Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

In a new Poll matching Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton Trump comes out the winner 45% to 40%.

While I am not a huge fan of Donald Trump it was nice to see Hillary bite the dust against Trump and also against just about every republican nominee.

As I have been saying Hillary Clinton will not be elected to the Presidency. I just can’t figure out which republican will beat her at this point. Still too early to assume it will be Trump. However, if he can keep this momentum through two or three early primaries I think he will be unstoppable.

42

I don’t know how this woman has not yet been laughed off the stage, literally.

45

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t know how this woman has not yet been laughed off the stage, literally. [/quote]

It’s called the party faithful. If tomorrow she was found to have committed multiple felonies I don’t think her poll numbers would dip below 35% or so.

46

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Push, I think you’re extrapolating a bit much out of that one short quote. I’m sure his stance will be fleshed out on the issue soon enough. [/quote]

I think Carson would be a disaster as both a candidate and, if by some miracle he won, as president, but his Second Amendment views re: different rules for different areas because of different needs (urban versus rural) isn’t out of the mainstream. That distinction has always been there in policy, even prior to the Second Amendment being nationalized. There’s nothing radical about that position, even if you (proverbial you) don’t like it.

It might turn off a few, but his other issues are far greater than that.[/quote]

But you have an insurmountable mountain of logic in front of you that defeats your position. It can be successfully argued that if the semi-auto is appropriate ANYWHERE it is most appropriate where dangerous self defense scenarios are most likely. And guess what? Statistically speaking, multiple shots on target are more necessary in…get this…urban areas.

So yeah, “different areas because of different needs” if you will, but it needs turning around, i.e., ban semi-autos in rural areas not urban ones.

The “distinction (that) has always been there in policy” has been an unmitigated disaster. It belongs in the Stupid Thread.[/quote]

Well, setting aside such an absurd comment as you being on the side of an “insurmountable logic”, it’s not true. The more densely packed an area becomes (I.e., cities), the issues of public safety become greater, and there is a pretty common thought to limit access to arms or certain kinds of arms. Hell, this was the thinking in some frontier cattle towns. The idea being people don’t want city streets to be indistinguishable from militarized zones.

You can disagree with that logic, and that’s great, but to suggest your position is “insurmountable” is silly.

48

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Push, I think you’re extrapolating a bit much out of that one short quote. I’m sure his stance will be fleshed out on the issue soon enough. [/quote]

I think Carson would be a disaster as both a candidate and, if by some miracle he won, as president, but his Second Amendment views re: different rules for different areas because of different needs (urban versus rural) isn’t out of the mainstream. That distinction has always been there in policy, even prior to the Second Amendment being nationalized. There’s nothing radical about that position, even if you (proverbial you) don’t like it.

It might turn off a few, but his other issues are far greater than that.[/quote]

But you have an insurmountable mountain of logic in front of you that defeats your position. It can be successfully argued that if the semi-auto is appropriate ANYWHERE it is most appropriate where dangerous self defense scenarios are most likely. And guess what? Statistically speaking, multiple shots on target are more necessary in…get this…urban areas.

So yeah, “different areas because of different needs” if you will, but it needs turning around, i.e., ban semi-autos in rural areas not urban ones.

The “distinction (that) has always been there in policy” has been an unmitigated disaster. It belongs in the Stupid Thread.[/quote]

Well, setting aside such an absurd comment as you being on the side of an “insurmountable logic”, it’s not true. The more densely packed an area becomes (I.e., cities), the issues of public safety become greater, and there is a pretty common thought to limit access to arms or certain kinds of arms. Hell, this was the thinking in some frontier cattle towns. The idea being people don’t want city streets to be indistinguishable from militarized zones.

You can disagree with that logic, and that’s great, but to suggest your position is “insurmountable” is silly.[/quote]

Well, setting aside the surmountability of the logic, I’m right.

A great example is any large city in Florida – the state that first started issuing “shall issue” concealed weapon permits; concealed weapon permits that placed no limiting distinction on semi-autos. What do we find in Florida some 20 - 25 years later? Any militarized zones? Any at all? Even one?

Mount that horse with your logic and see if he doesn’t buck you off in a couple of seconds, hombre.

