The thing about Biden was that the bureaucracy was still intact, so most government functionality carried on just fine regardless what Biden himself was doing. Trump gutted the bureaucracy in favor of autocracy, replacing the domain experts with sycophantic yes-men. So when Biden got a terrible idea that would unquestionably harm the country, the response would have been something like "We'll look into that" or even an outright "no". Whereas when Trump gets a terrible idea (which lets be honest is a few times a week), the only answer is "yes sir".

If you're comparing dementia styles, Biden was effectively the type that is happy to sit on the couch and stare off into space while his family does things around him. Trump is the combative kind that is always trying to find the keys to the car to drive away and assert his own independence, and violently rejects help and concern.

As for your larger comment, you're probably closer to right in that bureaucratic authoritarians were much more like Idiocracy. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho had better leadership, speaking ability, policy planning, honesty, work ethic, intelligence, humility, and outright patriotism than the piece of pig shit currently staining our White House could ever hope for. He also didn't rape trafficked underage girls or pardon Upgrayedd for a bribe. The movie makes me long for simpler times.

I don't know what you are talking about. I said - "Biden had problems unrightfully covered up" - and obviously we can't agree on that. So this is Idiocracy already - independent of Trump. If you are unable to speak truth independent of your own attitudes, wishes, ideas, etc. - that's idiocracy.

It's called adding context to keep the directionality correct. "Biden had problems unrightfully covered up" - I do agree with that.

But one of the pillars of Grumpism/destructionism is taking valid factual criticisms, but presenting them in a way that leads to a conclusion of normalization/nihilism/etc. For example, yes from when it was made Idiocracy has been a satire of the very real anti-intellectualism that has been everpresent in American society. But that doesn't justify dismissing its application to the current situation, as you started off your original comment doing.

I was referring to the author, not American politics in general. I added "then this should be called out as well." I thought this made it obvious.

No, it doesn't make it obvious - I don't see much difference between your first comment and one that goes on to conclude something something "both sides".

There is plenty of criticism to go around when analyzing how we got to Grump, but keeping it in the right context is key.

To me is lying about the obvious more "idiotic", than acting in a "bad manner". Again - I don't see a point in arguing here. If I show you the color "red" and you claim "it's blue", for political reasons or what ever, that is already idiocracy. I don't know what you are defending or what you are attacking or what you are even talking about. I wont change my mind or change my comment. It is what it is - learn to deal with it.

It's not a "bad manner", but rather a question of what larger point a criticism is ultimately making.

Keep on at it if you're fine effectively supporting the current idiots. But don't be surprised when people call you out for it.