Yo, why is this retard copy pasting AI responses

While the film’s fragmented, non-linear structure deliberately leaves holes in Kane’s biography, several scenes and historical context provide the "missing" details about his troubled psyche.
Here is a deeper look into the specific relationships you mentioned:

1. The Hatred for Thatcher
   Kane’s resentment of Thatcher wasn't just about business—it was deeply personal and Freudian.
   The Proxy Father: To Kane, Thatcher was the "man who bought him." He viewed Thatcher as the cold legal machine that facilitated his mother’s abandonment.
   Rebellion as Identity: As an adult, Kane used his newspaper to harass Thatcher not for political reasons, but to needle the man who held his financial reins. When Thatcher asked what he would have liked to be, Kane’s reply—"Everything you hate"—revealed that his entire personality was built in spite of his guardian.
2. The Estrangement from Leland
   Jedediah Leland represented the "moral compass" that Kane eventually outgrew.
   The Chicago Transfer: Leland requested the transfer to Chicago because he could no longer stand Kane’s self-delusion. After the election scandal, Leland realized Kane didn't love "the people"; he only loved the power of their approval. Leland moved to Chicago to escape Kane’s suffocating control and regain his own journalistic ethics.
   The Final Separation: They were already "estranged" because Leland was the only one brave enough to tell Kane the truth. Kane values loyalty above all else, and he viewed Leland’s honesty as a betrayal.
3. The Relationship with His Father
   The film implies that Jim Kane was a volatile alcoholic.
   The "Thrashing": When young Charles hits Thatcher with the sled, his father’s immediate reaction is, "What that kid needs is a good thrashing."
   A "Contemptuous" Legacy: Mary Kane’s contempt for Jim is mirrored in how adult Kane treats everyone—he saw his father as weak and "common," and he spent the rest of his life trying to be the exact opposite: untouchable and elite.
4. Love on His Terms
   You hit the nail on the head: Kane’s definition of love was compliance.
   Love as Ownership: Because he was "given away" for money, Kane grew up believing that people are things to be bought. He didn't want a partner; he wanted a fawning public.
   The Jigsaw Puzzle: The ambiguity you dislike was Orson Welles’s specific goal. He wanted to show that even after investigating a man’s life, you only have fragments. The film suggests that Kane himself didn't know his own center, so providing "explicit" answers would have been dishonest to the character.

Thanks for the input.

It probably would have been interesting, but remember the story is told through friends and family. We don't see or experience everything he does, we're limited to other people and their interpretation of what Kane was like.
I'm not sure if it takes any liberties beyond this, but the movie tries to stick to this style. We try to learn all about him, yet in the end he's still largely unknown.
I think that's part of the intrigue. I wouldn't mind exploring more of his psyche, but that may diminish the fascination with the character.