ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
the fact that none of the Conservo-bots have named a legit 'scandal' of Lewinsky proportions is meaningful
Well debating policy that actually has consequences isn't as fun or humorous as laughing at trump fits of rage and denial, humor and talking points sell. Also trump and his team know the American public has the attention span of zero, if you overwhelm them with enough shit they won't know where to look and what to think. Like have you been hearing about Russia at all lately, yeah me either we have moved on already because we are lazy distracted and need new entertainment constantly.
When you phrase/interpret those actions in this manner, it is easy to see why you would consider those scandals. The problem is in the rhetoric, which has been the issue with Trump since day 1. There is nothing but speculation that validates terms like "pay for play" or "ransom."
Really? Do you think it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to record anything and everything you send across your phone or your laptop that through no fault or consent of your own happens to leave the United States and then return to our shores to reach it's final destination through the magic of how things travel all the time across the internet? That's o.k. in your book? You see nothing but a "policy" position in this?
This did not happen to every person. Although I disagree with this policy, multiple courts have said it is legal. Plus, Obama used the courts to get approval more than W or the intelligence community wanted him to do.
It's o.k. to have a policy that targets for audit and harrassment organizations based on their political leanings?
We've shown sources that prove that this didn't happen. But no amount of historical facts will get in the way of your brainwashed bullshit.
Is it o.k. for the Secretary of State to have a pay for play scheme?
The problem is this has been totally disproven and had nothing to do with Obama. If you don't think the Crown Prince of a country where the US has its largest base in Asia would get to meet the SOS, you are delusional. Another "pay for play" was a Nobel Laureate whom the US was supporting already. Like your other assertions this has has been empirically proven to be wrong, it doesn't matter.
It is o.k. to pay a ransom for prisoners?
Shoo and others have shown that is also false. Giving a country back a small portion of what we actually owe them as a part of a deal that disarms their nuclear program is tremendous deal.
Those aren't "policies" or "campaign promises". The reason all of these things became scandals and investigations is because they represented real or potential violations of Federal law. They are no different than Iran-Contra.
Except not a single indictment for committing a federal crime was ever attained. This is in spite of tens of millions of dollars spent trying to find crimes. The found NONE.
And, ultimately, how did a significant part of the population feel about some or all of the above things? Obviously not very good.
We're not quibbling over whether or not it's wrong. We're quibbling about the semantics of scandal.
Closest things I can think of to the classic definition of scandal are IRS and Benghazi and neither of those stuck legally.
This isn't about Trump's view of these matters. It is about your view of them. How can you or anyone else look past these things so easily. They are not right no matter who does them. And they are not speculation. But one example.
The State Department on August 18th was asked if the U.S. government would have delivered the $400MM USD to Iran without the release of the prisoners. This is from a press conference.
Q - "So you are saying in basic English that you would not deliver the $400MM payment until the prisoners were released. Is that correct?"
A - Nodding his head. "Correct".
That is the definition of paying a ransom. You release the prisoners. I pay you this money. And that is exactly what happened. And it violates Federal law.
This is entirely intentional. They are creating all this controversy over crowd size and unsubstantial lies regarding inauguration attendance to distract everyone from the actual policy changes they are implementing. There are twice as many outrage posts on my Facebook feed about "alternative facts" and using "1984" quotes than there are posts about the re-implementation of the global gag rule, or DAPL. This is Trump's strategy and has been his strategy since he started running...creating bullshit controversies over stuff that amounts to very little in the end so that you can get away with other actually substantive things and few people will notice.
Generally I agree this this is his tactic, but the need to be popular and the willingness to lie openly openly to the public in order to shape the narrative shows the authoritarian tendencies, the global gag rule and DAPL are normal Republican moves.
Now, it is also keeping the media from discussing his many conflicts of interest and possible violation of the constitution, which is not business as usual. Also, to TWMD's point, Russia.
the meaning of alternative is "different," not "false" no matter what that silly reporter claimed
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alternative
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/alternative
I'm saving all my outrage for the budget proposal and the Supreme Court nominee they will announce no way either of those isn't a complete shit show.
And if you can prove they lied about intelligence re: Iraq that is a huge fucking scandal too.
alternative facts are not falsehoods as the reporter claimed but different facts
alternative facts are not falsehoods as the reporter claimed but different facts