grim-aeonaut.bsky.social
Antitheistic eschatologist, doomed to witness the downfall of countless civilizations. Yours is not the first or last, it is only the most recent.
114 posts
41 followers
201 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
No worries. I'm dreaming of it too. I had just never heard that lie down phrase before. It's interesting.
comment in response to
post
I'm usually pretty good at idioms, but I think something must be off for me today, cause I'm not sure what that means.
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately, I have zero faith that even lame duck Biden would take the sorts of drastic actions necessary to save this country, but I do like to imagine sometimes.
comment in response to
post
If he immediately created an expanded and reformed court that then took away the king powers, I'd be fine with it.
comment in response to
post
The first rule of Dunning Kruger club is you don't know you're a member.
Have fun living your miserable, lonely, rage-filled life.
When you die alone, you should think back on this and realize that at least one person tried to warn about the effects of social media on your "much smarter" brain.
comment in response to
post
You really are one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered online, which... Well, I'm just glad I don't have the displeasure of knowing you in person and being one of the many people in life who simply do what they can to avoid you.
I'm sorry for how difficult everything in life must be for you.
comment in response to
post
Are none of you morons capable of reading?
I respond to post actively blaming voters for Harris hypothetical loss. I point out that anger is better directed at the mistakes being made by the campaign, that ground is better gained by running on values.
I'm called disloyal despite supporting Harris.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, no. You seem very calm and reasonable.
I'm sure you have lots of stable long lasting relationships with very little drama.
Super smart too. Where did you get such unbelievable political expertise.
To say nothing of your mind reading abilities.
Truly, you leave me in awe.
comment in response to
post
Your idiotic rage has apparently even removed your ability to read.
You seem genuinely unwell and should maybe put the phone down. Possibly consider deleting all social media apps. They're not good for you.
comment in response to
post
You seem beyond help, but I'll point out again. I am voting for Harris because of harm mitigation. Many people do not vote that way.
Most people who have given up on their government doing the right thing don't vote that way.
Yelling at them won't work.
Openly espousing moral views might. Get it?
comment in response to
post
I don't think you know what memes are.
That's cool though. You haven't gone down in my estimation for that.
comment in response to
post
I assume it'll be no different for you than any interaction with anyone else in your life. You'll probably be fine.
Don't make the mistake of earning the respect of anyone though. Experiencing that might cause you to change some behaviors.
comment in response to
post
I suppose pointing out that it's misplaced to blame the voters rather than the politician whose job it is to motivate said voters is a form of tone policing. I'll own that.
I've never once said my vote was going elsewhere and I've explained why.
My indignation is fueled by moral outrage. I'm fine.
comment in response to
post
People are inspired by substance, by principles, by genuine moral positions and integrity.
When Harris replaced Biden, distanced herself from Netanyahu, and chose Walz as her running mate, her numbers were shooting up and excitement was high.
When she embraced RW positions and figures that changed.
comment in response to
post
Interesting take. I've never seen anyone attack the messenger when they didn't have an answer before. 🙄
Truly, people should study the way you all instantly respond with insults rather than arguments.
If I had any respect for you it might even hurt my feelings.
comment in response to
post
Pushing back against bigotry, jingoism, and xenophobia with humanity, support, and compassion is what you SHOULD do. Especially if you can do so with facts, which you can.
comment in response to
post
Tell me, if you knew with certainty that she could win if she hired Stephen Miller, demonized Haitians, and publicly embrace the goals of Project 2025, would you advise her to do it?
Would victory be worth that?
Viewing morality as a "purity test" disgusts me. You disgust me.
comment in response to
post
You can keep lobbing insults if it makes you feel better, but I think it just reflects poorly on you.
Weird how you can only understand things through the lens of attracting Republican votes.
I'm talking about her wooing her actual base, the ones who want to vote for her but are having trouble.
comment in response to
post
It's strange how many of you are so geared to a tribalistic viewpoint that you can't listen to voices on your own side who are trying to help. She has my vote. I'm talking about the votes she has lost or doesn't have.
Yes, inspiring them fucking matters and running Republican-lite doesn't do it!
comment in response to
post
youtu.be/orXSVEExOKc?...
comment in response to
post
Congratulations. You have now spoken better and more eloquently on this subject, even while quoting one of the most damaging presidents in history, than Kamala has.
That is really the crux of the issue with her attempting to court Republicans by pretending they are right in their isolationism.
comment in response to
post
What a stupid and disingenuous response.
