Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Conservative Vato
66.8K posts
Conservative Vato
@ConsrvativeVato
Henry Espinoza, MBA, PMP, CDPM, CPM Married, Grandpa, Innovative Problem Solver, #Trump #SaveAmerica #Conservative #PraiseTheLord I don’t DM.
San Antonio, TX Katılım Ekim 2013
12.6K Takip Edilen11.7K Takipçiler
Conservative Vato retweetledi
“CA oil production has dropped dramatically in recent decades forcing dozens of refineries to close, leaving the state to become more dependent on foreign oil.”
Thank you, @POTUS for rescuing California from disastrous energy subtraction policies.
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
🚨 BOOM! Sen. Katie Britt just said it PERFECTLY
"Democrats are OK with requiring an ID to SHOVEL SNOW and enter their campaign rallies — but NOT to secure our elections!"
"My Democratic colleagues should support this legislation and stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who want this passed!"
Send the SAVE America Act to President Trump 🇺🇸
By ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Fox News: Paxton racks up Texas endorsements as bitter Cornyn runoff hits fever pitch foxnews.com/politics/paxto…
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
🚨 BREAKING: The US Senate is STAYING ALL WEEKEND, no recess, no going home, as the SAVE America Act debate drags on and the DHS shutdown chaos continues!
KEEP THE PRESSURE UP!
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
I know you’re truly shocked but it turns out the same people against the Save America Act are also the ones overseeing massive fraud
Case in point: California
breaking it all down tonight on my triggered podcast w @seanmdav live 6 pm et!!!
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Let's be frank here:
Europeans would benefit from a successful war against Iran; They just want those benefits for free.
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
🚨 BREAKING — Sen. Mike Lee just nailed the core truth on election integrity:
“Voting is a constitutionally protected right of American citizens.
That is precisely why we should put safeguards in place to ensure it remains THEIR right, and theirs alone.”
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Hold the line. The American people are counting on you.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna@RepLuna
What’s happening right now in the Senate is a SHOW VOTE. @LeaderJohnThune has absolutely no intention of passing the SAVE America Act, they are hoping it will just fade away and that people will stop calling them. DON’T STOP. HOLD THE LINE!
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
The first policy plan I published in my campaign was for $3.00 gas. We need it more than ever 👇
We can start by SUSPENDING THE GAS TAX NOW.
stevehiltonforgovernor.com/policy/gaspric…
English
@nicksortor Notice that Democrats can push through everything with under 60 votes but Republicans can't.
English
🚨 BREAKING: Sen. John Kennedy says there are MULTIPLE WAYS to force the SAVE America Act through the Senate — even WITHOUT the talking filibuster or 60 votes
"We ought to be doing it through RECONCILIATION, which only requires 50 VOTES plus the Vice President!"
When asked why Thune isn't doing that now, Kennedy said "I have NO IDEA!"
Why all the games??! JUST PASS THE DAMN BILL!
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Our whole family has always been very involved and aware of politics, but it's especially true of me and my daughter @DataRepublican. We have a great mother-daughter tradition of spending every 4 years together on election day.
When it looked like Trump might run, my boss at the time was very involved in GOP politics, and he seriously did not like Trump. I just didn't know what to think. Then, I got a long email from daughter explaining why she was going to vote for Trump. I read it to my boss, and he eventually came around.
Jennica and I spent 2020 election night at the bar in Trump Tower in NYC. Seriously, there were more people looking at her and waiting for her results than there were people watching all the TV screens!
To this day and as Charlie Kirk learned in 2024, she is the best source of election projections that you will ever find. I hope she will do this again in 2028. It takes a lot of effort! I wonder where we'll end up spending that day?
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
It is amazing
Jesse Peltan@JessePeltan
Put your loved ones in Teslas. Go into debt if you have to.
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Conservative Vato retweetledi
When the government tells you:
“We’re in the same boat”
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Throwing a few Fox News articles in for window dressing doesn’t solve this problem.
