Twitter CEO praises U.S. candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s 'anti-war stance'

Jack Dorsey has been in the headlines recently for his political donations; for the last three days, it has been unclear if he would respond to reports that he “maxed out” donations to Gabbard.

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
Twitter CEO praises US candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s “anti-war stance” (photo credit: TWITTER)
Twitter CEO praises US candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s “anti-war stance”
(photo credit: TWITTER)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, in response to a Vanity Fair tweet which said that he gave Democratic Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard $5,600, wrote that he appreciates her “anti-war stance.”
Dorsey has been in the headlines recently for his political donations; over the last three days it was unclear if he would respond to reports that he “maxed out” donations to Gabbard. His tweets on July 18 confirmed his stance. He noted that not only did he appreciate Gabbard’s anti-war views, but that he believes that her voice and those of others are important to be heard in the presidential debates. “Along with systematically addressing climate change and economic injustice, these are the key issues of global consequence I want to see considered and discussed.”
But Dorsey has been criticized for his support for Gabbard because she has said that she has no regrets about meeting Syrian regime leader Bashar Assad. She has been vocal in her view that Assad is not an enemy of the US and that American policy on Syria is wrongheaded. “Tulsi Gabbard is pro-Putin, pro-Netanyahu, pro-Sisi, pro-Assad and pro-Modi,” tweeted writer Joey Ayoub. Journalist Ruslan Trad was also confused about the theory that Gabbard is anti-war. “Tulsi is pro-Assad and whitewashes the regime’s crimes against civilians.”
Wading into politics early in the US Democratic primary process may be bringing more spotlight on Twitter than the social media giant wants in regards to American politics. In the last election, Facebook was accused of not doing enough to prevent meddling and influence in the US election. Today, social media companies – because of their power and because many people access media through them – are under increased scrutiny about the role they play in democracies.