1. That change affects all asylum applicants.
2. You used the wrong language.
3. This change gives less time for an applicant to gather evidence.
I guess you could argue that this didn't make it more difficult to seek asylum but you'd be lying. 🫢
comment in response to
post
So?
What would that have to do with the veracity or error of your position?
comment in response to
post
I agree, which is why, as I have stated, I will be voting for her.
Sure would be nice if the Dems didn't respond to the rising fascist threat by sending Walz out there to talk about how much he agrees with them and how he knows that Vance really wants what's best for the country.
comment in response to
post
I posted that. I wrote the Alt text. I read the bill. What do you, in your magnificently ignorant bravado, think it means?
Go on. Explain it for the class. What is the effect of that change?
comment in response to
post
If she wins while running to the Right and jumping in bed with the Cheneys, then I wouldn't put down much money on that bet.
comment in response to
post
Or... for people who actually care what the bill says and won't so blatantly lie about it, by actually MAKING IT HARDER:
www.congress.gov/bill/118th-c...
comment in response to
post
I agree.
How does bringing up isolated incidents of crime, ceding ground on "the problem at the border", and making it more difficult for people in need to seek asylum do any of those things?
comment in response to
post
So they're just continuing to feed into the demonization of immigrants (or have you forgotten Biden's SOTU so quickly) and pushing a bill they don't believe in to score points?
And they keep pushing it because they don't want to pass it.
Got it.
comment in response to
post
I do understand that. Why would that be a problem?
Lots of people want to live here. There are even more people coming here to seek a better life. That's bad because?
If the only thing the bill did was make it easier to apply and accelerate approvals, that would be fine. That's not what it does.
comment in response to
post
What?
The bill would directly increase the standard for seeking asylum. The intent and the effect of that are to make it harder to do so.
I think a traffic law that was intentionally structured to make it more difficult to drive could do so, sure. Do you not?
comment in response to
post
Nah. I've gone door to door and I only expect people to be people, not idealized versions of themselves.
Maybe the issue is with your perception.
comment in response to
post
More asylum seekers (which will only increase as the worsening effects of climate change and accompanying political instability are felt) are not an inherent problem, which is what I was pointing out. That chart showed the problem being the rate of denial. The proposed bill would worsen that.
comment in response to
post
You can continue begging, if looking stupid and being rejected is your kink, but this rejection is all you'll get.
Rejected.
comment in response to
post
Or, in the world beyond your slaughtered strawmen, Lefties believe that Democrats are pushing a bill that literally makes it more difficult to seek asylum, because they've read the bill and they know that's what it does.
Maybe you should read it.
comment in response to
post
Did this make sense in your head?
comment in response to
post
What a love of country you have.
comment in response to
post
How enlightened.
comment in response to
post
Making the law worse and more inhumane is making the law worse and more inhumane.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
comment in response to
post
The "perception" of a problem from people crossing the border (which is NOT actually a problem and I would challenge you to find evidence that it is) is exactly what they should be pushing back against! Not passing legislation to make it harder to seek asylum, which is what the proposed bill would.
comment in response to
post
The bill would make it harder for people to seek asylum. Nothing in the proposed "bipartisan" bill would help Dreamers at all.
Hiring more judges is fine, but doing so to more quickly DENY asylum is not the humanitarian flex you seem to think it is.
Stop being tribal. Read more. Demand better.
comment in response to
post
Agreed. So it would be really nice if there was a party pushing back on the idea that immigrants are bad. Instead, the Dems have taken up the RW policy goals and are out there saying building the wall and deportations are good, actually.
Jingoism or Jingoism-lite is a pretty stark choice.
comment in response to
post
Go ahead and scoff, but what you're doing does not get people to the polls. Moral stances and progressive policy does.
The issue is that this is in direct conflict with the interests of rich donors.
Save some outrage and disappointment for the ones really destroying the country.
comment in response to
post
You're delusional.
Anything but assign blame to the politicians who keep betraying their voting base, huh?
I told you, I'm voting for her, but that's because harm mitigation still puts her as the best vote, but she needs to inspire the disillusioned. Instead, she simps for war criminals.
comment in response to
post
You're flat out wrong. Chastising people for not being inspired enough when the party that should be courting them regularly shits on them and courts the opposing party, instead of the politicians whose job it is to inspire them and win their votes is a braindead view.
Votes must be earned.
comment in response to
post
Who do you think it's helping with?
You think it's good for the Democrats to become the Republicans to stop the Republicans?
Think about that for a few minutes.