127
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by sexywheat@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

She got half of Burgerland to think that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda, that the evil Russians helped Trump steal the 2016 election, Russia Russia Russia, it's the ultimate thought-terminating cliche now. And even in the face of cold, hard evidence to the contrary (ie: Mueller report, off the top of my head) Libs just stomp their feet and insist that it's still RUSSIAAAAA!!!!!1

I guess Bill O'Riely would be the Republican equivalent of her, but his oafishness and toxic masculinity got the best of him and he ~~ended up losing everything~~ got a multi-million dollar severance package from Fox News and then faded into irrelevancy.

Seriously though, I can't think of anybody that could rival Maddow in terms of how effectively she brainwashed tens of millions of Burgerlanders into believing an absolute, absurd fantasy. You can't have anything that resembles a level-headed discussion with any Lib anymore, largely due to her influence (and others of course, but I feel like she's the most prominent figure in this regard).

Can you think of anyone that could rival her impact? Who else would be in the same league of propagandists in this day?

EDIT: Obviously I forgot to mention Tucker Carlson, but he also got kicked off Fox lol

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 43 points 4 days ago

I fully believe a significant amount of libs opposed the Iraq war because it was started by Bush Jr. If it was a Democrat they wouldn't have been against it. Nevermind all the Dems that started it. GOP = bad, Dem = good, and for the parts that overlap, it's bad if GOP is currently in charge and a necessary evil/tolerable inconvenience if the Dems are in charge.

See also: Children in cages at the border

[-] falgscode@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago

a significant amount of libs opposed the Iraq war because it was started by Bush Jr. If it was a Democrat they wouldn't have been against it.

well 99.9% is a significant amount

Clinton's NATO bombed the Chinese embassy 5 years before and not one peep

[-] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago

Clinton's NATO bombed the Chinese embassy 5 years before and not one peep

I've posted about that several times. It happened while I was in high school. It blew my mind to see the media let the DOD say that they didn't do it on purpose but they also hadn't done anything wrong in planning or executing the mission. It was an early radicalizing moment to see how I apparently didn't deserve a coherent explanation for why this happened.

[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Didn’t something like 90% of Americans support the invasion when it happened? The libs were only against it afterwards.

[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 12 points 3 days ago

Yes. Virtually everyone except the actual left was on board at first. It was bananas.

this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
127 points (95.7% liked)

chapotraphouse

13545 readers
716 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS