I don't know if they are more competent now. There are just fewer people willing to push back, and few to no guardrails in place for when the leader doesn't adhere to the usual governmental and ethical norms.
I guess it depends on what you mean with "competent". In essence their pitch is that government is bad, so from that sense "competent" means "able to burn these institutions down". From that perspective these people do seem more "competent" in various ways: there is less chaos, a better sense on how to use the legal means, more focus. Trump may be a unfocused bumbling fool, but the Project 2025 people aren't.
This is not my (and presumably your) definition of "competent", which would be "able to run these institutions well", or something along those lines.
And since it seems there isn't any real accountability any more other than anything that is strictly legally imposed, anything that goes wrong in this process is just blamed on the democrats, deep state, or whatever. Or its simply denied that the problems exists in the first place.
This was the sense in which I was using the word "competent", thanks for clarifying. What I meant was now they are better able to realize their destructive vision, but insofar as I can tell its mostly the same vision as it ever was.
I'm pretty sure the current administration has already shown themselves willing to abandon many previous established norms formed over the history of the US so I am not entirely convinced this is returning to "normalcy".
Well maybe authoritarianism is is the 'natural' place that the social order tends to.
It's weird that people like you use dyeing hair as some kind of shorthand for radical leftist ideology as if you stepped out of a time portal from the 1950s. Zoe Quinn really did a number on you guys, didn't she?
>Thank you so much for fucking up my son's future, and doing your best to destroy our country that you apparently have been groomed to hate so much. I literally just bought a new vertical tiller for some backyard food plots as a hedge against just how bad things may get, because you people couldn't be bothered to listen to reasoned criticism of what you were actually doing. And don't think I don't know your frustration - I've been reading reactionary analysis long before the term deep state entered pop culture.
This is the exact same screed I see from right-wingers write when the left gets elected, almost verbatim.
I put enough context in my comment that you should realize I'm not a blue tribe partisan. More like a libertarian who has become extremely conservative now that we're staring down fascism.
Republicans using that style of rant is hold over from when they were the conservative party. It also serves as a nice cover narrative to motivate the need for their radical agenda, to the large contingent of their supporters who are still blissfully thinking of themselves as conservative.
You also stripped the context where the person I was responding to was motivating their nonsense by referencing imagined harm to children in extremely rare cases, to justify this wholesale attack on our current society that will straightforwardly harm all of our children. That destruction of the present for a return to some imagined rosy past is one of the core tenets of fascism. A decade ago I would have been right with you pointing out the symmetry of the rhetoric, but at this point the Republican party has really gone off the deep end and only a fool ignores that.
Indeed, just because one dellusionally believes they are presecuted, does not mean they are. People have been memeing and satirizing leftist about this for decades at this rate, "oppression Olympics" and such. More recently, "Rugged. Vegan. Compassionate. Victim": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arw1pcqLI_M
The point of the clip/episode is you should "brand" yourself as a "victim" (even though you're not) because it's in vogue and perceived as "cool." For leftist, it's virtuous to be a "victim", so people pretend they're being persecuted or victimized to gain clout.
How is one pretending to possess a quality that is viewed by society at a given place in time as being "virtuous" related to someone suffering from a delusion that they're being persecuted and also related to someone actually experiencing persecution?
Furthermore, I am still confused how you can conclude it's tied to a particular area on the political spectrum.
To be clear, if there's evidence of someone is being persecuted then that is it likely real while in the absence of evidence it is likely that they are suffering from a delusion.
>How is one pretending to possess a quality that is viewed by society at a given place in time as being "virtuous" related to someone suffering from a delusion
One in the same. They delusionally believe it, their make believe (pretending) becomes their delusional "reality".
>Furthermore, I am still confused how you can conclude it's tied to a particular area on the political spectrum.
I did not make this claim.
>To be clear, if there's evidence of someone is being persecuted then that is it likely real while in the absence of evidence it is likely that they are suffering from a delusion.
People will delusionally believe fictional things as "evidence" that they are being persecuted.
Using an analogy: If I believe that society sees those with tan skin as being more valuable and successful, and I spray tan in order to match that appearance, then I am delusional? (Regardless of whether I sincerely believe my spray tan is believable or not)?
> I did not make this claim
I mean, you specifically pointed towards the "left" in particular, multiple times... Whatever.
> People will delusionally believe fictional things as "evidence" that they are being persecuted.
We're talking about observing someone that's claiming to be persecuted...
>Using an analogy: If I believe that society sees those with tan skin as being more valuable and successful, and I spray tan in order to match that appearance, then I am delusional? (Regardless of whether I sincerely believe my spray tan is believable or not)
If you sprayed your skin purple and think it is tan, that is delusional. If you didn't spray your skin at all and now magically believe it is now tan, that is delusional. If you believe your fake tan is natural, that is delusional.
>I mean, you specifically pointed towards the "left" in particular, multiple times... Whatever.
And? That's not the claim you made earlier.
>We're talking about observing someone that's claiming to be persecuted...
> If you sprayed your skin purple and think it is tan, that is delusional. If you didn't spray your skin at all and now magically believe it is now tan, that is delusional. If you believe your fake tan is natural, that is delusional.
Good. So we understand there's a difference from a delusion and one branding themselves.
> And? That's not the claim you made earlier.
It was queried a couple times.
> Yes, we can observe delusional people.
Good. Maybe you understand the difference between someone whom is actually being persecuted and someone whom is suffering from a delusion. I'm glad you got there!
>Good. So we understand there's a difference from a delusion and one branding themselves.
If you "brand" yourself a victim and believe it, that is a delusion. You are arguing a difference without distinction and agreeing with me because you don't understand the satire.
>It was queried a couple times.
Go back and read your original claim and stop moving goalposts.
>Maybe you understand the difference between someone whom is actually being persecuted and someone whom is suffering from a delusion.
Maybe you understand the difference between someone whom is actually delusionally "branding" themselves as a victim and someone whom is actually being victimized. I'm glad you got there!
That's the linked satire, satirizing delusional leftists who "brand" themselves as "victims". Notice the " brand" in quotes above. QED.
