Ugh, I am TIRED of talking about this guy. But here we are. I'm sure you've heard of the Atlantic article at this point. I recommend giving it a read as it seems to be the newest hot story and actually reading it allows you to form your own opinion and beliefs on it and it's validity, rather than just hearing about it and "forming an opinion" that's really a summation of other opinions you've heard. It's always best to take the time to look at a primary source and form your own interpretation, rather than just listening to what people are telling you.

"But Billy, aren't you about to tell me what to think about the article????"

No. I am going to tell you what I think, and you having read the article will allow you to put what I think in conversation with what you think, and maybe even produce some sort of meaningful and ongoing conversation. Yes that is more time consuming, yes that takes effort, but when the forces running this country are so openly compromised, do we really have any other choice but to take the time to think for ourselves and talk about it?

One last thing before I start, I've been taking a class this semester all about research and technology, which has affected my view on the article, as I'm now getting a deeper understanding of how to fact check and what to look for when assessing a source/story.

At first the article was jaw dropping, quotes like "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers.", "Who were the good guys in this war?" when referring to WW1 and confusion as to why the US backed the Allies, and "What the fuck are we doing that for? Guy was a fucking loser," when referring to John McCain's funeral, all allegedly coming from the president shocked me. Holy shit this can't be real I thought. Then I remembered something I learned in class, check your emotions Billy, news is written with the purpose of getting an emotional reaction. So I did that. What are the sources? I asked myself. Reliable sources are defined as a general consensus agreed upon by people in a position to know. In this case however, the sources were anonymous, which I guess is understandable, as a person in a position to know these things would have to be pretty close to the president, and would thus have to remain anonymous in order to keep their job. Still however, this prompted some caution in terms of believing these quotes to be true.

Trump took to twitter to refute the Atlantic's claims, however in doing so he blatantly lied and proven wrong by his own twitter account.

Tweet on September 3rd, 2020@realDonaldTrump

Trump claims he never called John a loser, however...

Tween on July 18, 2015https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/6225226...

As my mother always told me, when you lie, you can't really be trusted. I also find it a little concerning that he swears on "whatever, or whoever [he] was asked to swear on" --- to me it shows a lack of care and sincerity.

Furthermore, Fox News put out a story based on some of their own sources, confirming some of the claims of the Atlantic article, as well as refuting a few.

Fox New's very own national security correspondent took to twitter to share some of her sources' claims,

This has sparked a series of drama between her and Trump as well.

So on one hand, we have a few different news outlets saying similar things, each with sources (while anonymous to us) are sources known and trusted by the writers, versus... a man who has been proven to have lied once in the matter (leaving me to wonder what lies we don't have proof to dispute), as well as lied about his inauguration size on day one, and has an entire database dedicated to fact-checking numerous statements made.

Who do you believe? Who is really trustworthy? How do you know?