#tulsi gabbard endorsement

[aanews69]

Nous livrons des histoires. Nous vous donnons également des guides, des conseils et des astuces pour créer le vôtre.Cette chaîne est dédiée aux choses aléato...

[uniqueeval]

Trump adds RFK Jr. and Gabbard to transition team | World News

Donald Trump has added former White House hopefuls Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to his transition team if he wins November’s US presidential election, his campaign said on Tuesday. Kennedy and Gabbard hail from outside the Republican party sphere where former President Trump draws most of his support. “As President Trump’s broad coalition of supporters and endorsers expands across…

[wilwheaton]

“We’re here to make sure that we are going to take back this country, we are going to make it great again, we are going to make it healthy again. And so, I stand with Bobby, and I stand with Tulsi, and I stand with everyone else who is standing with President Trump. Because I do believe, of the two choices that we have, and we only have two, Donald Trump, President Trump is the man that can get us there. And he’s gonna get us there because he’s gonna have the backing and the support and the wisdom and the knowledge and the fight that exists in Robert Kennedy Jr and former representative Tulsi Gabbard.”

Shazam! star Zachary Levi endorses Donald Trump after RFK Jr suspends campaign

I just thought anyone who does anything to support Nerd HQ should know who and what they are supporting.

[bambamramfan]

What If They Win

Too much has been written about the horse race of this election, but not nearly enough analysis about how either administration will govern. There's some fearmongering about Project 2025 or courtpacking, but that's propaganda not actual predictions.

(FWIW, I think Trump has this race in the bag, but can understand people who still hope think this is a coin flip.)

If Harris Wins...

Harris has held together a remarkable coalition of people against Trump. Mainstream Democratic politicians, YIMBY pundit technocrats, far lefters holding their nose, and Republican neoconservatives. This is no criticism, it's pretty impressive how they are coming together to defeat a common enemy, and I really really would like them to win.

But what happens to a coalition defined by a common enemy, after they win? Let's assume the best case scenario and she gets a Democratic Senate who confirms her cabinet and some SCOTUS judges.

Who supports Harris in the press, or is vote-corraling for her in Congress? Not those Republicans who hope to turn a page on the Trump era. Not a far left who has decided to hate her as a centrist sell out. Not moderate dems who will run away from any hint of weakness. Maybe a few of those YIMBY pundits who hope she's actually committed to more houses and nuclear power. But that's no political hyperpower.

What would her first major bill be? Who would support it? It will be just one scandal plagued administration with little support from any quarter that makes its ground breaking "first" for subaltern identities a disappointing token. The David Dinkens of the White House.

I predict that President Harris would have the lowest approval rating in her first year of any President we have polling for. It's gonna be brutal, and an easy 2028 win for Republicans (who hopefully won't be running 82 year old Trump.)

If Trump Wins...

This is the interesting one. I've heard a lot of people say that a second Trump term will be even worse than the first because he's fully unleased now and no one can stop him from doing what he really wants. And I think this is partly true.

I just don't think what he wants is "Republican authoritarian rule." Sure, he will probably let the Fed Society still pick the judges (which he never cared about besides thinking they should be loyal to him) and there will almost certainly be a tax cut/extension. But besides that?

In the first Trump term, he had VP Pence, Jeff Sessions as AG, governors like Chris Christie, and three establishment figures at State, Defense, and Treasury making a pact that if Trump fires one they all resign. It was an actual coalition of Republicans and Trumpists who need each other. Even Jared Kushner was pretty establishment friendly (he's the one who approved Pence.)

Jared and Ivanka are gone now, replaced by Eric and Donjr. The VP is a Thiel-acolyte who isn't anti-Republican but sure is "from the blogs." And the endorsers Trump touts are RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk (while more and more mod Republicans endorse Harris.)

