The 2016 US American Election Thread

[MissTeeks]

There goes Ryan:

Paul Ryan said he won't defend Donald Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politi...ump/index.html

(CNN)House Speaker Paul Ryan told fellow Republicans Monday he will no longer defend GOP nominee Donald Trump and will instead use the next 29 days to focus on preserving his party's hold on Congress.

"The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities," Ryan's spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said in a statement.

Doesn't actually say he is pulling his endorsement.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Whoever is running Ivanka's Twitter account will be getting fired shortly....or maybe Ivanka is telling us something?

I'm thinking this is a fake. It's missing the 'Ivanka Trump Re-tweeted:' tag above the HuffPost tweet, which is the only scenario where a HuffPost tweet would appear on her Twitter timeline.

I just went on her twitter to check it out, and couldn't find the article above in her timeline.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It wasn't in her retweets though, it was in her likes. This is the conversation about it.

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/785475148820381696

Also #### Ryan once again did not actually pull his endorsement as far as I can see, so basically the same message he had on Saturday.

[devo22]

nah I checked, it's definitely legit. It's still there under "likes".

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by devo22

nah I checked, it's definitely legit. It's still there under "likes".

I can't find it for the life of me. I did look in the wrong place originally, but even looking under 'Likes' now, I don't see it.

[CaramonLS]

Just like the first one, this debate did little to change the minds of those who have already made their decision. I actually think Trump executed his strategy better than he did for the first debate.

Clinton continued to look weak when it came to addressing some of her shortcomings, which has been the main ammunition for the anti-Clinton camp from the start. She wasn't strong on answering the email question and completely blew it when it came to answering the question about having a "public and private position" on policy. Trying to explain it away with the Lincoln analogy wasn't very good.

She definitely scored points when it came to the Supreme Court - that fear alone should continue to be played up to avoid getting Trump elected. She appeared more presidential and didn't get baited by Trump as much as she did last time.

Trump continued to be Trump - For about the first 10 minutes I thought he was going to try to change his debate style, but you knew that couldn't last through the entire debate.

When he made the comment about "Because you'd be in Jail", it was like catnip to his supporters. However, from some of the comments on this board, comparing him to some of the world's worst dictators - you guys are nuts. He had already clarified earlier that he would instruct the AG to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her "situation". It certainly wasn't the "threat" that some people are making it out to be and to call it that is really disingenuous.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Itse

I get a feeling I'm in the minority here, but I felt Clinton did excellent in this debate, much better than just holding the fort and even better than the first debate. Certainly better than I expected. To me she generally seemed very firm, and managed to keep her answers simple enough for the most part.

Yeah, I think as we get closer to the election, people are going to reflect on the adversity and intimidation and mind-games that Hillary faced here and be really impressed with how calm and collected and effective she was. I think it was a very reassuring performance for those for whom temperament is a major factor.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't trust any of them, do you understand that? The poll I trust is election day.

So what you're saying is you have no idea what a scientific poll is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Adjusted for inflation....doesn't matter, Warren Buffett still paid more in tax when he was 13 than Trump did for many years.

[burn_this_city]

Buffett probably donated more to charity last year than the Donald is actually worth.

[GirlySports]

This is a pretty accurate summary.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second...al-debate.html

[Flash Walken]

zamler embarrassing himself overshadowed only by the trump campaign embarrassing itself.

[photon]

Hmm, I wonder who paid for those four women to be at Trump's deplorable ambush attempt?

Then, after the debate — which she attended — Broaddrick made another claim that quickly raised eyebrows among reporters and campaign finance experts.

Tweet: Broaddrick told me in spin room Breitbart paid for her flight out here

Breitbart, of course, is the pro-Trump conservative news site whose chairman, Steve Bannon, also serves as chief executive of the Trump campaign.

“If the Trump campaign wanted her there, and Breitbart, a corporation, paid for the ticket to assist the Trump campaign, that would be an illegal in-kind corporate contribution,” said Rick Hasen, an expert in campaign finance law at the University of California at Irvine. “But we need to know more facts before we know if that is the case.”

The Trump campaign quickly disputed Broaddrick's account of her travel — ironic, since the premise of her appearance in St. Louis was that people should believe what she says. Breitbart did not respond to a Fix inquiry about travel expenses for Broaddrick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...reitbart-news/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

However, from some of the comments on this board, comparing him to some of the world's worst dictators - you guys are nuts. He had already clarified earlier that he would instruct the AG to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her "situation".

Yes. Exactly. She will be subject to prosecution if Donald Trump wins the election. That is ####ing scary. Any Attorney General who was issued those instructions, if they had any integrity, would immediately quit. He's intimated similar things before about critics ("they're going to have such problems if I win, believe me,") but to stand on the debate stage and threaten to use federal power to target your political opponent is every bit as bad as you could possibly make it out to be.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes. Exactly. She will be subject to prosecution if Donald Trump wins the election. That is ####ing scary. Any Attorney General who was issued those instructions, if they had any integrity, would immediately quit. He's intimated similar things before about critics ("they're going to have such problems if I win, believe me,") but to stand on the debate stage and threaten to use federal power to target your political opponent is every bit as bad as you could possibly make it out to be.

And prosecution on things that she has already been thoroughly investigated for. So either you believe that Comey was biased for Clinton and negligent in his duties, or you believe that Trump plans to appoint a special prosecutor who is biased against Clinton. Given Comey's long bipartisan, Republican-leaning history; and Trump's history of threatening everyone who says negative things about him, the latter seems far more likely, IMO.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Clinton continued to look weak when it came to addressing some of her shortcomings, which has been the main ammunition for the anti-Clinton camp from the start. She wasn't strong on answering the email question and completely blew it when it came to answering the question about having a "public and private position" on policy. Trying to explain it away with the Lincoln analogy wasn't very good.

Whenever Hillary doesn't have a scripted, carefully vetted answer at the ready, she's weak.

Which just furthers her "public and private position" problem: when challenged in public and off the cuff, she's got nothing; when she's been able to run her response(s) through her advisors, she appears to be knowledgeable and strong.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Now the fun starts

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump 12m12 minutes ago
Paul Ryan should spend more time on balancing the budget, jobs and illegal immigration and not waste his time on fighting Republican nominee

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...30928256933888

With Kellyanne effectively out and Bannon running things, destroying the GOP might be as important as beating Hillary.

[photon]

Fun tweets of the night (Some nsfw language)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips...named-ken-bone

[troutman]

Donald Trump Said Terrible Things About Bill Clinton's Accusers, Before It Was Convenient To Support Them

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1886...o-support-them

[photon]

Trump was personally briefed on Russia's attempts to interfere with the election despite him saying that maybe there was no hacks.

A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August. "To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation," said the official. "The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...debate-n663686

EDIT: This is why words matter.

But in defending Trump after the debate, some of his surrogates went a lot further than just changing the subject or denying that Trump actually did the things he said he did. They denied that his comments could even be described as sexual assault in the first place.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/1...sexual-assault

EDIT2: Lol Trump's first appearance after the tapes coming out is in Beaver County, PA