Leon Troutsky

It's perfectly fair to tell people who post clickbait from Reddit (which often links to leftwing propaganda sources) to get bent when they raise credibility issues. No problem with that at all. For myself, I'm just not going to waste time on sources that have a history of posting flat out false information, again whichever side it comes from. Okay, I'm going to hang out with my friends now. I have to say that being in the largest Muslim country in the world during Eid Al Fitr is pretty amazing. Imagine Christmas, July 4th, Thanksgiving, and New Year's Eve combined into a single holiday.

That was one of many examples regarding TruePundit, and it's such an obvious and simple mistake that one questions their intentions. CNN has plenty of journalistic integrity if we're talking about their news division. Again, they still refuse to discuss the contents of the dossier on air or online because they can't independently verify it. They have made some mistakes, egregious ones, but they have a journalistic process that works the overwhelming majority of the time. Places like the NYPost and TruePundit don't. That's why they're not very credible.

You're allowed to post whatever you like. But don't be surprised when people point out that it's not from a credible source and/or doesn't take the article seriously. National Review and the Economist also are good sources, though the former has gotten kind of goofy with its online "The Corner" content (see their article about Obama as a "red diaper baby" for an example). There are plenty out there. Again, we don't need to fall for the clickbait from unreputable sources.

Refusing to retract false stories doesn't give them a better credibility rating than sources that do retract them on occasion. That's what makes them propaganda. A credible source cares about the accuracy of their reporting and will retract when they get something wrong. Propaganda sources will post whatever promotes their agenda, whether true or not, and will not retract it even after it's been debunked. Again, I have no problem with FoxNews or Wall Street Journal or other credible conservative outlets. And no, BuzzFeed isn't an okay source with me, either. I wish that everybody would stop falling for the interweb clickbait stuff from both sides. I've jumped on people in the past for posting stuff from BuzzFeed and PalmerReport precisely because they don't have the same journalistic process and credibility as other sources.

I would think that former FBI and law enforcement officials would be able to get the content of a simple video correct, but alas... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/09/true-pundit/no-coretta-scott-king-didnt-thank-jeff-sessions-vi/

The sources we rely upon actually did not publish the details of the dossier even though they had it in their possession for month...precisely because they could not independently verify the information. To this day, CNN will still not air details of the dossier that have not been confirmed by intelligence sources. I have no problem with people posting stuff from the Wall Street Journal or FoxNews.com. They have a journalistic process that they use to verify information. If you think that Foxnews and WSJ are anti-Trump and just making stuff up...well...

No, I didn't. I don't bother with sources like that because they are a waste of time. I've looked at so many stories from them and found them false that I'll wait until a credible outlet publishes it. It's unfortunate that you're "done with the sources argument" because that concept quickly descends into "I believe anything from anyone as long as I want to believe it." Credible sources are crucial to getting facts right and the credible sources will publish retractions when they get something wrong. Places like True Pundit and NYPost have zero journalistic standards. They are propaganda and, with the former, do not even care if what they publish are accurate. We have got to start working on the same set of facts. There are plenty of credible conservative sources out there to choose from. We don't need to bother with places that frequently publish outright false information. And there is a difference between a credible outlet that uses a journalistic process to verify things that anonymous sources told them, but which might be wrong and is later retracted...on the one hand...and places that just publish any falsehood without any journalistic process involved and without any concern about the truthfulness of the information. Again, if you don't rely on credible sources then the standard for deciding what is true versus false quickly becomes, "I believe anything from anyone because I want it to be true."

I trust things from the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, etc on the conservative side.

Ironic given that "TruePundit" has published so many actually fake stories. Between them and the WashPost, I'll trust the WashPost until a credible source proves otherwise. That also goes for the New York Post, which is essentially a conservative tabloid. You're putting your faith in some very, very dubious sources.

The other countries did not directly interfere in our elections. Russia did. That's the difference. And that is a direct threat to our democracy.

They’ve been doing this for an awfully long time. And we are decades into the Russians trying to undermine American democracy,” he said. “So in some ways, there’s no news, but it certainly puts a heightened emphasis on our ability to figure out how to stop them.”

In August, we didn't know the full extent of the problem. The intelligence community had not gathered enough evidence to say that Putin had directed it and that his goal was to help Trump directly. They didn't realize the scope of the fake news and other propaganda that Russia was flooding on facebook. Now we have a clearer view.

They're not unreasonable questions. But virtually every member of Trump's campaign has acknowledged that Russia interfered in our election. Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, etc. The problem is that the evidence in this case is highly classified, understandably so. If that evidence were released to the public then our spies in Russia would be killed and our ability to gather new intelligence would be destroyed. We'll never know the names of the spies, the methods used for surveillance, or the actual intelligence itself for more than a decade, if at all. But when every single person, Republican and Democrat, who has seen that raw intelligence comes to the same conclusion...I think we're safe in making the assertion.

I posted a story about the government in August having solid intelligence that Putin himself directed his government to attempt to hurt Clinton and help Trump get elected. The "nothing to see here, just speculation" line has gone cold. The entire intelligence community has said that Russia was involved with those hacks with the expressed intent of electing Donald Trump. That's not CNN. That's the entire intelligence community.

Abso-freaking-lutely they need to acknowledge their role in creating this environment. And so do their supporters. I'm just saying that the opposite of their reckless and irresponsible behavior is not reckless and irresponsible behavior from the other side.