This isn't a Trump face over a body of Republicans - this is a Trump leader over all the fringe outsiders of American weirdo culture. I think Trump *actually does* want to appoint RFK to Secretary of Health, and indulge in every conspiracy, organic hippie, crunchy nonsense - which actually has a lot of believers across the country, but extremely little following in DC itself.

I think this will be hilarious beyond our wildest dreams of entertainment. It will not be a functional fascism - it will be closer to Jill Stein and Richard Branson and Andrew Tate. He'll try to pass laws that every kid in America needs to eat healthy and also work in a McDonalds.

[schraubd]

Does the NYT Know What a "Progressive" Is?

The NYT reports on the integration of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. into the Trump campaign. This is news, though its essentially news that "conservative cranks support the supreme conservative crank." But instead, the NYT frames it this way: Donald J. Trump plans to name his former rival, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, a onetime Democrat, as honorary co-chairs of a presidential transition team that will help him select the policies and personnel of any second Trump administration, according to a campaign senior adviser. Mr. Kennedy ended his independent campaign for president and endorsed Mr. Trump on Friday. Both he and Ms. Gabbard spent most of their public life as progressive Democrats, and Mr. Kennedy had started his presidential run as a Democrat, before renouncing his party and running as an independent instead. Ms. Gabbard left the Democratic Party after her 2020 presidential run and has rebranded herself as a celebrity among Trump’s base of support. Excuse me? Until recently, RFK Jr. was known for two things (aside from his name). First, water-related environmental causes; second, being an anti-vaxx nut. The former I'll agree is a progressive issue. The latter ... well, I guess there was a time when anti-vaxxers were partially associated with the crunchy granola left (you know, before it stopped being funny and started being a Serious Issue of Principle We All Must Respect). But this isn't exactly the profile of a progressive champion. Yet Gabbard is even worse -- she's been widely recognized as a conservative for years! Anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, a friend of dictators and authoritarians the world over ... what, exactly, is supposed to be her "progressive" rep? The answer is that there continues to be a small number of "progressives" (and, I guess, NYT writers) who are absurdly easy to dupe by anyone who makes some vague "anti-establishment" (especially "anti-war") rumblings. But aside from that, nobody actually ever thought that Tulsi Gabbard was any kind of progressive -- she has always been in a class of her own. And the thing is -- Democratic voters have made this conclusion very obvious, by emphatically rejecting both Gabbard and RFK Jr. every time they tried to hop onto the national stage. Their defeats were not situations where the "progressive" faction of the party happened to get outvoted by more moderate or establishment cadres (compare, say, Bernie Sanders). RFK and Gabbard both failed to get any discernable support from any substantial wing of the Democratic electorate -- left, right, or center. Progressive Democrats didn't see either as progressive choices, they saw them for what they were -- conspiratorial right-wing cranks. And now they've found their natural home alongside Trump. No news there. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/kvQKYlA

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amanda Marcotte at Salon (12.16.2024):

In the face of Vice President Kamala Harris losing the presidential election to Donald Trump, the punditry's focus has been almost exclusively on asking how the Democrats couldn't beat a relentless liar with 34 felony convictions and a previous attempted coup under his belt. Everyone has a different theory about Harris' "messaging," with every critic inevitably arguing that if she had just talked more about their pet issue, she would have won. Another option, however, is to listen to what swing voters who backed Trump said about their decision. That would seem the wisest choice, but to be fair to people who don't want to go there, hearing these people out is a truly miserable experience. What quickly becomes evident about the median voters in an American focus group is how profoundly opposed they are to even the most basic factual information. On the contrary, it's a community with a pathological aversion to reality, where people compulsively react to anything truth-shaped with hostility, running as hard as they can toward disinformation. They are addicted to BS. Of course they voted for Trump, the country's most reliable dealer of their favorite drug. 

