I don't think you can call it less scandalous. He never mentioned a real agenda outside of his catch phrases. Clinton did what judges do. She has her own personal opinions and things she knows she has to do as a civil servant. You can't act like all civil servants are straight shooters. They aren't. They have their own opinions and they have things they have to do as a representative of the people.

And last I checked, being an 'outsider' when you have ran for office twice doesn't make you qualified for the presidency. Now he is surrounding himself with billionaires and people who all look to manipulate him because he doesn't know any better.

It's really interesting to me that anyone believed otherwise in the first place. He's a billionaire who has played the political game his entire adult life. He's donated to whomever he thought would benefit his interests and he's used lobbyists to get his way. He's a wealthy businessman who makes deals with other wealthy businessmen in order to make them all more money. His continued success in the business sector depends on laws and regulations that favors his positions and on the support and cooperation of other influential corporations, business partners, and, yes, politicians.

All of which is public knowledge.

It's like thinking Dracula would be a great guy to put in charge of stopping the spread of vampirism.

No I'm saying one guy is shooting people while the other is clearly stating they love guns. There is no real choice there because while I don't want guns both clearly love them.

I think in general there's nothing wrong with using the system in place to get ahead while thinking at the same time that it needs to be changed. As far as I last heard  he was still very serious about shutting down lobbying in government. It was on his little first 100 days agenda thing.

But one is shooting and the other isn't. The choice should be clear.

It appears to be everyone who ever wronged the shooter. Or at the very least logic should dictate that the one who gets shot could be you in the future.

At the end of the day they both love guns so how is the choice clear? I don't end up with a policy I want either way. Now if your talking about one of them going out and shooting innocent people ok then yea one has committed a serious crime and most likely would be in jail. Now if they killed some criminals who were robbing their house that's a different story.

We'll see if he takes meaningful action on that subject or not eventually.  As someone who has used lobbyists for his own personal benefit in the past, there is no reason to believe him more than any other politician.  

He'll probably just extend Obama's time limit on becoming a "registered lobbyist", which doesn't really amount to much difference.

However, I'll be very pleased if he really does live up to his promises on this.  Individuals not in office shouldn't have more control of legislation than people in office.  I'm just saying that, given his track record, I'm not expecting a massive reform.  He has to prove himself first on issues like this.

Because one of them is shooting it and the other one is talking about them.

Oh and seriously Trump said he could go out on 5th avenue and shoot someone and people wouldn't care. Doesn't sound to me like he is all that discerning about the target.

Is that why your avy is laughing hysterically?