[matthewmacleod]

That’s a weak-ass article you’ve cited there which does little more than make some vague accusations with little evidence.

Frankly this looks more like a typical case of a celebrity endorsement without enough research - which is bad, but I’d argue far less serious than the accusations you’re making.

[jacobolus]

This author’s every post is vacuous clickbait for angry right-wingers, https://thefederalist.com/author/danielpayne/

“Trump Spoke Truth About ‘Both Sides’ In Charlottesville, And The Media Lost Their Minds”

“If We’re Tearing Down White Supremacy, Start With Planned Parenthood”

“If Google Fires Anyone Over Stereotyping, It Should Be The Employees Who Stayed Home To Cry Over A Memo”

“Dear Climate Alarmists: Now That The Paris Accord Is Settled, Please Go Away”

etc.

[matt_wulfeck]

You're totally right. It's a bad link and I regret including it.

[csomar]

Please no ad-hominem. You should only discuss his article in question.

[Analemma_]

That is not what ad-hominem means. When you are evaluating the reliability of a source, it is perfectly legitimate to look at what that source has produced in the past and see if it holds up.

[hwillis]

He's condemning the author's work, not the author.