This may sound ungenerous to these voters, but only if you've been sparing yourself the torture of engaging their actual opinions. If you hold your nose and dive in, it's startling how much the typical swing voter is allergic to facts. It's not just ignorance, but overt hostility to anything that smacks of veracity. Such as the Trump voter who insisted to the New York Times that Democrats are "lying about pregnancies," by conveying factual information about abortion bans. Or the one who falsely believed "so many people just walk right across the border and get free housing, free food." Or the one who was excited that "Trump brings a Robert Kennedy Jr. or a Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk." Or the one who said the  "Democratic Party [is] going after average people who disagreed on Covid, who disagreed on school boards, who disagreed on boys playing in women’s sports," which is just a way to complain about liberals who criticize him on social media for saying things that aren't true. 

Sarah Longwell's "Focus Group" podcast ended the year by interviewing Joe Rogan fans who voted for Trump for the first time this election. It was a smart choice, and not just because Rogan's endorsement likely pushed Trump over the top in a shockingly close election. Rogan's audience perfectly illustrates the way the firehose of disinformation online — his conspiracy theory-hyping podcast has over 16 million followers — has pickled the brains of so many otherwise normal people. Most of the people Longwell interviewed couldn't go two minutes without coughing up a conspiracy theory. Everything is a shadowy plot, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the guy who shot Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The straightforward details of the shooting of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson came out after the arrest of Luigi Mangione, and yet these voters refused to believe the banal facts. Some are wallowing in theories that Mangione is a patsy, or that the shooting is a psyop. The truer any information was, the more they rejected it. 

After the insurrection of Jan. 6, a lot of attention was paid to the rise of QAnon, because so many rioters were adherents to this online cult that preached that Trump is a savior prophesized to stop a worldwide Satanic conspiracy. Alarming reports showed millions of Americans believed QAnon myths, such as the divinity of Trump or that Democrats drink children's blood. QAnon is still around, but it gets much less media coverage these days. One likely reason is what we see in these focus groups: bonkerballs levels of conspiracy belief is no longer a fringe phenomenon. QAnon-style beliefs are simply the norm in American society.  I wrote about this right after the election, but it bears repeating: One of the best predictors, if not the best predictor, of a Trump vote is how poor a person's information ecosystem is. People who read or watch real news outlets voted overwhelmingly for Harris. People who get their political information from social media voted for Trump. Subsequently, polls showed that Trump voters couldn't answer basic factual questions about what the candidates believed. Harris voters were far more accurate. 

It's not like Americans got hit with a stupid bomb, sending millions of us away from the real news and toward nonsense peddlers like Rogan. On "Focus Group," they briefly discussed how people's boredom during the pandemic caused them to spend more time on social media and listening to podcasts. Many got deeply addicted to disinformation during that period. (Interest in QAnon certainly spiked.) COVID-19 isn't the threat it was, but millions of those people still have the conspiracy theory monkey on their backs, as evidenced by Rogan's enormous audience. 

Why are conspiracy theories so addictive? Having researched the issue for an investigative report last year, I think there are two main reasons. First, like actual drugs, conspiracy theories relieve boredom. As Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times argued during the height of the drone mania earlier this month, the "drones" were mostly planes, hobbyist drones, and stars, but "life does seem more exciting if you think the Iranians are specifically interested in the everyday activities of New Jerseyans." Boredom was especially high during the pandemic, which is why so many otherwise stable people went straight down the conspiracy rabbit hole. 

But while boredom is the gateway, ego flattery is why people keep coming back. The allure of the conspiracy theory is that you, Joe Nobody, understand a topic far more than the experts who spent their lives working on this issue. You understand viral transmission more than medical scientists. You see the hidden secrets of the "deep state" the journalists on Capitol Hill are missing. You, with your enormous brain, understand every field from nutrition science to American history far more than those people who study and research. This is why people who get into one conspiracy theory start digging into others.

Amanda Marcotte wrote in Salon recently about how the normalization on QAnon-type conspiracy theories helped put Donald Trump in office.

News consumption and which sources of news someone consumed was a big factor as to how someone voted this election, with those getting news primarily from podcasts (esp. right-wing and right-adjacent) and/or social media leaning majorly towards Trump and those getting news primarily from legacy outlets leaning majorly towards Kamala Harris.

