Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have both been added to Donald Trump’s transition team. Both endorsed Trump in recent days.
Alluding she is pulling a Judas is actually too kind for her. At least Judas was canonically a disciple at one point. Tulsi has always been a fake Democrat.
Her father is a politician and a founding leader of a wacky alt-right cult in Hawaii. He was a conservative and very invested in the anti LGBT movement up until the late 00s, only changing tickets when Hawaii started going blue.
From Vice Chair of the DNC to endorsing Donald Fucking Trump and being part of his campaign team. Hilary was on the fucking nose calling her a russian asset.
It's just a little bit fucking wild that Sanders was the only real progressive in 2016, because he's the only one who hasn't turned tail and started endorsing Trump.
We really need to be more aware how deeply conservatives are trying to turn progressives.
That's why I'm incredibly skeptical of some of the "leftist" accounts that constantly go out of their way to exclusively demonize the Democratic Party.
As one of those leftists, it's sad but understandable for people to be skeptical at this point.
I have a lot of issues with the Democratic party, but its because I don't have another party to vote for. I could waste my time critiquing Republicans, but they're so far off the map of rationality that it feels silly and pointless. Democrats are still at least offering positions that can be critiqued outside "that was an outright lie" which is all you can say about Republican "policies."
I try to frontload those comments to make clear nothing could ever convince me to vote Republican or withhold my vote when they're trying to fucking roll over democracy into autocracy.
It's populism. You have to see if someone's policy positions are consistent over time, that they have a specific ideal they are following, vs what they think is the most popular policies.
Granted, it's a huge pain with new politicians when they don't have that history, but I think Tulsi had a pretty clear history that showed she wasn't progressive.
Gabbard was conservative from the start, people just got caught up in the story of her rebelling against the DNC. If they'd applied a little more scrutiny to her past they wouldn't have assumed she was a progressive.
Bernie's big problem was that he liked to surround himself with charismatic people who would puff his ego while being outside the establishment structure, which is fertile ground for grifters. They ran out of room for grifting in the Bernie lane and there's all this conservative money floating around for turncoats and wreckers, so of course a lot of them ended up following that path.
It's not that liking charismatic flatterers is all that different from a lot of establishment politicians, but for them there's a deeper web of power making it both harder to advance a personal brand and easier to keep the money-train running indefinitely if you play ball.
I know you're talking about progressives in the Democratic primary but all of the remaining members of the Squad are still solidly progressive with no signs of switching teams. If there's any evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it. Generally I feel like pseudoprogressive folks like Gabbard were behaving suspiciously from the start.
RFK is basically that brain worm piloting a vaguely human-shaped mecha. Tulsi is literally a cult princess. In these regards, they are perfect additions to the shit gibbon’s rogues gallery.