Reading about how Tulsi Gabbard was summarily disconnected from Google advertising right after her stunningly good debate performance in her first debate had me angry, and certainly on her side about that issue, along with many other issues (including legalization of Marijuana).
But reading about how Tulsi Gabbard voted for HR 246, which expresses House disapproval of BDS, I don't feel anything for Tulsi anymore. (HR 246 is a basically toothless Resolution expressing the sentiments of the majority of the House. It does not actually limit free speech, etc. But it could be followed by actionable legislation, such as sanctions against contractors, as has been tried in several states.)
[Update: Following outrage from former supporters like me, Tulsi has signed on as a co-sponsor to Omar's boycott protection bill. OK, I guess I have little to complain about any more.]
Out of the gate, Tulsi had a fresh anti-imperial leftish message which got my biggest donation.
But no more! It should not be for the US House of Representatives to resolve what citizen speech is wholesome and what is not, even if such resolutions include no criminal sanctions. The US House of Representatives should be listening to citizens, not telling them how to speak!!!
For Tulsi's candidacy, this is especially fatal as it undermines the rest of her anti-war message. If she cannot stand up to the Israel Lobby along with fellow congress members Omar and Ocasio-Cortez who notably denounced the Resolution, how is Tusi going to stop the even larger steam roller of the US military industrial complex?
(And of course this is another jewel in the cap of the rising star Ocasio-Cortez, who everyone agrees should be our President immediately after Sanders finishes his last term.)
I'm less interested in the fact Tulsi gets money from right wing Hindus. That's to be expected, and to some degree Hindus have been treated badly for a millenia. She has been increasingly distancing herself from such support and nationalist atrocities. Everyone has a cheering squad with rascals. The question is whether the candidate distances themself from the rascal activities. Tulsi has, Trump has not.
I also see nothing wrong with her having met "dictator" Bassir al Assad. Assad is a highly popular at home elected President who has used terrible means to fight back against even more terrible Western Imperial financed terror to protect his homeland from being upended. That makes him no worse than the average President in this world, IMO (not Tulsi's, she has actually denounced him more than me). This argument comes up a lot from people in the brainwashed Western Imperial media sphere--including virtually all of my friends--who seem totally unfamiliar with the atrocities their governments have been up to, but close attention to often fabricated and always out-of-context relatively small atrocities elsewhere. And, what do we do with popular elected Presidents who may be less than perfect, or even terrible...we meet with them (if we can) of course! So why is this so dastardly!
Both Warren and Sanders voted against the BDS bill in the Senate (which was worse, it included actual sanctions, so this vote against a likely unconsitituional bill was an easier vote for them). Elsewhere, Warren is noted for staunch support of Israel.
Bernie Sanders stands out as the best critic of Israel among the Democratic candidates, was an outspoken critic of the attempts to censure BDS (though, he admits, he does not like the strategy himself, which is unfortunate I'd say).
But reading about how Tulsi Gabbard voted for HR 246, which expresses House disapproval of BDS, I don't feel anything for Tulsi anymore. (HR 246 is a basically toothless Resolution expressing the sentiments of the majority of the House. It does not actually limit free speech, etc. But it could be followed by actionable legislation, such as sanctions against contractors, as has been tried in several states.)
[Update: Following outrage from former supporters like me, Tulsi has signed on as a co-sponsor to Omar's boycott protection bill. OK, I guess I have little to complain about any more.]
Out of the gate, Tulsi had a fresh anti-imperial leftish message which got my biggest donation.
But no more! It should not be for the US House of Representatives to resolve what citizen speech is wholesome and what is not, even if such resolutions include no criminal sanctions. The US House of Representatives should be listening to citizens, not telling them how to speak!!!
For Tulsi's candidacy, this is especially fatal as it undermines the rest of her anti-war message. If she cannot stand up to the Israel Lobby along with fellow congress members Omar and Ocasio-Cortez who notably denounced the Resolution, how is Tusi going to stop the even larger steam roller of the US military industrial complex?
(And of course this is another jewel in the cap of the rising star Ocasio-Cortez, who everyone agrees should be our President immediately after Sanders finishes his last term.)
I'm less interested in the fact Tulsi gets money from right wing Hindus. That's to be expected, and to some degree Hindus have been treated badly for a millenia. She has been increasingly distancing herself from such support and nationalist atrocities. Everyone has a cheering squad with rascals. The question is whether the candidate distances themself from the rascal activities. Tulsi has, Trump has not.
I also see nothing wrong with her having met "dictator" Bassir al Assad. Assad is a highly popular at home elected President who has used terrible means to fight back against even more terrible Western Imperial financed terror to protect his homeland from being upended. That makes him no worse than the average President in this world, IMO (not Tulsi's, she has actually denounced him more than me). This argument comes up a lot from people in the brainwashed Western Imperial media sphere--including virtually all of my friends--who seem totally unfamiliar with the atrocities their governments have been up to, but close attention to often fabricated and always out-of-context relatively small atrocities elsewhere. And, what do we do with popular elected Presidents who may be less than perfect, or even terrible...we meet with them (if we can) of course! So why is this so dastardly!
Both Warren and Sanders voted against the BDS bill in the Senate (which was worse, it included actual sanctions, so this vote against a likely unconsitituional bill was an easier vote for them). Elsewhere, Warren is noted for staunch support of Israel.
Bernie Sanders stands out as the best critic of Israel among the Democratic candidates, was an outspoken critic of the attempts to censure BDS (though, he admits, he does not like the strategy himself, which is unfortunate I'd say).
No comments:
Post a Comment