[deadpresidents]

Thoughts on Tulsi endorsing Trump? Didn't you two date in the past? Was that during your time on the Obama campaign?

Did I date Tulsi Gabbard?!?!?!

No, we did not date. And I've been disappointed the weird turn she's taken with her politics over the past few years because I thought she was a serious person at one point. But she's seemed to be all over the place with where she stood on various issues, and I guess this is where she's at now. I'm more surprised that she didn't outright endorse Trump prior to the RNC in a desperate attempt to claim a spot on the ticket as his running mate.

As Lincoln once said, "No man knows, when that Presidential grub gets to gnawing at him, just how deep in it it will get until he has tried it." She ran for President and got a taste of what that spotlight felt like and it seems like she decided she was going to do whatever it takes to make sure it kept shining on her. It's unfortunate, though. If she had a rock-solid political philosophy from the beginning of her career she could have been an excellent candidate with her background. However, when you spend your political career changing your position on what you believe people stop listening to what you're saying because they recognize that there's no real foundation.

[dertaglichedan]

Tulsi Gabbard Reveals She Is Joining the Republican Party: ‘Party of the People’

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (I-HI) announced that she is joining the Republican Party, noting that it is the “party of the people” and the party that stands for “equality.”

During former President Donald Trump’s rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, on Tuesday, Gabbard explained that because of her “love” for the United States and “because of the leadership” that former President Donald Trump “has brought to transform” the GOP, she is joining the Republican Party.

Gabbard explained that a vote for Trump is a vote for “secure borders and safe communities” and “a vote for peace,” not only in the U.S. but around the world.

“It is because of my love for our country and specifically because of the leadership that President Trump has brought to transform the Republican Party and bring it back to the party of the people and the party of peace, that I’m proud to stand here with you today President Trump and announce that I’m joining the Republican Party,” Tulsi told the crowd. “I’m joining the party of the people, the party of equality, the party that was founded to fight against and end slavery in this country. It is the party of common sense and the party that is led by a president who has the courage and strength to fight for peace.”

The announcement from the former congresswoman comes after she endorsed Trump for president in August, pointing out that during his first term as president, he “didn’t start any new wars” and “took action to de-escalate and prevent wars.”

[darkmaga-returns]

10 shocking stories the media buried today.

The Vigilant Fox

Nov 20, 2024

10 - Joe Rogan ERUPTS on The New York Times for “fack-checking” RFK Jr. on toxic food ingredients while simultaneously proving him right.

“That made my brain hurt just reading it.”

The “fact-check” in question all started when The New York Times claimed RFK Jr. was “wrong” about differences in Froot Loops’ ingredients between Canada and the United States.

However, their own reporting admitted that the U.S. version contains harmful chemicals like Red Dye 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), while the Canadian version uses “natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots.”

“So they’re literally saying he was wrong, but he was right,” Rogan scoffed. “That is the f—king dangerous chemicals banned in Canada that we’re trying to get rid of in America!”

Rogan continued to question what possible motivation The New York Times could have to “fact-check” RFK Jr.’s efforts to remove toxic ingredients from the food supply.

“Like, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to remove all leftover credibility? Are you trying to k*ll it all?” Rogan asked. “Are you secretly working for the Chinese? Like, what are you doing?”

Rogan’s guest, Jimmy Corsetti, concluded, “It’s probably backed by Monsanto or something.”

(See 9 More Revealing Stories Below)

9 - Scott Presler tells corrupt Bucks County, PA commissioners who tried to steal the Senate election that he is gunning for their seats right to their faces.

"I have a message: peacefully, we are COMING for your seat in 2027 if you don't resign TODAY. I am coming for your seat."

She replies, "Have at it!"

Credit: https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1859276862272483645

8 - RFK Jr. exposes the disturbing truth about the Ukraine war in three minutes, revealing it as a money-laundering scheme for BlackRock.

In a shocking admission, Mitch McConnell revealed that the hundreds of billions of dollars American taxpayers are sending to Ukraine are actually going to “American defense manufacturers” instead.

“And who do you think owns every one of those companies?” Kennedy asked. The answer is BlackRock.

H/T: https://x.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1859273813763997882

7 - Dr. Peter McCullough reveals that serious side effects from the COVID vaccine were anticipated by the FDA in October 2020.

“Before the products finished their trials, there was a slide saying, ‘These are the side effects that we anticipate: myocarditis, blood clots, paralysis with Guillain-Barre syndrome.’ And the list goes on and on and on.”

Video: https://x.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1859213716115341605

6 - Laken Riley’s father reads a heartbreaking journal entry Laken wrote to her future husband and family.

Laken, who was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant, wrote, “To my future husband. I want you to know that I'm thinking about you… I'm working every day to become the best wife I can be by working through my current relationships to best prepare me for ours and our kids.”

Video: https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1859294663263289501

While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more daily news roundups.Subscribe

#5 - Sunny Hostin Reluctantly Reads ‘Legal Note’ on Air After Smearing Matt Gaetz as a Sex Trafficker

#4 - MSNBC, CNBC on the Chopping Block as Comcast Drops Bombshell News

#3 - Major NATO Country is Advising Citizens to Prepare for NUCLEAR WAR

#2 - Meghan McCain Defends and Endorses Close Friend Tulsi Gabbard for Trump’s DNI

#1 - ‘Censorship Cartel’ on Its Heels as Trump Appointees, Litigation Crack Open Conspiracy

A federal judge approved further legal discovery in a lawsuit by Louisiana, Missouri and censored doctors against federal officials and agencies including GEC for pressuring Big Tech to censor, months after the Supreme Court ruled they didn't have standing for a preliminary injunction.

Alluding to Vice President Kamala Harris's much-mocked verbal crutch, President Trump nominee Judge Terry Doughty ruled he was "burdened by what has been," the SCOTUS ruling.

But he said the plaintiffs showed evidence that is not "impermissibly speculative": a congressional investigation of Facebook parent Meta that found internal admissions it censored the COVID-19 lab-leak theory because it was "under pressure from the [Biden] administration” to do so, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg's similar admission to Congress this summer.

The feds are "uniquely in control of the facts, information, documents, and evidence regarding the extent and nature" of the censorship pressure, and the already disclosed emails show "the pains that certain persons and entities went through to hide their tracks," Doughty ruled while limiting further discovery to resolve factual questions for jurisdiction.

"We end with the unignorable reality that regime change is imminent" – Trump's second presidential term – and the "wild" possibility that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen" targeted by the White House, "may soon replace or control" the defendant Department of Health and Human Services as Trump's nominee for secretary.

But that by itself is too speculative to dismiss the case, the ruling concludes.

Read More: https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/censorship-cartel-its-heels-trump-appointees-litigation-crack-open-alleged

Share

BONUS #1 - Vivek Says DOGE Will DELETE Entire Government Agencies

BONUS #2 - General Flynn Issues Grave Warning Ahead of Trump’s Presidential Return

BONUS #3 - Donald Trump’s COVID ‘Game-Changer’ Finds Surprising New Use

BONUS #4 - Bombshell COVID Vaccine Study Passes Peer-Review for the World to Read

BONUS #5 - The Shocking Truth About Skin Cancer: What You’re Not Being Told About the Sun

[robin-hood-for-freedom]

"How can conservatives like this anti-war media?'

'Why are people surprised this anti-war story was written by a leftist?'

Because being anti-war is not a strictly left wing thing. And it never has been.

Entry to WW1 was opposed by both the 'old right'(william taft and the like) and the socialists. It was mostly pushed by the early progressives such as Woodrow Wilson

Entry to WW2 was pretty much exclusively opposed by the right wing.

