• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

By how much % will Trump lose to or beat Clinton by in November?

By how much will Trump lose to or beat Clinton by in November?

  • He will lose to Clinton by anywhere between less than 1% to 5%.

    Votes: 11 10.9%

  • He will lose to Clinton by anywhere between 5% to 10% to Clinton.

    Votes: 35 34.7%

  • He will lose to Clinton by anywhere between 10% to 15% to Clinton.

    Votes: 17 16.8%

  • He will lose to Clinton by 15% or more.

    Votes: 7 6.9%

  • He will beat Clinton by anywhere between less than 1% to 5%

    Votes: 8 7.9%

  • He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 5% to 10%

    Votes: 5 5.0%

  • He will beat Clinton by anywhere between 10% to 15%

    Votes: 2 2.0%

  • He will beat Clinton by 15% or more.

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • A 3rd party candidate will win the presidency this year.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 15 14.9%
  • Total voters
    101
digitusmedius said:
Which makes Bethel a much more dangerous place to live since the odds of being murdered there are 4 times that of LA. If you can't understand that basic example of proportionality than you shouldn't be using that term. And it's not just murder. Did you look at the rate of rape there? Staggering. Nearly 15x that of LA. There's also the overall index of crime at the bottom. Bethel AK is nearly twice (at 534) the national average (288) while LA comes in below (266). I want to thank you again for being the agent of your own undoing.
Click to expand...
You can't honestly sit there and say a town with only two murders is more dangerous than a city with 200 plus murders a year.This is why going by murder rate instead of the actual number of murders is idiotic.
 
jamesrage said:
You can't honestly sit there and say a town with only two murders is more dangerous than a city with 200 plus murders a year.This is why going by murder rate instead of the actual number of murders is idiotic.
Click to expand...

If it's a town of 20 people vs a town of 10M I think you can safely say that...
 
Rico Suave said:
If it's a town of 20 people vs a town of 10M I think you can safely say that...
Click to expand...

Two murders is a whole lot less that 200 plus murders.That means the place with 2 murders is a whole lot safer than the place with over 200 murders.There are other factors besides population size that makes a place more or less dangerous.All a crime rate rate is a bull**** attempt by libs trying to make sparsely populated state(usually ran by conservatives) seem more dangerous than states that have a higher number of murders and rapes (usually ran by liberals) by playing the population proportionality game.
 
jamesrage said:
You can't honestly sit there and say a town with only two murders is more dangerous than a city with 200 plus murders a year.This is why going by murder rate instead of the actual number of murders is idiotic.
Click to expand...

First you pretend you understand what rates mean and then you prove you don't. You should stop digging that hole you're standing in.
 
digitusmedius said:
First you pretend you understand what rates mean and then you prove you don't. You should stop digging that hole you're standing in.
Click to expand...

I already proved I do know what rates are. In regard to crime rates Its just a idiotic way of trying to make liberal states with more murders and other crime seem less dangerous than conservatives states that have less less murders and other crime by playing the proportionality game. This is how you can fraudulently claim that a two with only two murders is somehow more dangerous than a two with over 200 murders.
 
jamesrage said:
I already proved I do know what rates are. In regard to crime rates Its just a idiotic way of trying to make liberal states with more murders and other crime seem less dangerous than conservatives states that have less less murders and other crime by playing the proportionality game. This is how you can fraudulently claim that a two with only two murders is somehow more dangerous than a two with over 200 murders.
Click to expand...

Yeah, actual statistics are a liberal conspiracy. Keep it up, you're doin' fine. Proportionality is just a game and math is really just a trick, right? Oh, don't ever leave me. Ever.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree - the rules need to be changed. It's inexcusable, in my view, that lifelong Democrats and liberals can both run for the Republican Presidential nomination and vote for who will represent the party in the election. Remarkable that many Republicans and conservatives howl about voter ID laws and yet let virtually anyone run for and/or select their nominee.
Click to expand...

I am left leaning but voted for Trump in the primary here in TX. I kinda figured Trump would be the easiest canidate on the GOP side for the Dems to beat in Nov. Now, as for the general I vote absentee in Ohio, swing state, its about making your one vote count.

Anyone but Trump
 
yankintx said:
I am left leaning but voted for Trump in the primary here in TX. I kinda figured Trump would be the easiest canidate on the GOP side for the Dems to beat in Nov. Now, as for the general I vote absentee in Ohio, swing state, its about making your one vote count.

Anyone but Trump
Click to expand...

....AND you just admitted to voter fraud here on the open forums.

You really ARE a died-in-the-wool crooked Democrat, ynkintx.

Congrats.
Hillary and her crooked friends must love you, babe.
;)
 
Quite honestly, all this whistling in the graveyard nonsense about this candidate or that candidate losing....

You can posture and bloviate and yammer all you like, you partisan-political tools.
It really comes down to which useless, crooked blow-hard will attract the most lazy, over-medicated, jackasses to get off their lazy butts to come vote for them come election day.

Because all the rest of us will be at our jobs, working diligently so that we can pay our exorbitant taxes to pay for all those lazy jackass's medications and food stamps.

Funny how things work in this country.

Funny, but not ha-ha funny.
:shock:
 
Sparky2 said:
....AND you just admitted to voter fraud here on the open forums.

You really ARE a died-in-the-wool crooked Democrat, ynkintx.

Congrats.
Hillary and her crooked friends must love you, babe.
;)
Click to expand...

Nope no voter fraud

I only vote in one election at a time, its my choice were i cast it, no fraud involved. And if it keeps Trump away from OH electoral votes, hell ya I am skipping the TX ballot and voting for ansentee for Hilldog to take the State. See, no fraud involved. Are you always this judgemental? Why should I vote for Clinton here in TX, she has no chance, now OH she can take, more than happy to help keep Trump from the WH.

