Maybe repeatedly was a bit of hyperbole but FBI directors are supposed to serve 10 year terms precisely to separate them from political squabbling. Trump fired one and forced another out both for selfish reasons. Comey there was an argument he should have gone, but Trump did it for personal reasons. The current one was pushed out for the sole purpose of Trump installing one of his sycophants there. Kash Patel will then have to be kicked out if a Republican doesn't win the next election as he is utterly corrupt.
You give Trump way too much credit if you believe the outlandish statements are part of a greater plan to entrap the media. What's far more likely is he says whatever pops in his head and then rows it back / is convinced to row it back when it blows up in his face. Exactly the same with the tariffs and various policies he's tried pushing. You know what happens if the media doesn't get "entrapped" as you claim? He ploughs ahead and does exactly what he said he would do.
If Trump had limited his trade war to just China, it probably wouldn't have faced such pushback. He didn't though, he literally started a trade war with the entire world and, with the exception of China, spent most of his time attacking allies and the USA's biggest trading partners. China was hardest hit but it was against everyone.
All those claims are true. We know Russia interfered, we know Russian hackers were behind wikileaks. Hell the leaks were even published after Trump asked Russian hackers to release dirt on Clinton... I cannot think of a single other president who has actively asked an enemy of the USA to interfere in the election process against their rival. She claimed the election was "stolen" in the sense there was a lot of disinformation aimed at her by foreign powers, notably Russia, and FBI inconsistencies that polling shows contributed heavily to her loss. Bearing in mind she won the popular vote by a quite substantial margin and it was a small swing in key states that turned things to Trump. As a point of comparison, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by 2.1% and lost. Trump beat Harris by 1.5% in the popular vote and won.
Looking in to Democrat lawsuits, it seems most were before election day and were challenging procedures before the the vote was won. Trump's were after election day challenging the result itself. The CATO institute (a right wing American think tank) even admitted the scale of Republican election denialism is on a scale vastly eclipsing the Democrats
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes...illegitimate-gop-election-denialism-far-worse
en.wikipedia.org
Clinton did not claim the entire electoral system was corrupt and that some domestic "deep state" was working against her, it was mostly the interference of foreign (mostly Russian) powers.
That's being excessively nit picky. You say Obama also had 4, that's fair enough. It was over twice the timeframe and they left for very different reasons. You cannot simply look at just the numbers and again claim they are the same. Even if you look at individual cases, they aren't the same. Obama didn't have his former chiefs of staff criticising him and saying he wasn't fit for office. He didn't chuck them out until he got some to perform impeachable acts and he did have a single chief of staff for a prolonged period of time, something Trump hasn't had at all.
If Obama gets in for a 3rd term it will be because Republicans have already established 3rd terms are legal and ok, in which case it becomes a moot point. The issue isn't the 3rd term in and of itself, the issue is a 3rd term when the law says there shouldn't be a 3rd term. Presidents have had 3 terms before, it's not authoritarian, what is authoritarian is attempting to stay in power when the law says you shouldn't.
Sorry but this is meaningless. He needed to be prosecuted by Republicans and they have shown no desire to do so. That doesn't make him innocent. It's like how he wasn't prosecuted for the illegal retention of documents because the judge arbitrarily decided special prosecutors are actually unconstitutional and simply threw the case out, even though special prosecutors have repeatedly been ruled constitutional, including by the Supreme Court. It was a special prosecutor who prosecuted Nixon. That corruption of the legal process doesn't mean he was actually innocent, the case was thrown out for reasons that had nothing to do with the case. To say he hasn't been prosecuted isn't an argument for his innocence at all.
100% agree that Patel will be gone with the next Dem president, but I also acknowledge Trump made the same claims about Comey as you have about Patel, so it's apples and oranges.
You talk likelyhoods when discussing Trump's blathering in the media, but in my theory the outcome of a strategy of entrapment would be exactly what is happening, whereas with your theory he'd have been ousted by now. I can't remember who said it but the phrase 'if Trump did one 10th of the stupid things he's done, he'd be criminalised 10 x more'
His strategy is shock and awe, and it's worked pretty well, during the Clinton campaign he said 3 things a week that would've sunk anyone else, noone seemed to recognise those 3 things a week drowned out Clinton announcements etc...
Ah OK, election denying is OK when Democrats do it because it's all true hahaha come on, when I say you guys are different sides of the same coin this is what I mean, condemns Trump for firing an FBI lead, requests the next Dem government removes this one, calls Trump election denier, would consider storming the capitol to defend Hillary.
Aw mate that Cato link doesn't say what you think it does (although i had to goggle it as link didnt work, so hopefully got the right articel), it only highlights 3 cherry picked examples, ignores 100 years of history, and basically states the actions were basically the same but the Rep numbers were stronger. It lost me when it made the claim Trump egged the capitol rioters on by telling them to 'fight like hell' when entering the building lol, and refused to mention the rest of the speach "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". Thisnis what I mean by reporting that manipulates, just report the facts and let people make up their own mind!
One could argue the fierceness of Republican objections could reflect the evidence of electoral medalling, including the disgracefully postal ballot fight before hand. (More complex argument).
Your 3rd term argument isn't sensible though, because Reagon petitioning to abolish 22, Obama commented on it, Bill Clinton is still in favour of it, regardless of its legality. Let's say all 3 of these agree a 3rd term should be allowed, are they all authoritarian, or is it OK when they do it? Over the last 30 ro 40 years over a dozen representatives have tabled motions to repeal 22, multiple times each including Reagon and Clinton in their 2nd temrs and being popular (although they didn't do it directly, it was on their behalf).
22 is only illegal until it's repealed, Trump will try it, and then a dozen more representatives over the next 30 years will try it, until eventually it will go to a vote. These aren't authoritarian moves, the constitution is tried all the time, despite welsh exiles assertions, every president wants to change the constitution, and some even run on it, especially 2nd amendment which interestingly has quietened down recently.
And again, the documents, it's regular practice to mishandle and misuse documents, Biden and Trump got into heat for it, one was not prosecuted because he's too much of a nice old man with no memory, the other was because the judge excused away the special counsels abilities, which by the way invalidated elements of Nixons conviction too.
So there you have it, sitting, former and vice presidents are not criminalised for things we would be, they are protected and given far more immunity, in line with each other.