It wasnt really until Vietnam that being anti-war became a 'left wing' thing as opposition to that war was heavily associated with hippies, civil rights activists and actual no-shit communists(who wernt really anti-war so much as they were pro-communism). Although Murry Rothbard was around at that time and quite vocal in his opposition to the war, so its still not as simple as 'the left is anti-war, the right is pro-war.'

After the fall of the soviet Union, there was a movement sometimes called 'paleo conservatives'(Pat Buchanan and such) who tried to bring some of the old right ideals to the Republicans and conservatives more broadly. Republicans in the 90s were quite critical of his bombing campaigns in Iraq, and especially his 'nation building' in Kosovo. Even George W Bush made this criticisms during his first presidential run. Yea he was full of shit, but the fact that he, as a republican, felt there was a constituency that would respond positively to that message really says something.

Of course 9/11 changed all of that. And being a war monger became associated with George Bush and Republicans more generally.

But then along comes Trump. Who straight up says Bush lied us into war, and promised to end all of these 'stupid'(his word) conflicts. And of course lets not forget that Trump supporters frequently cite 'no new wars' as an endorsement of Trump.

And now today, left-wing opposition to American involvement in Ukraine is basically unheard of. Liberals like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. are endorsing Trump for pretty much that exact reason.

So yea, being anti-war doesnt automatically make someone a lefty. Nor does being right wing mean that someone is a hawkish war monger. Politics is more complicated than that.

[ridenwithbiden]

Another PUTIN PUPPET like Trump, Vance, & Johnson.

[sonyaheaneyauthor]

During the Cold War, countless Republicans were — along with Democrats — blistering critics of the Kremlin. But the MAGA movement has had its share of Republicans who aren't shy about defending Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The late conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) considered Donald Trump a "disgraceful" Putin apologist. And Putin's vocal MAGA defenders have included former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and ex-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who spent much of her political career as a Democrat but is now a far-right MAGA Republican.

Trump has nominated Gabbard for national intelligence director, but it remains to be seen whether or not she will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2025.

In an article published on December 5, The Guardian lays out reasons why many people in the intelligence community are so alarmed by the nomination.

Intel experts have been troubled not only by Gabbard's willingness to defend of Putin and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but also, by her defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"Within Washington foreign policy circles and the tightly knit intelligence community," The Guardian explains, "Gabbard has long been seen as dangerous. Some have worried that she seems inclined toward conspiracy theories and cozying up to dictators. Others, including the former secretary of state and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have gone further, calling her a 'Russian asset.'"

The Guardian adds, "Those concerns have been heightened by Gabbard's nomination under Donald Trump to the post of director of national intelligence, a senior cabinet-level position with access to classified materials from across the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, and shaping that information for the president’s daily briefing. The role would allow her to access and declassify information at her discretion, and also direct some intelligence-sharing with U.S. allies around the world."

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois), a Never Trump conservative who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in the United States' 2024 presidential race, has been an outspoken critic of the nomination.

In a scathing article published by The Bulwark on November 19, Kinzinger warned, "I worry what might happen to untold numbers of American assets if someone as reckless, inexperienced, and outright disloyal as Gabbard were DNI."

A Guardian source described as someone "familiar with discussions among senior intelligence officials" told the publication, "There is real concern about her contacts (in Syria) and that she does not share the same sympathies and values as the intelligence community. She is historically unfit."

[inkandguns]

lol these Boomer Trump idiots are sucking the fuck out of Tulsi Gabbards dick

Do you not all remember her full throated endorsement of opening the border, banning all the guns, and going to WWIII?

She backed all of these things less than 3 years ago

[progressivepower]

Tulsi Gabbard Endorses Donald Trump 5 Years After Calling Him 'Corrupt,' 'Unfit' https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-endorse-donald-trump-corrupt_n_66ccd30ce4b09c9ffeaf2f9d?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

[the-eternal-quest-for-balance]

BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Endorses Donald Trump at National Guard Event in...