Owen Gregorian@OwenGregorian
Apple News blasted after boosting coverage by conservative outlets from 0% to 2% in February: ‘Damage control’ | Thomas Barrabi, New York Post Less than 2% of the top stories on Apple News last month came from right-leaning news outlets – a paltry increase from 0% a month earlier that amounts to “damage control” in the face of a possible federal crackdown on media bias, according to a conservative watchdog. As The Post exclusively reported, Apple came under fire last month after a Media Research Center study showed it failed to feature a single article by a conservative outlet among the top stories on its popular news app in January. In a Feb. 11 letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson formally warned that Apple could be violating federal consumer protection laws against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Apple News finally featured an article by a right-leaning outlet on Feb 12 – its first in 100 days – when it promoted a Fox News story about the death of actor James Van Der Beek. Out of 560 stories tracked during a new analysis by MRC in February, just eight of them, or 1.4%, were written by conservative outlets. Meanwhile, 400 articles, or 75%, were written by outlets classified as left-leaning. The remaining 152 articles were either from outlets rated as centrist or outlets that were not assigned a bias classification, like small local newspapers. “2% is not progress. It’s damage control,” MRC President David Bozell said in a statement. “If public exposure and a federal inquiry only yield a modest adjustment, that suggests the bias we documented was deeply embedded.” “Apple News should not require public pressure to reflect viewpoint diversity,” Bozell added. “This is not about token inclusion. It’s about whether one of the most powerful information gatekeepers in the country operates fairly.” Apple did not return a request for comment on the MRC’s findings. The watchdog’s researchers relied on ratings compiled by AllSides, a nonpartisan organization that uses a multi-partisan panel of experts — with two members from the left, two from the center and two from the right – that are trained to spot media bias. It also conducts blind surveys of ordinary Americans, then averages both sets of results to come up with a rating. AllSides was not directly involved in MRC’s analysis. “Apple would need to make much more substantial changes to help reduce news polarization and give Americans a broader, more balanced view,” said Julie Mastrine, director of AllSides’ media bias rating system. Concerns about potential bias at Apple News caught the attention of President Trump, who retweeted The Post’s initial report on the troubling data on his Truth Social account last month. Critics allege that the app is particularly influential because it comes pre-installed on millions of Apple devices, including the iPhone. Apple has billed it as the top news app in the country. Apple’s editorial team has been led since 2017 by editor-in-chief Lauren Kern, who formerly held editor roles at New York Magazine and the New York Times Magazine. In 2018, the Times declared that Kern had “quietly become one of the most powerful figures in English-language media” due to Apple News’ massive audience. A separate study published by AllSides last month focused exclusively on sections of the Apple News app that are hand-curated by the company’s editorial team. During a two-week period last October tracked for the study, Apple’s editors didn’t display a single article from a conservative outlet in its “top news” section. MRC analyzed the top 20 stories featured on Apple News each day at 8:30 a.m. ET from Feb. 1 through Feb. 28. The Apple News feed features a mix of stories handpicked by an in-house editorial team and some that are surfaced by algorithm. In February, Apple News featured 57 articles by the Associated Press, 44 by the Washington Post and 38 by NBC News — all of which are rated as “left-leaning” outlets. Among outlets rated as centrist, 46 articles came from the Wall Street Journal and 40 came from Reuters. Seven of the eight stories from right-leaning articles came from Fox News, on topics ranging from a delayed NASA launch and US strikes on drug boats to Bill Clinton’s deposition about the Jeffrey Epstein files. The other came from British outlet The Telegraph and was about the arrest of the former Prince Andrew. In his letter to Apple, the FTC’s Ferguson urged Cook to “conduct a comprehensive review of Apple’s terms of service and ensure that Apple News’ curation of articles is consistent with those terms and representations made to consumers and, if it is not, to take corrective action swiftly.” Elsewhere, Sen. Marsha Blackburn demanded that Cook answer questions about whether Apple has “systematically suppressed” conservative viewpoints. “The American public increasingly relies on services like Apple News to provide them with information, and they deserve to have access to perspectives across the political spectrum,” Blackburn wrote in a letter on Feb. 19. nypost.com/2026/03/19/bus…
English
Getting closer to Starship launch! 🚀
SpaceX@SpaceX
Initial Super Heavy V3 and Starbase Pad 2 activation campaign complete, wrapping up several days of testing that loaded cryogenic fuel and oxidizer on a V3 vehicle for the first time. While the 10-engine static fire ended early due to a ground-side issue, we saw successful startup on all installed Raptor 3 engines. Next up: preparing the booster for a 33-engine static fire
English
@OwenGregorian They are not that "into" others? More 1st world imagined problems. "Ain't nobody got time for that." I wonder who they could've asked about that?
GIF
English
You may be overestimating how much other people are thinking about you.
