Hawaii teachers union backs Tulsi Gabbard's election opponent over media's Syria lies

[Jack V Savage]

And this why the MSM and establishment Dems and liberals are not really liberal; they do a good job of faking it.

Because Hawaii's teachers are backing a left-wing alternative to the right's favorite Democrat?

 

[MicroBrew]

Because Hawaii's teachers are backing a left-wing alternative to the right's favorite Democrat?

She isn't the right's favorite Democrat, the non-interventionist right yes but not the right. The establishment rightwing is no fan of Gabbard, cause the former are pro-war and hawkish on foreign policy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

She isn't the right's favorite Democrat, the non-interventionist right yes but not the right. The establishment rightwing is no fan of Gabbard, cause the former are pro-war and hawkish on foreign policy.

Sure she is. You can see it in the WR if you weren't already aware. Or look at polls:

http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/06/civil-beat-poll-tulsi-gabbards-surprising-plunge-in-hawaii/

She's not so much "non-interventionist" as more supportive of foreign tyrants than most.

 

[MicroBrew]

Sure she is. You can see it in the WR if you weren't already aware. Or look at polls:

http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/06/civil-beat-poll-tulsi-gabbards-surprising-plunge-in-hawaii/

She's not so much "non-interventionist" as more supportive of foreign tyrants than most.

You don't see her being supported by the Neocons, Fox news, Sheldon Adelson, Trump, Limbaugh or any other mainstream conservatives. The palecons / alt-right like her non-interventionism, but that's is about it. That doesn't make her a favorite with the right. She is Hindu and non-White and a democrat, so do you really think the right likes her?

She doesn't support tryants per see, she just doesn't support the US overthrowing Assad and enabling a genocidal Sunni takeover.

There are a lot of politicians, from the Dems and Repubs who do support tryants though. Hillary and Bill went along with US policy supporting the Saudis. During Bill's administration, the US supported rightwing death-squads in Colombia. Hillary supported the Sunni jihadi thugs in Libya and Syria; and some of the same Jihadist groups were enslaving Black Africans, but the US didn't intervene like they did to depose Ghaddafi.

And Madelline Albright, a close Hillary friend said "it was worth it" that half a million Iraqi babies died.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't see her being supported by the Neocons, Fox news, Sheldon Adelson, Trump, Limbaugh or any other mainstream conservatives. The palecons / alt-right like her non-interventionism, but that's is about it. That doesn't make her a favorite with the right. She is Hindu and non-White and a democrat, so do you really think the right likes her?

I'm not basing my claim on reasoning from some earlier principle. It's an observed fact that she's the most popular Democrat on the right. Also, Fox loves her:



I don't know who the Neocons are in your view. Adelson rarely comments on individual politicians. Trump is a big fan (was reported to be considering naming her UN ambassador and met with her). Just focusing on who you mentioned refutes your point.

She doesn't support tryants per see, she just doesn't support the US overthrowing Assad and enabling a genocidal Sunni takeover.

That's way understating it, and we're not just talking about Assad.

The whatabboutism isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[panamaican]

As noted by others...this has nothing to do with Syria. It's about teacher funding and the new candidate must have promised more money. I highly doubt the teacher's union really cares about Syria.

 

[MicroBrew]

I'm not basing my claim on reasoning from some earlier principle. It's an observed fact that she's the most popular Democrat on the right. Also, Fox loves her:



I don't know who the Neocons are in your view. Adelson rarely comments on individual politicians. Trump is a big fan (was reported to be considering naming her UN ambassador and met with her). Just focusing on who you mentioned refutes your point.



That's way understating it, and we're not just talking about Assad.

The whatabboutism isn't relevant to the discussion.

Fox is pro interventionism, and hardly sympathetic to those not wanting to depose Assad. Adelson is a big time GOP donor, and there are news articles claiming Trump picked Bolton because Adelson wanted it.

Gabbard approached Trump early on, warning him not to give into to Neocon hawks vis-a-vis the middleEast. But Trump has done the opposite.

It isn't whataboutism because you ignore the tryants the others really do support, which is pertinent in this case because her opponents support the anti-Assad rebels who are mostly made up of Sunni supremacists who will undoubtedly cleanse Syria of non-Sunnis if they came to power.

To claim she supports tryants is akin to claiming those who opposed the Iraq war supported Saddam, which was a favorite ploy by the pro-war supporters.

 

[MicroBrew]

As noted by others...this has nothing to do with Syria. It's about teacher funding and the new candidate must have promised more money. I highly doubt the teacher's union really cares about Syria.

But then why did the union say this:

But the HSTA email also levied harsh criticism at Gabbard for her trip to Syria to meet with its ruler, President Bashar al-Assad, and her failure to condemn Al-Assad for his “genocidal chemical attack on his own people.” The union cited her stance on Syria as an example of how Gabbard has “has not defended human and civil rights during her time in Congress.”

 

[panamaican]

But then why did the union say this:

But the HSTA email also levied harsh criticism at Gabbard for her trip to Syria to meet with its ruler, President Bashar al-Assad, and her failure to condemn Al-Assad for his “genocidal chemical attack on his own people.” The union cited her stance on Syria as an example of how Gabbard has “has not defended human and civil rights during her time in Congress.”

Because saying "The other person promised us more money," isn't as persuasive.

 

[xcvbn]

The Established class is working hand in hand across the political spectrum to snuff out any potential momentum that challenges their rule.

I sincerely hope Tulsi can make friends in high places and with huge pockets.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Because saying "The other person promised us more money," isn't as persuasive.

