gleefully throwing about. I wonder how many will be found to be pure Russian Prop that many were pointing out along the way?

Zerohedge, usuncut, Intercept, Counterpunch, etc. so many that were blithely and blindly publishing pure anti-HRC hate. There were quite a few supposed liberals who are still claiming that Trump was a great choice, which doesn't seem like something an actual liberal/progressive non right winger would actually say.

It's sad that so many were hoodwinked and still refuse to accept reality. The facts simply don't support the things people were saying and the emotional, personal level of hate is just odd.

But even so, much of the "I-Hate-Hillary" stuff I saw, even on DU until many of the "true believers" went to form their own site, was so over the top that its origins were spurious to anyone who wasn't just hearing what they wanted to hear. Apparently, their true belief was Russian Orthodox. They just didn't realize it at the time.

The Intercept is Greenwalds Russian propaganda site.

Counterpunch is another one of those sites that the lefter-than-thou like to read and is full of anti-American propaganda and articles calling Democrats and Republicans the same and all of that garbage.

Maybe because I live in Europe, maybe because I have a demanding day job or maybe I just don't get out enough. But I never heard of any of them. From what you tell me, I'm not missing much.

A few mentions at DU:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027835325

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029176775

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029165165

How The Intercept Outed Reality Winner:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029166197

Intercept Editors Facing Mounting Criticism Over Outing:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029166903

February 5, 2017:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028599635

sites and platforms. I saw quite a few on my FB feed, with several apparently entranced by a "new" site that told the truth, RT!

I've looked in on that site, they really do seem to be rather fundamentalist in their beliefs, including the belief that their is the "true" and "pure" path and everyone else is evil. Odd for people who are also proudly atheist.

But the Orthodox churches we visited were full to the brim. Their leadership may be atheist (like ours when the TV cameras are off), but the populace is still full of believers.

I'm trying to remember a "Far-Left U.S. Site". This story first appeared on DU earlier today quoting a Raw Story report on "left leaning" sites like CounterPunch being duped by a Russian troll. Raw Story was quoting a WaPo story that also referred to "left leaning sites". This prompted someone to question if CounterPunch even qualified as left leaning.

Now we have the "far left" label being quoted from The Daily Beast who either didn't read the story they referenced or deliberately chose to go with the more melodramatic "far left" appellation. Whenever I hear someone talking about far left in connection with US sites my troll alarm starts going off. I'm sure there must be some but I can't think of a single far left site much less 10 or more of them. It sounds more like some right winger trying to take a potshot at the US left.

The standard line is "There are no far left organizations in the US". If you had stuck to that trite expression you might have clung to the smallest shred of truth.

These are internet sites. And while they concentrate a disproportionate amount of their page space to bashing the US, they are not limited to US audiences/fanbase or US authors. So, using the tired "There is no real left in the US" to try to derail this OP isn't just reductive, it's completely wrong.

Except for the JPR idiot brigade diaspora, I doubt any DUers are surprised by this

Articles that are divisive, batshit crazy and more, written most often by trolls using twenty-something female identities that don’t actually exist. Most of these sites do not take responsibility for the accuracy of their content. This includes Medium, HuffPo and others.

But once upon a time, they had some insightful articles and contrarian viewpoints that made for thoughtful reading. I saw a link to the Counterpunch article about how they got taken in by Alice Donovan. After a quick review of the Donovan articles they had published, they concluded that they hadn't been duped all that badly, hadn't published any of the more egregious pieces that went out under that byline, and generally absolved themselves of any wrongdoing or error in judgment. Completely overlooked in their evaluation was any concession that by publishing Donovan's work of unknown provenance, they lent her a legitimacy she wouldn't have had otherwise.