By the way, as time goes on your “pretty common thought” is remaining pretty common with just a small coterie.[/quote]

Super for Florida, but Florida isn’t a standard or measuring stick for other states.

Point is, people in densely packed cities don’t like the idea of people walking around with semiautomatic assault rifles without a presumption (on the part of both citizens and law enforcement) that these individuals are up to no good.

Your completely fake faux-country hokum aside, that’s not an unreasonable view, and that appears to be Carson’s view. I’m not asking you to agree with it, but it’s not dome outlandish view held by extremists.

50

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, setting aside such an absurd comment as you being on the side of an “insurmountable logic”, it’s not true. The more densely packed an area becomes (I.e., cities), the issues of public safety become greater, and there is a pretty common thought to limit access to arms or certain kinds of arms. Hell, this was the thinking in some frontier cattle towns. The idea being people don’t want city streets to be indistinguishable from militarized zones.
[/quote]

I hate to get in between you two, but…

I am not afraid on being mugged when I am at the farm. A densely populated area is exactly when I want to have a gun, not the other way around.

51

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, setting aside such an absurd comment as you being on the side of an “insurmountable logic”, it’s not true. The more densely packed an area becomes (I.e., cities), the issues of public safety become greater, and there is a pretty common thought to limit access to arms or certain kinds of arms. Hell, this was the thinking in some frontier cattle towns. The idea being people don’t want city streets to be indistinguishable from militarized zones.
[/quote]

I hate to get in between you two, but…

I am not afraid on being mugged when I am at the farm. A densely populated area is exactly when I want to have a gun, not the other way around.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this at all. And I think most people would agree. But I don’t think that automatically means urban citizens would be happy seeing people stroll the streets with AR-15s. For many city-dwellers (of which I am not), there is a balance to be struck.

54

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m curious that if it came down to these two candidates for President which would you pick?

If you want to give a reason go ahead but it’s not necessary.

Please Vote Trump or Hillary.[/quote]

The only person that could make me not cast an opposing vote to Hillary would be Jeb Bush, but you present a false choice.

Cruz and Trump are having joint rallies and meet and coordinate frequently.

It’s pretty obvious that Trump wanted to avoid a Jeb presidency, so he is acting at the stalking horse for Cruz, attacking Jeb, bringing attention, and causing Jeb to spend money (which he will soon do on massive attack ads against Trump).

Trump knows he will get mortally wounded by this, leaving Cruz as the elder statesman. It’s really brilliant.

It’s only fair as there are a number of never-gonna-win candidates in the race at the behest of Jeb to split the vote from the viable conservatives: Graham, Huckabie, Rubio, etc.

Basically Trump is giving the RINOs a taste of their own machinations.[/quote]

That is a very interesting read. But, you failed to take one very important matter into account, that is Donald Trump’s ego. I don’t think Trump does anyone’s bidding especially Ted Cruz, who is not nearly as viable as many other candidates. I also think Trump has his eye on the top spot. Maybe not when he first entered the race but most assuredly now. He looked around and found himself in the lead and thought “hey I can actually win and become President”. Okay…just a guess…

However, if I am wrong and he is destroying the Bush candidacy…well good!
[/quote]

Trump is no “doing anyone’s bidding” but his own. He is playing kingmaker.

And I respectfully think you have drunk the RINO whiskey re: Cruz not being electable. He’s brilliant, smart, has the money, and the machine. The RINOs said the same “not electable” things about him during his Senate race, and he crushed them.[/quote]

I have not been drinking RINO whiskey or even Jack Daniels. But, what you might be failing to see is the fact that Ted Cruz will be attacked ruthlessly by the mainstream liberal media and painted as a right wing kook. Granted you and I don’t think that’s the case. Personally, I think the man is brilliant. But I want a candidate who can actually win. If we don’t win things WILL get worse. So, again I will stick with the Kasich/Rubio ticket, or other variations that can defeat the democratic candidate.
[/quote]

The liberal media will paint any RNC candidate as a fringe candidate. They claimed Romney was a radical and he was to the left of Bill Clinton on many issues – e.g. single payer healthcare.