I'd think it would be to the union members.

 

[Trotsky]

This is undeniably more symbolic than anything, and an attempt to hold Gabbard's feet to the fire. The Hawaiian left seems to be particularly left-leaning and is no doubt posturing.

Can someone explain Tulsi Gabbard to me? From what I can see, she's not very bright, she's not well-educated, she has some ethical issues, and her positions on issues are mainstream Democrat + a little CTism (like with Assad). So why does the right and many on the further left seem to be so smitten? Just because she's moderately attractive?

I think it's more simple than you're presuming. Most people do not have your level of exposure to political goings on, and are most captivated by the horse race of presidential elections. During the 2016 DNC Primary, which was particularly meaningful and personal for persons in the Sanders camp, she was the first major politician who wasn't a core member of the Sanders camp to cross the establishment line and take a principled stance against the baldly obstructive and unproductive actions by the DNC up to that point and resign from the committee. However political or potential self-serving that move may have been, it took a lot of guts and endeared her to persons (left and right) who had grown to become appalled by the DNC machinery.

Also, I think the "conspiracy theorists" like @VivaRevolution re Assad's use of chemical weapons have a glaringly reasonable basis to be suspicious of the Western narrative on the issue, and I furthermore don't have any personal problems with Gabbard's meeting with Assad. It is infinitely less gross to me than the standard US foreign policy stance of finger waving at governments like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela while giving Eskimo kisses to Saudi Arabia, a country that is less free, less benevolent, and less justifiable in its actions than the other three combined. Beyond that, Gabbard (being a former servicewoman) has a history of being somewhat hawkish: I much prefer being potentially misguided or conspiracy-theoretical in the name of peace than being indignantly supportive of a mainstream narrative that encourages intervention and being intolerant of dissent, which is the position of most others in Congress.

Also, you're continually needlessly critical of Gabbard. She's no less intelligent or less ethical than the average Democratic Congressperson (and is considerably more intelligent/ethical than the average GOP congressperson). I don't know if its leftover sourness from the primary or what, but it's strange. Gabbard is unspectacular, but hardly incompetent.

As far as the right-wing support of her, there are at least three reasons: (1) she was against TPP, which was a position of the center-far left and has since gained traction on the nationalist right, due entirely to the rise of Trump and not really being rooted in any actual knowledge or principle, (2) she has recently been reluctant to fall in line on foreign policy aims, particularly ones that are lacking in proven justification, which also has momentum on the right, and (3) yes, she's undeniably a beautiful woman.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think it's more simple than you're presuming. Most people do not have your level of exposure to political goings on, and are most captivated by the horse race of presidential elections. During the 2016 DNC Primary, which was particularly meaningful and personal for persons in the Sanders camp, she was the first major politician who wasn't a core member of the Sanders camp to cross the establishment line and take a principled stance against the baldly obstructive and unproductive actions by the DNC up to that point and resign from the committee. However political or potential self-serving that move may have been, it took a lot of guts and endeared her to persons (left and right) who had grown to become appalled by the DNC machinery.

I think the DNC is like the Illuminati--a tiny and pretty inconsequential group that some people have ascribed massive power to as a way to fill some psychological need. But this could explain some of it (@Quipling made a similar point).

I much prefer being potentially misguided or conspiracy-theoretical in the name of peace than being indignantly supportive of a mainstream narrative that encourages intervention and being intolerant of dissent, which is the position of most others in Congress.

Hmm. Not sure about that. If your support for non-intervention hinges on false factual beliefs rather than a theoretical stance, isn't it very vulnerable? My recollection is that she supports war conditional upon her CT being false, and since her CT factually is false, it then becomes a simple matter of investigating the truth, which leads to the outcome that she says she doesn't want. That's not noninterventionism.

Also, you're continually needlessly critical of Gabbard. She's no less intelligent or less ethical than the average Democratic Congressperson (and is considerably more intelligent/ethical than the average GOP congressperson). I don't know if its leftover sourness from the primary or what, but it's strange. Gabbard is unspectacular, but hardly incompetent.

My thinking about her is relative to the attention she gets. I have no way to evaluate the actual average Democratic Congressfolk, but among people with her profile, I think she is conspicuously lacking in intelligence, education, and ethics.

As far as the right-wing support of her, there are at least three reasons: (1) she was against TPP, which was a position of the center-far left and has since gained traction on the nationalist right, due entirely to the rise of Trump and not really being rooted in any actual knowledge or principle, (2) she has recently been reluctant to fall in line on foreign policy aims, particularly ones that are lacking in proven justification, which also has momentum on the right, and (3) yes, she's undeniably a beautiful woman.

This is much less satisfying as an explanation than you and Quip's explanation for her popularity on the left.

 

[MicroBrew]

Because saying "The other person promised us more money," isn't as persuasive.

Maybe so, but then again her Syria views run counter to establishment Dems, so the Union could be signalling to its members and supporters (especially the Dem party apparatus) that they support the candidate who isn't an insurgent of sorts within the Dem party.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Maybe so, but then again her Syria views run counter to establishment Dems.

How so? You just mean denying intelligence?

 

[panamaican]

Maybe so, but then again her Syria views run counter to establishment Dems, so the Union could be signalling to its members and supporters (especially the Dem party apparatus) that they support the candidate who isn't an insurgent of sorts within the Dem party.

Doubt it. Why would the teacher's union need to offer a statement on geopolitical policies? Is this something they've expressed an interest in previously? I don't live in Hawaii so it's possible.