Owen Gregorian@OwenGregorian
People consistently overestimate the social backlash of changing their political beliefs, new psychology research shows | Eric W. Dolan, PsyPost A recent study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that people consistently overestimate how much their political peers will judge them for changing their minds on polarizing issues. This inflated fear of rejection tends to make individuals hide their shifting views, which deprives the public discourse of diverse perspectives. The research provides evidence that the social penalty for political dissent within one’s own party is generally much milder than expected. In highly polarized environments, people often treat political beliefs as strict markers of group loyalty. When an individual’s opinion evolves on a divisive topic like gun control or immigration, they face a difficult choice. They can voice their new perspective and risk being ostracized, or they can stay silent to protect their social standing. Because humans have a deep, evolutionary need to belong to groups, they are highly sensitive to the threat of social rejection. This sensitivity could lead individuals to adopt a “better safe than sorry” mindset, causing them to expect a much harsher backlash than they will actually experience. When people conceal their true thoughts based on these exaggerated fears, it creates a false illusion that everyone in a political group completely agrees with the party line. This illusion is known as pluralistic ignorance , a situation where a majority of group members privately reject a norm but assume everyone else accepts it. The scientists designed a series of studies to test whether these expectations of social punishment are systematically miscalibrated and to explore how this fear influences communication. “Two trends really stood out to me. The first is that Americans are becoming increasingly afraid to speak their minds about politics — polling shows this fear has grown substantially over the past two decades. The second is that people tend to perceive their political parties as having a uniform set of beliefs, when in reality, private polling reveals much more diversity of opinion underneath the surface,” explained Trevor Spelman , a PhD student at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “This got me thinking: if people misperceive how uniform their party actually is, they might also be overestimating how much backlash they’d face for voicing a dissenting view. And if that’s happening, it could mean people are staying silent based on fears that are out of proportion with reality — which might have real consequences for the quality of political discourse within parties.” To explore this dynamic, the researchers first conducted a pilot survey with 131 American partisans who had recently changed their minds on a political issue. The data showed that individuals who anticipated severe social penalties were more likely to self-censor their updated views. To test the accuracy of these expectations, the researchers then conducted Study 1 with 500 Democrats and Republicans. Participants were divided into a predict group and a react group. The predictors imagined adopting the opposing political party’s view on abortion, immigration, or gun control, and then estimated how much another member of their own party would reject them. The reactors evaluated a hypothetical peer who had actually made that ideological shift. The findings revealed a perception gap between the two groups. Predictors consistently expected more exclusion, criticism, and disrespect than the reactors actually reported feeling toward a dissenting peer. Next, Study 2 examined whether this perception gap persists during live interactions with real financial stakes. The researchers paired 278 participants in live, anonymous text conversations. After a brief getting-to-know-you chat, predictors were told their partner would learn that they had slightly decreased their agreement with their party’s typical stance on a specific issue. Predictors then guessed how their partner would react in a subsequent cooperative task. The reactors, meanwhile, were given the news of their partner’s slight ideological shift and were asked to make choices about the upcoming task. The researchers found that predictors overestimated the behavioral rejection they would face. Specifically, predictors guessed their partner would choose to work with a new person 18.7 percent of the time, but reactors only abandoned their partner 7.9 percent of the time. Predictors also expected their partner to withhold more money in a bonus-sharing game than the reactors actually kept. While the first two studies relied on hypothetical or slight belief changes, the researchers conducted Study 3 to investigate what happens when people genuinely alter their political stances. In the first phase, 494 participants wrote persuasive essays arguing for the opposing party’s view on a specific topic. This exercise successfully induced a genuine shift in beliefs for 147 of the participants. These individuals then predicted how another party member would react to their newfound stance, and their estimates were compared against the actual reactions of an evaluating group. Once again, predictors anticipated harsher judgments than reactors delivered. Two months later, the researchers recontacted 93 of the participants whose beliefs had changed. Half of the group was reminded of their previous ideological shift, while the other half received a generic reminder of their participation. Only the participants who were explicitly reminded of their belief change overestimated the social sanctions they would face. This suggests that the perception gap is driven by the immediate psychological awareness of the dissent, rather than a permanent personality trait. “We were surprised by how strongly the effect held up across different contexts,” Spelman told PsyPost. “Whether participants were strangers or had just gotten to know each other through a live conversation, whether the belief change was hypothetical or real, and whether we measured reactions through survey items or actual financial decisions — the overestimation was consistently there.” In Studies 4a, 4b, and 4c, which included 393, 282, and 596 participants respectively, the scientists sought to identify the underlying psychological mechanism. They compared expectations of rejection for shifting views on highly partisan topics against nonpartisan topics, such as postal service delivery schedules. The gap between expected and actual rejection was larger for the partisan