- Sep 16, 2012
- 75,443
- 72,524
- 3,605
1. The Atlantic is an unreliable source. If you look into their history and their interests. . . they cannot be entirely believed, one should have a secondary source to confirm such an outrageous story.
2. The Atlantic's sources should be vetted. This means, we need to know who is making these claims, and what their interests are.
Why this story and why now? Why are these claims being made now? Are folks so intellectually stunted that they cannot see the agenda? The trip happened ages ago, and folks have had an axe to grind against Trump. . . for, like, ever. It this story were indeed true, it would have been published when it was relevant and timely, not when it needed to be political fodder for an election.
I do not really care one way or another, but what shocks me is just how easily folks that want something to be true for political purposes refuse to do any critical thinking, and just. . . believe.
2. The Atlantic's sources should be vetted. This means, we need to know who is making these claims, and what their interests are.
Why this story and why now? Why are these claims being made now? Are folks so intellectually stunted that they cannot see the agenda? The trip happened ages ago, and folks have had an axe to grind against Trump. . . for, like, ever. It this story were indeed true, it would have been published when it was relevant and timely, not when it needed to be political fodder for an election.
I do not really care one way or another, but what shocks me is just how easily folks that want something to be true for political purposes refuse to do any critical thinking, and just. . . believe.