@EkadhSingh Thanks. Normally I would agree that it's unnecessary and could be interpreted as bias. However in this case I think it's important to stress that there is no basis in reality for the fraud narrative and the only reason it's still being pursued is to appease Trump and his supporters.

@EkadhSingh I disagree with your edit. The word "sycophantic" was doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's not all Republicans and media outlets that are pushing the fraud narrative, only those that are sycophantic to Trump to the extent that they are denying reality.

Consider all of the various large empires throughout history. They spanned several countries but were ruled by the same person/group. Scotland may be a part of the UK, but it was never not Scotland. Just as England at one point was ruled by Rome.

@Jontia that certainly seems to be the position he's trying to put himself in. Any criticism can only be coming from "never-trumpers" and "fake news media", therefore if somebody suggests that he has done anything wrong it must be an unfounded political attack, which in his supporters eyes reflect badly on the people investigating and make trump look better because of "all the things he achieved despite the attacks". I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it will win him new friends, just that his die hard base will see this as more reason to support him.

This is a valid point. The more people try to bury Trump in lawsuits, impeachments, etc etc his supporters don't see him being held to account for his actions, they see an attempt to "cancel" him. It plays directly into his rhetoric and shows his supporters what they're fighting against. The Republicans have created a monster in Trump and I'm not sure they know how to get out of it, so for now they keep playing along.

You were misinformed. The Mueller report explicitly said that it did not exonerate the president and that the reason charges were not brought forward against him was because he was a sitting president. He was not impeached following the investigation into Russian interference because they could not determine a link between Trump himself and Russia, but several members of his campaign team received prison sentences for their part.

@user2501323 Maybe to an extent. There was hard evidence of Russia interfering in the 2016 election, backed up by numerous intelligence agencies around the world. And there was hard evidence of contact between Trump's campaign team and Russian officials. So there certainly seemed to be a good basis for investigation, but there were definitely some unproven narratives seeking to connect the known facts in questionable ways. In contrast, in the 2020 election there was no evidence of any widespread fraud whatsoever, other than "we lost so somebody must have done something nefarious to cause it"

what on earth are you talking about? "In order to attract people from other fields to become teachers we need to dismantle the capitalist ideology and pay everyone less for their hard work because CEOs earn too much"? Good point, thanks for coming

This doesn't make sense. Consider skilled professions like engineers, they will never be in the top 1% of earners (unless they are also a CEO or something) but they earn significantly more than teachers and are unlikely to want to switch professions for a significant pay cut. You answer doesn't so much describe incentivising people to become teachers as it does dis-incentivising everyone else from being successful in their chosen field.