Tulsi's Response and Tulsi's Budget Support
Tulsi put together a YouTube vid describing why she voted for HRes246. Although nominally an anti-BDS resolution, stating that the government does not support BDS, the text of the resolution does, indeed, support the rights of people to support BDS and does not allow the free speech of people in support of BDS to be legislated against (as the infamous bill S1 does). She states she supports a two-state solution, but personally believes BDS is not the way to achieve it.
I personally sent her a letter (via two different contact routes) asking her why she did this, as did quite a number of supports on social media (reddit, twitter, Faceslap, others), so it is good to see this response. As to whether you can accept it, that's up to each of us (I probably can--I'm under the impression it effectively knee-caps S1).
In another questionable move, Tulsi supported passage of the 2-year amendment to the budget (HR3877). Of major note, this budget confirms a defense bill of $740 billion for each year. This seems wholly at-odds with Tulsi's desire to wind down defense spending in favor of domestic spending.
It should be noted, though, that Tulsi successfully got two of her amendments into this budget deal. The first is the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, where the US could no longer directly fund or sell arms to ISIS or Al-Queda friendly groups, as we have been doing in Syria. The second is a bill is the No More Presidential Wars Act, which expressly forbids the president launching an attack against either Iran or Venezuela without congressional approval.
Finally, Tulsi voted against a bill (which passed the House anyways) that effectively provides unlimited financial support for Israel among other terrible things.
Concluding for myself--Tulsi's votes and reasonings are at least thoughtful if nothing else. I think this addresses most of my concerns. Yes, the budget thing is not great, but it was going to pass anyways--and Tulsi is not president yet--and she had an opportunity to get two of her big acts folded into it at the same time. When it comes to politics, that's kind of the way it has to be played by less-influential members of the congress much of the time, even though it sucks. They probably told her they would include her bills if she voted for it, otherwise they'd take them out kind of thing.
Interested in all your opinions. I'm going to continue to support her.