issues. To understand why, the scientists measured signal amplification bias. This is a psychological concept describing the human tendency to assume our actions send a much stronger message to observers than they actually do. The researchers found that predictors expected their political dissent to be viewed as a massive betrayal of group loyalty. The reactors, however, did not view the belief change as a severe indicator of disloyalty. This exaggerated fear of appearing traitorous helped explain why predictors expected such intense social backlash. “The average effect size across our studies was d = .87, which is considered large by conventional standards in psychology,” Spelman noted. “To put that in more concrete terms: in our studies, roughly 8 out of 10 people in the predictor role overestimated how much rejection they would face relative to what their partner actually reported.” Finally, Study 5 tested a potential intervention to reduce this exaggerated fear. The scientists recruited 620 Democrats and Republicans who had genuinely changed their minds on a polarizing topic in the past year. Predictors were divided into two groups for a brief psychological exercise. One group completed a loyalty-affirming exercise, where they listed three actions they had taken to support their political party. The other group listed three actions that went against their party. Afterward, all predictors estimated how much rejection they would face from a peer who had also changed their mind on a different topic. The intervention was effective. Participants who reflected on their past loyalty anticipated less social rejection than those who reflected on their disloyalty. By affirming their secure standing within the group, participants felt less threatened by the prospect of sharing their dissenting views, leading to more accurate predictions of social acceptance. “The main takeaway is that the fear of speaking up within your own political group is often worse than the reality,” Spelman said. “Across our studies, people consistently anticipated moderately harsh rejection for breaking from their party’s position on issues like abortion, gun control, and immigration. But the people actually doing the judging reported much milder reactions. We saw the same pattern emerge across survey, behavioral, and qualitative measures – predictors consistently and robustly overestimate how much other group members would socially punish them for expressing dissent.” “This matters because when people self-censor dissenting views out of fear, they deprive the information environment of their point of view. When only conforming views are expressed, it can create a false impression that everyone in the party agrees. That false impression then makes the next person even more afraid to speak up. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle, and our findings suggest the entry point is miscalibrated expectations about how others will react.” “That said, social backlash is real, and the experience of rejection is genuinely painful,” Spelman added. “We’re not saying there’s no cost to dissent — but these findings suggest that people tend to overestimate that cost.” As with all research, there are some limitations. The studies were also conducted entirely within the United States during a period of intense political polarization. The social dynamics of ideological dissent might operate differently in other cultural contexts or political systems. Additionally, the interactions in these experiments primarily took place between strangers or loose acquaintances. Disagreeing with close friends, family members, or colleagues carries different relational stakes, which might alter how people predict and experience rejection. “The most important thing to emphasize is that we’re not saying social backlash doesn’t exist or that dissent is cost-free,” Spelman said. “The costs of dissent are real. What we’re showing is that people systematically overestimate those costs, and that this overestimation predicts self-censorship.” Future research could explore how these interactions unfold in established relationships and organizational settings. The scientists also plan to develop and test broader interventions that can correct these social misperceptions on a larger scale. By helping individuals calibrate their expectations, they hope to encourage more authentic communication and foster a healthier public discourse. “This paper is part of my broader dissertation work, which examines how the overestimation of social costs for dissent plays out not just between individuals but across groups and at the societal level,” Spelman told PsyPost. “When many people simultaneously overestimate backlash and self-censor, the cumulative effect can distort entire information environments — making political parties, organizations, and communities appear far more ideologically uniform than they actually are.” “A major focus going forward is developing and testing interventions that can correct these miscalibrated expectations, increase people’s willingness to disclose dissenting views, and ultimately contribute to healthier public spheres and more representative discourse. The loyalty affirmation exercise in this paper is a promising starting point — simply reflecting on past demonstrations of group loyalty was enough to reduce overestimation significantly. But there’s much more to explore in terms of what kinds of interventions are most effective, how durable they are, and how they can be scaled beyond the lab into real-world contexts.” “Healthy democratic discourse depends on people being willing to voice dissenting views within their own coalitions,” Spelman concluded. “When people systematically overestimate the social costs of doing so, we end up with a distorted picture of what people actually believe — and that undermines the quality of political deliberation within parties. Our hope is that this research can help people calibrate their expectations and feel more comfortable speaking up when they disagree, even on issues that feel risky.” Read more: psypost.org/people-consist…
English
Conservative Vato retweetledi
Based just means knowing and saying the truth
The Rabbit Hole@TheRabbitHole
@elonmusk So far Grok is the most based AI tool
English
Try Tesla self-driving! It’s awesome.
Raoul Pal@RaoulGMI
Tesla FSD is nothing short of magic. Just rented a Cybertruck, picked it up at the airport and it drove us directly to the Airbnb. None of the stress of a new city, new roads, new car. Had it for 5 days and never drove myself. It drove perfectly. So easy and liberating
English