Before going all judgemental and throwing a hissy fit ask your self, is the poster military, perhaps the poster has legal domicile in both States.
 
Last edited:
yankintx said:
Nope no voter fraud

I only vote in one election at a time, its my choice were i cast it, no fraud involved. And if it keeps Trump away from OH electoral votes, hell ya I am skipping the TX ballot and voting for ansentee for Hilldog to take the State. See, no fraud involved. Are you always this judgemental? Why should I vote for Clinton here in TX, she has no chance, now OH she can take, more than happy to help keep Trump from the WH.

Before going all judgemental and throwing a hissy fit ask your self, is the poster military, perhaps the poster has legal domicile in both States.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't know.

it just sound crooked and unethical.

But then again, anyone who would willingly vote to put Hillary Clinton back in the White House must be well-familiar (and sublimely comfortable) with the concepts of 'crooked and unethical'.

I don't like Donald Trump (I supported James Webb (D) going into this election cycle), but it's a classic 'lesser of two evils' scenario for me.

There are a LOT of unknowns about Donald Trump, but he's really not that bad of a fellow.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a known quantity.
She's dishonest, self-serving, and crooked to the core.
I wish for her to rot in prison, not to languish in the White House like a drunken, power-engorged Lord.

But good luck to you in your misguided endeavors, and I thank you for your military service to the country.
I myself served 26 years in the Army, and still work for the military to this day.

Cheers.
;)
 
Sparky2 said:
Hmmm, I don't know.

it just sound crooked and unethical.

But then again, anyone who would willingly vote to put Hillary Clinton back in the White House must be well-familiar (and sublimely comfortable) with the concepts of 'crooked and unethical'.

I don't like Donald Trump (I supported James Webb (D) going into this election cycle), but it's a classic 'lesser of two evils' scenario for me.

There are a LOT of unknowns about Donald Trump, but he's really not that bad of a fellow.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a known quantity.
She's dishonest, self-serving, and crooked to the core.
I wish for her to rot in prison, not to languish in the White House like a drunken, power-engorged Lord.

But good luck to you in your misguided endeavors, and I thank you for your military service to the country.
I myself served 26 years in the Army, and still work for the military to this day.

Cheers.
;)
Click to expand...

And Trump U smells ok?

Dishonest and crooked describe Trump. And you know it
 
yankintx said:
And Trump U smells ok?

Dishonest and crooked describe Trump. And you know it
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, man.

YOU will go to the polls on election day and hold your nose and vote for the person you believe to be the lesser of two evils,
and I will go to the polls on election day and hold my nose and vote for the person I believe to be the lesser of two evils,
and that's really all there is to it.

To try and spar with me is a futile effort.
I'm not a partisan political, us versus them, left versus right jackass.
I have no time for such nonsense.

I'm an independent freethinker.
I've had thirty years experience watching the crooked Bill & Hillary show, and I have had exactly one years experience watching the bombastic Donald Trump show.
And MY vote is that he is the lesser of two evils.

Move onto the next poster willing to play this nonsensical game with you, yankintx.
Hillary belongs in prison, not the White House, and I'm not playing.

:hm
 
digitusmedius said:
Yeah, actual statistics are a liberal conspiracy. Keep it up, you're doin' fine. Proportionality is just a game and math is really just a trick, right? Oh, don't ever leave me. Ever.
Click to expand...

I think if you had to choose between hanging out in Los Angele's most dangerous part of the city during the day and Bethal Alaska most dangerous part of town at night or day. You wouldn't pick Los Angeles.
 
jamesrage said:
I think if you had to choose between hanging out in Los Angele's most dangerous part of the city during the day and Bethal Alaska most dangerous part of town at night or day. You wouldn't pick Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

Why did you go to all that bother about "proportionality" when you either don't really understand it or reject its application? I'd take LA at any time of day over Bethal. And it's absurd to talk of the "most dangerous part" of a town of just 5,000 people. There wouldn't be a "not-dangerous" part of a town that small with the violent crime rate so many multiples of the US rate, including it's most dangerous cities.
 
digitusmedius said:
Why did you go to all that bother about "proportionality" when you either don't really understand it or reject its application? I'd take LA at any time of day over Bethal.
Click to expand...
Then you are a moron if you think LA's most dangerous part of the city is less dangerous than Bethal's most dangerous part of town.
And it's absurd to talk of the "most dangerous part" of a town of just 5,000 people.
Click to expand...

If you want to use crime rates to claim one place is more dangerous than another then it is not absurd to talk about the most dangerous part of a town of 5000 people.
 
digitusmedius said:
That would be just hilarious if you'd meant it to be a joke. As it is, it's just pathetic self-ridicule.
Click to expand...

You're not terribly sharp or quick-witted, friend digitusmedius.
AND you have anger issues.

This is an odd combination, in all my years of studying human psychology.
(Typically, men in your condition are fairly happy with their televisions, inexpensive box wine, and their house cats.)

You, on the other hand, are a bit of an anomaly.
Bitter, verbose, hateful, scornful, and possessing of a mediocre IQ.

Here's my best advice, since I'm your buddy, and I have great affection for you.

Try to find a way to seek more happiness in your life.

Get out a bit more.
Step away from the computer.
Go down to the library, and meet actual people.
Spend some time in the supermarket chatting with the cashiers and the boys who bag groceries.

Shoot, get a part time job bagging groceries.
That way you will meet even more real human beings, and you just might learn to stop spewing bilious poison all over the internet.

Just give it a thought, okay?
I really do care, and I want you to be happy.

:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom