"  i'm not following this part.  "reading back those words made me sick to my stomach. i am embarrassed, ashamed, and sorry".  did it need to claim it was a joke for it to be a joke?  he is sick to his stomach?  it was fucked, and he regrets . . . that his obvious joke made it into the public, but, like, oops?  ~a a: I think you're giving him too much benefit of the doubt because he's on the right team. What about if a Republican was caught joking about lynching somebody? Would it be waved off as some harmless fantasy too? -Paul paul:  you don't see that as an (in poor taste) joke?  you think he's serious?  trump never apologized for the "grab them by the pussy" (joke)  which is far more "real" than literally killing a man and his children on fifth street?  ~a a: I think it's giving him a huge benefit of the doubt there considering the person he texted has said that "Jones later tried to justify his words through calls and additional texts". He followed up to a Republican to explain how he was justified! And his apology didn't claim it was a joke. -Paul paul:  so, he's kinda dumb.  i could have reconsidered and voted for nobody.  but he's no trump lackey:  voting for miyares would have been far worse in my eyes.  ~a a: And then talked about how his children should die too. -Paul paul:  regarding the "kill" thing i meant the "bullets".  if you wanna talk about urination:  that, like you said, was fantasy.  so not literal.  ~a a: "he wanted to kill them himself in front of the world" What? No, I mean the texts "in which he fantasized about urinating on the graves of political opponents and shooting then–House Speaker Todd Gilbert" (of note, he said two bullets so he could spare I believe Hitler and Pol Pot). -Paul the fifth avenue thing was a joke, i mean, obviously.  he's an idiot, and again, they might have literally let him shoot someone on fifth, but i didn't think he was like literally planning where to get the gun and where on fifth to stand.  ~a paul:  wait, you think jones wanted to literally shoot someone?  like not as a joke, he wanted to kill them himself in front of the world.  like on fifth avenue?  ~a a: Which, okay, maybe he can be forgiven, but that still makes him pretty damned unqualified to be the attorney general in my mind. -Paul a: I don't even think his apology claimed they were jokes, instead he tried to justify them as angry statements that he was ashamed of. -Paul a: I disagree it was a joke. That's what makes it so damning to me. According to the person he texted, he called them after he was asked to stop and "continued to try to justify his initial statements" -Paul paul:  well, if we focus on the texts, what jay jones did was pretty minor.  what miyares did, being a trump lacky, is NOT minor.  if you wanna get me behind not voting for jones because of the driving, though, that's a pretty bigger deal.  ~a a: Sure. I can 100% agree that I would rather not having a Trump ally as attorney general of VA. The reason I said "I didn't vote for Jay Jones" is because that's how I saw my vote: As against Jay Jones. It wasn't a vote FOR Miyares. -Paul paul:  "Asking people to double their charitable giving isn't really reasonable IMHO"  double != non-zero-sum.  ~a paul:  "reckless driving conviction"  yeah jfc take away this man's drivers license.  but i don't think you need a driver's license to assume an oath of office.  being regularly driven to and from richmond might get expensive, but i'll donate to that fund.  ~a paul:  "We require vaccination for lots of things"  as we should?  that doesn't mean you don't have the right to not vaccinate, you just gotta balance that with everything else that you want from life.  ~a paul:  "I voted for Miyares"  miyares was a pro-trump-incumbent atourney general who was 100% ok with going forward with whatever trump wanted.  i really didn't want that at all.  some (terrible horrible) obvious joke messages aside, that he apologized for (!!!), i didn't think jones would be a pro-trump tourney general so i voted for him (again maybe regrettably).  ~a paul:  "I don't know why it matters who I voted for"  really?  i wanted to respond correctly based on who you voted for.  if you voted write-in or didn't vote for that area, then maybe i agree with you 100%.  jones's shit was bad and voting for nobody or write-in might have been a bridge we could build (could have built) together.  ~a a: "charities usually try to fight climate change OR malaria" Is that true? I honestly don't know. I assumed it was stuff like Greenpeace or The Gates Foundation dispensing money. Either way, it doesn't change my point. Asking people to double their charitable giving isn't really reasonable IMHO. -Paul paul:  i say "rarely" but the bill and malinda gates foundation was a great example of an (maybe) overly-broad charity trying to solve all of the world's ills.  ~a a: "like seriously, you thought you didn't?" *Shrug* A lot of Democrats wanted vaccine passports. We require vaccination for lots of things (although that's nuanced since they are often more established vaccines). -Paul paul:  "We want to spend twice the money on things so we can fight malaria and climate change so everybody has to double their donations"  the what-now?  your example is crazy.  charities usually try to fight climate change OR malaria.  and people decide how to spend their non-zero-sum money on those (say) two charities.  very rarely will a charity specialize in "both" (unless, again, you want to lump in malnutrition).  ~a https://wjla.com/news/local/prosecutor-investigates-jay-jones-community-service-after-reckless-driving-conviction-new-kent-county-commonwealths-attorney-virgini If you didn't hear about it. -Paul a: I don't know why it matters who I voted for, but yes, I voted for Miyares because I felt like he was significantly better than Jones and I desperately didn't want somebody like Jones to hold power. This isn't even touching upon another somewhat disqualifying scandal around his reckless driving conviction! -Paul paul:  "The right to not inject yourself with an experimental new vaccine?"  you.  have.  that.  right.  like seriously, you thought you didn't?  "The right to enter into a consensual contract to work for a certain amount of money?"  ok, maybe you got me here honestly.  the power dynamics are so unbalanced that you're stretching the definition of "consentual" really hard, but otherwise i think you're technically correct here.  ~a paul:  "Won't let me read it without signing in"  that's right.  once you log in you can use the "gift link" to read the content.  you have to sign in, there's no way around that.  what am i saying, there are tons of ways around that.  ~a a: But charities can't just be like: "We want to spend twice the money on things so we can fight malaria and climate change so everybody has to double their donations". -Paul a: "it's not that simple" The right to not inject yourself with an experimental new vaccine? The right to enter into a consensual contract to work for a certain amount of money? I'm sure you have reasons why all of those "rights" are different but it basically comes down to which you agree with and which you don't. -Paul paul:  "I didn't vote for Jones" that is not very specific.  who did you vote for?  i'm not sure how to respond otherwise.  "There was a write-in option as well"  oooops, right.  i didn't consider that until after voting.  did you choose the write-in option?  i also didn't consider the not-voting option.  oops again.  i probably should have done one of those to be totally frank with you.  yikes.  ~a paul:  "People have finite time and money"  yes, but that time can be donated to malaria, OR donated to combating climate-change-and-malnutrition, OR it can be spent on a new bicycle.  like, how non-zero-sum can you get than that?  ~a paul:  it's not that simple.  giving total-complete-weapons-of-war-rights-for-all typically take away rights of others!  giving marriage rights to the gays doesn't take away rights of others.  ~a a: Actually, that link is also blocked for me. Won't let me read it without signing in. -Paul a: Oh, hah! And now I read your next post. Sorry. -Paul a: (Article is pay-walled for me). I didn't vote for Jones. There was a write-in option as well. Can you explain your reasons for voting for a candidate for attorney general who earnestly believes his political opponents and their families should be killed? -Paul