On occasion (including tonight) I see a post that sounds awesome for our side but they are filled with comments saying "fake news site". I would not care too much but often they get huge numbers of recommendations and anyone not looking at the comment section might take it at face value.

I am wondering if DU should come up with some kind of guidelines for sites widely accepted as fake or news sites set up as click-bate even if the article may have quite a bit of truth to it?

Or is it better to allow most anything left-leaning as long as commentators can point out it is probably fake?

Examples of sites that are suspect:

Bipartisan Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bipartisan-report/



Palmer Report https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palmer-report/

Missed the part about the calls being picked up with Trump not being related to Russia.

He has succeeded by bullshitting ONLY because he inherited hundreds of millions and tons of power. Otherwise he would have been laughed at.

Mattis it the only sane one of the bunch it seems.


Mattis said that climate change is real and threatening global stability.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

More:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-mattis-climate-change_us_58c92f8ae4b01c029d77a713?oxiop5o2hoz3vunmi&

Here is the CNN link to the story: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

I haven't heard any. We can't be taking any chances on this! These cuts would be deadly and catastrophic to millions! We need to be spending money attacking this shit! Spending money now would help us in the midterms too.

This is what Republicans were doing to Obamacare: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/ads-attacking-on-health-law-stagger-outspent-democrats.html