a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Only because they are banning guns.
I can't believe that the NRA party would hold their convention in a gun free zone. I mean it will be safer with 50,000 guns present.
If Trump or Cruz win, you're going to see fights break out anyway. If Trump wins, the Establishment has failed it's core by letting a mad man potentially take office and letting him destroy the Republican brand in the process. If Cruz wins, the Anti-Establishment revolts, refuses to vote, and nigh guarantees a loss in November.
It would be far better if both parties had strong candidates. Instead we all get to play the game, "Who is likely to be the least bad?"
Source, for those interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/u...ans-guns-at-gop-convention-ending-debate.html
It hardly matters in such a situation. There are enough armed officers/agents/security guards at these things, not to mention on-location emergency services (ambulances and EMT crews stationed at the location during the convention) that it would be hard for anyone to successfully assault people at the convention in a mass manner. At best a few dead and a lot of wounded before the attacker gets taken down. Bombs are going to have a hard time making it in, and having a personal weapon wouldn't help against a bomber anyway.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what power the secret service has to run the convention security anyway. They may have some say over the candidates themselves, but what are they going to do - threaten that the candidates can't come to the convention if the convention doesn't meet their security? And what if the convention said, "Ok, your candidate doesn't have to be present if they can't be."? It all sounds like a big logistical legal mess to me, and picking apart the agreements vs the constitutionally protected rights of the participants wouldn't be trivial.
I don't care what the poll in this thread says, I will not be voting for any of these candidates. It'll be a third party candidate, or I'm leaving the presidential section blank. I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils.
Now, having said all that... if you put a gun to my head, and these were my only 2 options, I will begrudgingly say that I think Hillary Clinton would do slightly less damage than Donald Trump. I think that she would have a better international presence, and his policies are too unrealistic for what actually needs to be done. That's about as good as I can hope for with these options.
Now, having said all that... if you put a gun to my head, and these were my only 2 options, I will begrudgingly say that I think Hillary Clinton would do slightly less damage than Donald Trump. I think that she would have a better international presence, and his policies are too unrealistic for what actually needs to be done. That's about as good as I can hope for with these options.
I don't know, I think Trump would cause a lot more fighting between the branches.
The candidate is free to decline protection by the Secret Service, as it's not a mandatory imposition. It is unclear whether one can waive Secret Service protection just for one event/situation, it may very well be an all-or-nothing situation (would make sense to me, otherwise the logistics could become very cumbersome). It would be quite foolish to permanently cheat yourself out of free (free as in taxpayer-funded) protection.
Source is the Secret Service's website (surprisingly good SEO):
From their page on Protection:
From their FAQ:
You could always write-in.
My impression is that Bernie's about to take an ass kicking in New York. Would that be an accurate assessment of the situation, as things look right now?
I love Donald ragging on Hilary about never going to the subways. I bet he can't even say what color the trains are.
GasBandit
Staff member
As in, "born and raised in Chicago, and spent most of her professional life in Arkansas." She's no more a New York native than I am. As I've said before, her NY Senator seat was payback from the DNC for not divorcing Bill while he was in office, as the democrat incumbent was retiring and her republican opponent was a nobody (and she still nearly lost).
But New Yorkers drink the kool-aid as fervently as any Californian, so I expect they'll pick her as well. But I could be wrong. I can never tell what's going on in the head of people who live there.
But New Yorkers drink the kool-aid as fervently as any Californian, so I expect they'll pick her as well. But I could be wrong. I can never tell what's going on in the head of people who live there.
To be fair, those things don't always work right.
To be unfair:
I remember people were pissed when she ran for Senate, but I can't remember if they were pissed when she won.
GasBandit
Staff member
I can never tell if people outside New York understand this. Like, they know there's a larger state besides Manhattan, but a lot of times I've found people think it's all one giant urban sprawl. New York has a ridiculous amount of shitty backwater towns, small cities, and lots of nature.
The problem is that "upstate" ends up being considered the entire inland state, rather than what it actually means, which is Syracuse.
Its true! Our property values are super cheap! I could find a nice apartment in a good area downtown for under $1000 a month!
In all seriousness, what's the percentage of population of "greater new york but still in the state of new york" versus the rest of the state?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Population says 2/3 in the city
Necronic
Staff member
This is the most amazing election ever. After 8 years of Obama, one of the most liberal presidents our country has seen in decades, this election was the republican party's to lose. And they ended up putting forward Trump.
And now, with Trump as the defacto nominee, it's the Democrats election to lose. And they put forward Hillary.
I feel like this election is like going out to eat at the Golden Coral. There is a lot of variety, but everything there still tastes like ass.
And now, with Trump as the defacto nominee, it's the Democrats election to lose. And they put forward Hillary.
I feel like this election is like going out to eat at the Golden Coral. There is a lot of variety, but everything there still tastes like ass.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, to be fair, the Republican Party didn't want Trump (or Cruz, or even Rubio). They wanted Jeb Bush, or someone as close to him as possible. But the voters didn't, and the GOP doesn't have superdelegates to squash grassroots candidates.
Current national polling basically has them in a dead heat. It's a testament to how weak both candidates are.
NBC says it's 48-45
Quinnepiac says that, in typical swing states, at best, it's 43-42.
Rasmussen also says they're tied.
Nate Silver, who correctly predicted the outcome in all 50 states in 2012 (but only gave Donald Trump a 5% chance of winning the GOP nomination) says Trump has a 25% chance of winning the general election.
GasBandit
Staff member
Who knows what will happen between now and november, but right now Bernie supporters are practically waving pitchforks and carving #NeverHillary into their foreheads.