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:
TB, what state do you live in?[/quote]

In one of the lower 48.

56

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m curious that if it came down to these two candidates for President which would you pick?

If you want to give a reason go ahead but it’s not necessary.

Please Vote Trump or Hillary.[/quote]

The only person that could make me not cast an opposing vote to Hillary would be Jeb Bush, but you present a false choice.

Cruz and Trump are having joint rallies and meet and coordinate frequently.

It’s pretty obvious that Trump wanted to avoid a Jeb presidency, so he is acting at the stalking horse for Cruz, attacking Jeb, bringing attention, and causing Jeb to spend money (which he will soon do on massive attack ads against Trump).

Trump knows he will get mortally wounded by this, leaving Cruz as the elder statesman. It’s really brilliant.

It’s only fair as there are a number of never-gonna-win candidates in the race at the behest of Jeb to split the vote from the viable conservatives: Graham, Huckabie, Rubio, etc.

Basically Trump is giving the RINOs a taste of their own machinations.[/quote]

That is a very interesting read. But, you failed to take one very important matter into account, that is Donald Trump’s ego. I don’t think Trump does anyone’s bidding especially Ted Cruz, who is not nearly as viable as many other candidates. I also think Trump has his eye on the top spot. Maybe not when he first entered the race but most assuredly now. He looked around and found himself in the lead and thought “hey I can actually win and become President”. Okay…just a guess…

However, if I am wrong and he is destroying the Bush candidacy…well good!
[/quote]

Trump is no “doing anyone’s bidding” but his own. He is playing kingmaker.

And I respectfully think you have drunk the RINO whiskey re: Cruz not being electable. He’s brilliant, smart, has the money, and the machine. The RINOs said the same “not electable” things about him during his Senate race, and he crushed them.[/quote]

I have not been drinking RINO whiskey or even Jack Daniels. But, what you might be failing to see is the fact that Ted Cruz will be attacked ruthlessly by the mainstream liberal media and painted as a right wing kook. Granted you and I don’t think that’s the case. Personally, I think the man is brilliant. But I want a candidate who can actually win. If we don’t win things WILL get worse. So, again I will stick with the Kasich/Rubio ticket, or other variations that can defeat the democratic candidate.
[/quote]

The liberal media will paint any RNC candidate as a fringe candidate. They claimed Romney was a radical and he was to the left of Bill Clinton on many issues – e.g. single payer healthcare.[/quote]

I think we need to pull the country right gradually. It needs to be done in steps unless of course we had an incredibly charismatic candidate who could do it in one election. Short of that we need to simply beat the democrats. Perform up t the people’s expectations and then elect someone even more conservative. We cannot afford to lose to the likes of Hillary that is for certain. Can you imagine the left wing judges she would appoint to the Supreme Court and other lower courts? We really need to win this one. Obama has done enough damage both at home and aboard.

As for Cruz, like I said he’s brilliant but he has a history of being what the media would call to far to the right. Someone like Rubio is more palatable.

If I could appoint someone sure I would appoint the most conservative person running. But in an election the person who is center right or center left has the best chance of actually winning. Always keep in mind the republican is running against the democratic candidate and about 75% of the media.

57

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, setting aside such an absurd comment as you being on the side of an “insurmountable logic”, it’s not true. The more densely packed an area becomes (I.e., cities), the issues of public safety become greater, and there is a pretty common thought to limit access to arms or certain kinds of arms. Hell, this was the thinking in some frontier cattle towns. The idea being people don’t want city streets to be indistinguishable from militarized zones.
[/quote]

I hate to get in between you two, but…

I am not afraid on being mugged when I am at the farm. A densely populated area is exactly when I want to have a gun, not the other way around.

[/quote]

I agree with Push too.

The only time I actually pack my gun is when I am in or around a large City. Otherwise, I don’t feel the need. I do keep one in the car anyway. But it’s always on me when I visit the big Cities.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
TB, what state do you live in?[/quote]

In one of the lower 48.[/quote]

Relax. It ain’t like I was gonna track you down and seduce your wife or something. Sheesh.
[/quote]

I wasn’t troubled by your question, I’m just not the type who shares personal info. Although I almost made an exception with our good buddy Doc.