Seriously Now, Kids

...just what the fuck is going on here?

Live By Social Media

...die by social media

VIDEO (again): Trump state fair hall not packed full as he falsely claims. pic.twitter.com/RqnKoPJzHz

— Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) August 24, 2016

And then twitter kinda blew up with it - a few samples:

@edatpost pic.twitter.com/T8sFNRhLNl

— Jerry Jordan (@Jerry_Jordan) August 24, 2016

@edatpost A mostly empty hall of white people. Seems about par for the course for Trump rallies nowadays.

— Big Bo (@mellymel12321) August 24, 2016

@edatpost @NoahCRothman Wowsa. Spinal Tap and the puppet show had better attendance.

— Marshall Power Locke (@MarshallLocke) August 24, 2016

Trump seems to be doing with his "campaign" what he's always done with his "businesses" - he's running into the ground.

So yeah - let's hire that guy and turn it all over to the slugs and leeches he'll subcontract it out to.

 

hat tip = Bipartisan Report

Today's Tweet

Check the trunk again. the press will be here any moment. pic.twitter.com/TmIvlkUJLv

— Norm Clark (@Normsmusic) August 25, 2016

Trae Crowder

Today's Wile E GOP

From Raw Story:

This is currently what the POTUS section of the Minnesota 2016 ballot looks like:

You may have noticed that the name of one Donald Trump is missing.  This seems to be due to the Trump folk not having a firm grip on the rules in Minnesota, and so they've neglected to fulfill a small technicality ie: nominating Alternate Electors.  Which, apparently isn't really odd or different since almost every state has pretty much the same rules.

On the first pass, I'm like - this bunch could fuck up a 2-car parade.  Are these really the people we want running the joint?

But then again, given all the weird shit that's been going on, I can't be sure this isn't a deal where the Minnesota GOP is looking to fuck Trump over.  Or maybe it's Trump doing a very Trump-ey thing by trying to make sure his claims of "rigged election" have some plausibility.

But then again (again), it could be more strong evidence that the GOP is just hopelessly fucked up altogether - Trump tho't Minnesota GOP had it covered, who tho't Reince Priebus had it covered, who tho't, "Fuck this - I'm just gonna stay drunk for a coupla months".

Today's Tweet

I dunno - "Orwellian" just doesn't seem adequate for this shit anymore.

0_0 pic.twitter.com/MNjSmihTJj

— David Freddoso (@freddoso) August 25, 2016

And you can hear the news lady (Brianna Keilar) start to laugh at the very end.

Today's Pix

click a pic to biggen it up

Today's GIF

Trump's latest "pivot"

Today's Hillary

Just in the last several years:

Hillary's emails:
Looks bad, and while there's a few bits and pieces, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

DNC emails:
Democrats "conspiring" to nominate a Democrat. Color me unsurprised. Moving on.

Benghazi!!!!!:
Get fucking serious.

"Scandal" after "scandal" for 25 years; and 25 years of "oooh, this time for sure; those indictments are coming any minute now" - and there's just never ever anything that amounts to more than a little nose-wrinkle?

Now, we can add The Clinton Foundation thing to the pile.

Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.

According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here’s the bottom line: Serving as secretary of state while your husband raises millions of dollars for a charitable foundation that is also a vehicle for your family’s political ambitions really does create a lot of space for potential conflicts of interest. Journalists have, rightly, scrutinized the situation closely. And however many times they take a run at it, they don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.

If there's really anything there, and she always just gets away with it, then the fact that 25 years of hard snooping, GOP Congressional Investigations and many many millions of dollars spent - to find practically nothing - all of that would have to mean Hillary Clinton is the most amazing of all evil genius super-criminal masterminds ever - and she's not.

I'm not a fan.  I try to trust politicians no farther that I could spit one of 'em.  But at a certain point, since this particular politician is the one we've got, maybe we could figure out how to take 'yes' for an answer, admit that we agree with her on some things, help her do the things she says she agrees with us on, and always keep the pressure on her to do those other things.  You know - kinda do that thing we like to call, uhmm, what is again? Oh yeah - Politics.

And all the rest of that shit?  You're not getting any of that - wish for something else.

  

Today's Press Poodling

(all of this was front page at HuffPo as of about 11:40am today)

Because of this:

We get all this:

Don't get me wrong, I want to know about the negative side of Hillary's ledger.  But does it really have to be part of an obvious attempt at artificially pimping the horse race narrative?