No, it has not been this way since 1992. You are flat wrong -- you have to be deliberately selective to say that.
And I'm not immune to criticizing my "own" party (Democrats) to the extent they're even a party. They're only a loose analog to the republican party, given how unorganized and ideologically diverse they are. They don't even exist in Oklahoma, what's to criticize? Obama's presidency was springwater pure compared to the first three months of Biff.
The interesting thing to me is the tone of constant withering criticism about Obama on here for 8 years. Every day, awful, non stop criticism. You didnt' object. Nobody has posted a fraction fo the criticism about President Fatass and you guys scream that it's unfair and hypocritical.
Your hypocrisy and glass jaw is amazing. Ivanka and Biff both just got personal business concessions from the Chinese. Biff's son was giving interviews from the White House yesterday, but Biff doesn't talk to him to preserve business independence. Riiight. He brought his daughter into the WHite House as a staffer. If Obama did a tiny fraction of the crap Biff has you would all be in total meltdown.
The very fact that this board was raising hell about his birth certificate shows the insanity. No calls for Biff's tax returns, but you guys were losing your shit over a birth certificate. Benghazi -- what a tempest in a teapot. Compare the American tragedy from that vs. the Iraq invasion. You know how many congressional investigations were launched into Benghazi? 7. Well over 3,000 Americans were killed in Iraq. How many investigations over that? How many posts on here about how awful it was, with thousands of deaths?
Biff is facing a tiny fraction of the criticism Obama did on these boards. He really is that bad, and Obama really was that 10,000 % better and more honest.
Have you ever seen something as clumsy and embarassing as the Devin Nunes scandal? Nobody really says much on here about that. What do you think, since your'e objective?
Oh boy, a book. Here we go:
Democratic party is ideologically diverse....Got it. Only Republican voters are rigid, fascists who believe one ideology and all others can go to hell.
Repubs criticized Obama. Check. We did. We also criticized Bush. And we've criticized Trump. And yes, we have a few Republican morons on this board who can only spout non-sense and rant on everything. We have our syskatine equivalents.
Nepotism: This is the one real complaint that I agree with you on. This president has excessively involved his family in the presidential role. Its funny with Ivanka, because she's acting more first lady-ish than Melania is. Feel free to rant on this topic and I won't interrupt. You are correct and this is very fair criticism.
Birth-certificate vs. tax return. There is one critical difference between these two items. There is a constitutional requirement that the POTUS be a naturally born citizen. Given Obama's parentage (Kenyan father), its not an unreasonable request to have some verification of meeting that requirement. As for the tax return, there is no legal basis for requiring that be made public.
Benghazi vs. Iraq war: 2 points here. First, the Iraq war was a congressionally-sanctioned action. So unless you want to call up the intelligence agencies that provided the underlying facts that led to that vote and investigate them, I'm not sure who you want investigated. I do believe there have been a number of Repubs on this board (myself included) who have been against the Iraq war and actually identified it as a primary cause for our most recent ME struggles. Its also exactly the same reason I'm against any direct action to remove Assad in Syria. Sometimes the bad guy you know (Assad in Syria or Sadam in Iraq) is better than power vacuum that his removal will create.
As for Benghazi, this wouldn't be an issue if your chosen party had simply owned it for what it was. A terrorist attack. But instead, good ole Susan Rice had to make reference that it was retaliation to some no-name Koran-burning preacher in Florida creating you-tube videos. But having US diplomats killed in a terrorist attack while we supported the Arab Spring wouldn't fit the globalist narrative, and having it done during the presumed next President's watch as Secretary of State would be damning. So any and all possible disassociation and deflection was used in learning the truth of what happened. Thus an investigation was needed. Had the most transparent government in history been transparent, then this would have blown over, albeit with open questions regarding our position and role in Libya.
Obama is better and more honest....yep. The IRS scandal was really just a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati. If you like your plan... He got better and gentler coverage and press than any president before or since ever will. Heck, any direct criticism of Obama was met with charges of racism by his protective media. You are right; on "these boards" Obama has faced much more criticism than Trump. "These boards" is probably the only place that that statement is truth. The mainstream media certainly hasn't been as even-handed in their criticism between the two individuals and I believe that directly leads to the 'protectionism' you see on this boards. Heck, a major news publication (newsweek?) referenced the lapel pin on the Press Secretary as a gaff that shows his incompetence. That's serious digging to find something negative. That NEVER happened to Obama or his crones. I mean, can you name any investigations the media did to any of the presidential appointees who had to plead the fifth for their involvement in various scandals? These were members of the correct party so there was "nothing to see here."
As for the Nunes investigation, it looks like every other Washington investigation. A bunch of incompetent, partisan hacks trying to ensure that they control the framing of the narrative. Given what I've read though, its not like the Dem's wanted Nunes to succeed. They were just as afraid that he'd prove there was no smoking gun as he was to actually find something, and uncertainty or non-resolution works in their favor. So it was in their interest to not support Nunes' requests and to control the message out. When he bypassed them, they used their media to turn him into the story. I imagine he isn't nearly as incompetent nor was his effort actually supported as the media had portrayed. Which imo is why you aren't hearing anything else on the topic. Dems got their ambiguity which allows for it to simmer unresolved and can be pulled back out (like the tax thing) when there aren't any other pressing negatives to rail Trump on.
Did I miss anything in your prior post?
