Really? The dumb lesbian “interviewer” asking every Brazilian farmer what they thought of Trump in 2018 was hilarious material I used to push friends more right. NPR had a massive case of TDS and it was so easy to weaponize against themselves.
That would describe my stance. I used to be more like a "moderate Republican" and listened to NPR on the way to work and back. I didn't care about Trump either way in 2016. He was just a funny billionaire guy. But for some reason NPR kept going on and on with negative stories, taking him out of context, and interviewing random people who claimed to have known him talking about how bad a guy he is, even after the election. I think they had the guy who ghostwrote "The Art of the Deal" on claiming Trump is a liar about everything and the whole book is bullshit. It started to stretch credulity. They would start making statements I already knew weren't true from seeing the full context on YouTube videos, and it was their ridiculously biased coverage of the Mueller investigation when I finally had to turn it off. It wasn't just how bad it was but the fact they kept going on about it like a serious investigation when other news stations had already moved on.
The only people who continue to listen to NPR are those who WANT to believe what they claim because they want to be an enlightened progressive centrist or something. NPR gives them permission to stay in the cave and ignorant and believe themselves better than the backwards right-wing extremists.
The only people who continue to listen to NPR are those who WANT to believe what they claim because they want to be an enlightened progressive centrist or something.
These are wikipedia liberals.
Trump's wikipedia entry for a case study. Before end of 2015 it had many positive statements, such as "one of his first projects [succeeded in] turning a 1200 unit complex with a 66% vacancy rate to 100% occupancy within a year". Since 2016 there's not a single positive statement in the entire entry - and it's long.
They even replace MAGA with "Trumpism" because "make great" is a positive framing. "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism" - which links to a page about something "also referred to as MAGA". The central thesis and slogan of two successful election campaigns is not even mentioned one time in their history of the man. The same of course applies on the entry for "Trumpism" -- absolutely no positive statement in the entire entry.
The NPR and wikipedia audience's defining characteristic is that when they are presented with a huge set of entirely one-sided statements they're not at all suspicious.
I archived it in two different ways.
I'll be honest, NPR has turned several rights friends to lefty friends
Really? The dumb lesbian “interviewer” asking every Brazilian farmer what they thought of Trump in 2018 was hilarious material I used to push friends more right. NPR had a massive case of TDS and it was so easy to weaponize against themselves.
That would describe my stance. I used to be more like a "moderate Republican" and listened to NPR on the way to work and back. I didn't care about Trump either way in 2016. He was just a funny billionaire guy. But for some reason NPR kept going on and on with negative stories, taking him out of context, and interviewing random people who claimed to have known him talking about how bad a guy he is, even after the election. I think they had the guy who ghostwrote "The Art of the Deal" on claiming Trump is a liar about everything and the whole book is bullshit. It started to stretch credulity. They would start making statements I already knew weren't true from seeing the full context on YouTube videos, and it was their ridiculously biased coverage of the Mueller investigation when I finally had to turn it off. It wasn't just how bad it was but the fact they kept going on about it like a serious investigation when other news stations had already moved on.
The only people who continue to listen to NPR are those who WANT to believe what they claim because they want to be an enlightened progressive centrist or something. NPR gives them permission to stay in the cave and ignorant and believe themselves better than the backwards right-wing extremists.
These are wikipedia liberals.
Trump's wikipedia entry for a case study. Before end of 2015 it had many positive statements, such as "one of his first projects [succeeded in] turning a 1200 unit complex with a 66% vacancy rate to 100% occupancy within a year". Since 2016 there's not a single positive statement in the entire entry - and it's long.
They even replace MAGA with "Trumpism" because "make great" is a positive framing. "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism" - which links to a page about something "also referred to as MAGA". The central thesis and slogan of two successful election campaigns is not even mentioned one time in their history of the man. The same of course applies on the entry for "Trumpism" -- absolutely no positive statement in the entire entry.
The NPR and wikipedia audience's defining characteristic is that when they are presented with a huge set of entirely one-sided statements they're not at all suspicious.
Those friends were probably retarded. Principled people don't typically change based on low IQ radio babble from propagandists.