 Well, well, well, let's take a look at who's now a confirmed speaker at CPAC 2022. It is, of course, none other than former Congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. But hang on a second. Back in 2019, when I pointed out all of the red flags, her supporters told me that I was smearing her and that it couldn't possibly be that I was being honest and trying to assess whether or not she was qualified for the left, but that I was, you know, a DNC op. I mean, look, this is something that I think a lot of us saw as an inevitability, especially given her trajectory recently. But I just, because I'm a petty person, let's look at some of the threads on Reddit that talked about the way that I was smearing Tulsi Gabbard. One Redditor said, progressive media like TYT, Secular Talk and Humanist Report, blacking out Tulsi Gabbard is a serious issue. And they also pointed out only Jimmy Dore, Niko and Kim Iverson are covering Tulsi Gabbard. Interesting, very, very interesting. What's the common thread with all of these folks? They're now basically right-wingers. Interesting, interesting. I also tweeted about how delusional it was to think that Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard were secretly working together in 2020, as some Tulsi Sikha fans suggested, because they were running against each other. They weren't working with each other. They were doing the opposite. So in response to me pointing this out, this person says the humanist report has completely lost it. Okay, interesting. Mike, Humanist Report suggested that Tulsi endorsed Bernie in 2016, merely to earn name recognition. His mask has come off. Oh, it's so good, it's so good. Reading this is so delicious now. Oh my God, it feels so good. Oh, love it, love it so much, love it. Now, let me be clear. Putting aside my pettiness and kind of pointing out how correct I was, I have to say that I don't necessarily believe the Tulsi Gabbard was always conservative. I think that Tulsi Gabbard is just genuinely a grifter and she will do and say anything to get ahead. So let's remember where Tulsi Gabbard started off. She was a member of the Democratic Party establishment. She worked with the DNC. She was one of the rising stars within the Democratic Party. But in 2016, she likely saw an opportunity. She saw that Bernie Sanders had a lot of support, right? And so by removing herself from the Democratic Party establishment's wing and endorsing Bernie Sanders that set her up, she could either be his VP in the event he were able to get the nomination in 2016. And if he failed, then she could set herself up for a future presidential run as the heir to Bernie Sanders' throne. And she ended up running in 2020. But the problem is that the left was too savvy and they recognized a lot of the flaws with her. They recognize some more reactionary tendencies of Tulsi Gabbard and she just couldn't find much support among the left. So now she decided to try to pander more to the right wing reactionaries. And it seems like they are welcoming her with open arms. And they don't view her previous, you know, pandering to progressives as red flags and the way that the left viewed her pandering to right wing reactionaries as red flags, because the right wingers on Fox News, they tune in and they hear her say these things and they're just going to clap like seals. They're not going to question it. They're not going to scrutinize everything that she says. But with the left, you know, they're much more savvy. We acknowledge weird things. You know, when she votes against BDS, for example, and she starts talking about how getting rid of private insurance is antithetical to freedom, something of that nature, we acknowledge these things. So it's a lot easier to be a grifter on the right than it is to be on the left because you're dealing with people who aren't very bright. So I think that, honestly, her right wing grift is going to lead to more success. Will it actually lead to her being, I don't know, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 2024? It's really hard to say. But, you know, it's certainly going to elevate her if she isn't going to become a Republican president and perhaps she gets a show at Fox News either way. You know, this is the, I think, logical conclusion of her grift. I don't believe that Tulsi Gabbard has any core ideological beliefs. I think she's just an opportunist to her core. And if she finds a crowd that loves her, she's going to pander to that crowd. I feel like whatever she says is just an attempt to get ahead. And I kind of feel like that's been proven now, even in 2016, when she endorsed Bernie Sanders, it was absolutely blasphemy to point this out. But I think she was probably just doing that to get cloud, progressive cloud. And now that she lost the progressive cloud because she shifted too far to the right in her presidential run, well, now she's just a full blown right-winger speaking at CPAC and they don't invite you to speak at CPAC unless you are indeed a conservative. But I guarantee there's going to be some people who think that they're on the left that will say, oh, well, yeah, she's speaking at CPAC to challenge their beliefs or some shit like that. Like, you know, somebody's going to say it. But Tulsi Gabbard is a right-winger, at least seemingly so. Again, don't really think she has any core political beliefs. She'll say and do anything. She's a political chameleon, very similar to Hillary Clinton, although she'll jump across the ideological spectrum if it benefits her career. So, yeah, we all kind of saw this coming. And to all of the people who said that I was a DNC shill or a sellout or a neo-lib or just a prick for criticizing Tulsi Gabbard back in 2020 and pointing out her very obvious flaws and some red flags that I saw. Well, I guess now maybe you should be a little bit more introspective and acknowledge when you are simping for someone and I'll accept your apology. But I'm not going to pander to you. This is also very educational for me. I've learned to not try to go out of my way to be fair to people when I know that they're frauds, right? So going forward, I will not be handling people who I know are frauds with kid gloves because people are a little bit apprehensive about accepting any criticisms. I'm just going to say what I know is true because, you know, there's a lot of grifters and politics. So there's no point in beating around the bush. I'm just going to call it like I say, even Andrew Yang, I criticized Andrew Yang and took hell for it. And now what is he doing? He's hawking fucking cryptocurrency as a means of, you know, ameliorating poverty. I mean, look, when you see the red flags, point them out, point them out and don't be shy to do so because there's a lot of people who want to take advantage of people who care about politics and so acknowledge who's the real deal and who's pandering. I'll leave that there. Is a total shit. Once he started shilling for the DNC, I stopped watching so I definitely won't be hitting the subscriber or turning on notifications by clicking the bell. No way. It's very sad.