Trump Vs Clinton: Who Is Better For The Security Industry?

For better or worse, the US government has been a major force in the security industry for decades, not only for the US itself, but the country's actions impact globally (e.g., the War on Terrorism, responses to it, etc.).

Now, we have the two finalists for the 2016 US Presidency.

What do you think?

Try to keep it civil, focus on the security industry impact and, if you do not like the topic, just ignore and look at our thousands of other discussions and reports.


Can Gary Johnson be an option?

Joesph, you can vote for Gary Johnson but his odds are fairly long to say the least, meaning that he is very unlikely to have any impact on the security industry.

Unfortunately I completely agree.

Is deadlock good for the security business? I really cannot see either Trump or Clinton furthering much of anything in terms of new Homeland Security initiatives during a Presidency without patent opposition from Congress. Yes, this means building a border wall that we're apparently going to invoice Mexico for...

Congressional approval ratings have been low, I think now you'll see the houses adopt a bit of the savior complex to endear themselves to their constituents at POTUS' expense.

For the record, I think both Trump and Clinton will have the great ability to incite tensions that lead to the need for more security. Both are friendly to the war machine complex.

Trump if he can do what he states which is a larger military with "the best" technology, improve major infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports and airports, "huge improvements like no one base seen" and home improvements through lowering taxes and "creating more jobs than anyone in the world has done"

Hillary is status quo. Expand on Obama's current programs.

This is today's message until after the election.

i voted for Arnold and still regret it. What a huge liar for such a short guy!

toot toot! Im on the trump train. We have already contacted him about putting up cameras on his wall!

You take pecos?

That got me thinking. I did forget that Mexico was paying for it.


Without a doubt.

Take his most infamous proposal, a thousand mile long barrier along the Mexican border:

Did you think that this would mean an unbroken stack of bricks from Texas to California? Hardly.

Think doors. Lots of doors. All kinds of doors in all sizes. And Access Control. All with the latest Biometrics. Man-traps, petimeter protection, rail robots.

And cameras, lots of cameras, PTZs with long lenses and IR lasers, not to mention thermal cameras, tetrahertz imaging, you know the cheap stuff.

And don't forget the drones...

10 billion dollar estimate. Which actually means 25 billion with the obligatory overruns.

Hillary on the other hand, didn't even spring for remote access of the Benghazi DVR.

That said I'm no Trump supporter, but that's not the question...

Damn. And I was about to go into the brick making business.

How about sharks with lasers in the river! Much cheaper than a wall or an electronic wall. The sharks would eat what they zap!

I am so disenfranchised with Hilary that I withhold comment.

I believe Trump is at least unencumbered & unbeholden enough to the establishment that he can be free make decisions based on independent adult common sense. Lets hope he surrounds himself with staff of exceptional hearts and minds and listens to their wisdom.

Am currently I excited and moved by either option? Not so much. I am hopeful Trump takes this opportunity to impresses us all now that the rhetoric of campaigning can be put behind him. We are in dire need of a great leader.

When it comes to this question Clinton's credibility is nonexistent - it wasn't a priority before, it won't be if she's elected. Pity that too many folks not involved in this industry too often equate investment in the security sector with paranoia. An oz of prevention ... etc..

That's clever, but it would have been more acurate having Trump watching some Mexicans building the wall.

I think Hillary will create an atmosphere in which the security industry will flourish. I'm not a Hillary fan by the way. We've heard the current administration bemoan the criminal justice system and the interest in releasing "non-violent" offenders from prison. This, undoubtedly, will mean property crimes will rise in that the consequences of property crime would be diminished, with lighter sentences and less of a threat of state prison.

Part of Hillary's platform is criminal justice reform citing inequality in the administration of justice. I don't know how she would go about implementing this reform, but some ideas might be more surveillance equipment to witness interaction between police and the citizenry. Dash cams, body cams and street surveillance might be the focus. Also, there might be restructuring of law enforcement agencies with more layers of supervision, more processes for review/complaints against law enforcement officers, and a lot more accountability. Hillary's campaign at the moment is to disparage law enforcement as the handful of questionable police actions have garnered a lot of bad publicity. Too much scrutiny, combined with the demonization of law enforcement, might make for an unpleasant workplace, causing good people to seek employment in other vocations. I think we'd see the undermining of law enforcement nationwide, resulting in more property crimes and creating a larger market for the private security sector.

This might be a good thing for the security industry, but I don't think it would be good for the country.

That is a damn fine argument and my LEO friends would agree that property crimes are up because of the "low risk" offender release programs.

I think we'd see the undermining of law enforcement nationwide, resulting in more property crimes and creating a larger market for the private sector security.

I'd agree with everything but the conclusion. IMHO, increased street crime drives private sector security spending only in the low end, like guns and ADT.

What boosts private sector security spending more is when people and businesses feel they have something worth protecting. So given the choice between low crime with booming economy vs. high crime and hard times, I think the first option leads to broader spending and higher margin systems.

Agree 100% with your analysis. But lets not get in the way of the money machine (DHS, state, local grants) that funds the siren song of fear. (crime will rise if we don't keep the animals locked away)

I don't think either candidate has an influence on any security business for the better or worst. I think the success lies on the ownership and leadership of the business. Living in a town with several military bases, it is common to hear that a Republican president will be willing to spend more in the military and everything that is in it compared to a democrat. This held true during Obamas term as president.

I am going to say Trump. He supports border security and with that come surveillance systems. He also supports law enforcement which seems to be leaning toward cameras. I also think every citizen should wear that uniform for 3 years and serve in the military for at least two. Ya I know hard to swallow.

I also think every citizen should wear that uniform for 3 years...

Are you saying everyone should be forced to be a cop for three years?

Yes I am. Don't have to street cops however.

In principle, I agree with you, in practice however I've been the guy who avoids jury duty by writing on the summons:

"I'm perfect for the job, I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them!"

Trump may be better for the industry focused on security on threats from without. Hillary may be better for security on threats focused from within.

The truth is probably both won't have enough money to do either significantly. The private sector will figure it out.

I for one will never vote to put trump in the White House! He's un-American, hateful, bigoted, and I don't want that man's finger anywhere near the nuclear buttons!

Now I understand that our industries trends in the direction of conservative viewpoints but trump is in no way a conservative, a nut case maybe but a conservative never! Besides over the last 30 years or so conservatives have just about ran its course, its time for a new direction.

The youth of this nation is remaining it and in the end they will get their way soon than later.

trump's all white male backing will not survive the test of time simply because we're all dying off at a rapid rate. When trump has pissed of every voting block save old white men in the end those blocks will win!

I'll stop here before I go into a full blown rant...

just a through or two...

Deal with it.

I think Trump provides for a little more uncertainty within the US, likely to boost sales within the physical security industry.

Personally, as a man who wore a uniform for decades, I will never vote for Hillary. Her failure at a Secretary of State absolutely resulted in the murder of patriots on 09/11/2012 in Benghazi.

<Rant end>