Jill Stien

Rank 44 of 47
|
Score -131
1/31/2024, 6:12:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
Norfolk Southern, the corporation responsible for the East Palestine disaster, just happens to be a huge campaign donor, spending $1.8 million lobbying Congress in 2022 and nearly $1 million in PAC donations to congressional candidates - giving more to Democrats than Republicans.
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
Nearly a year since this major domestic disaster, Biden has not signed a declaration of emergency that would release resources to the community of East Palestine, and isn’t even pressing Norfolk Southern to follow through with the long-term health monitoring they promised.
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
East Palestine residents were sickened right away and continue to suffer major health impacts, and say that the odor and taste of chemicals permeates everything.

Despite this, the EPA insists the drinking water is safe. Unbelievably, they refuse to continue indoor air testing.
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
The spill and “controlled burn” of highly toxic chemicals like vinyl chloride not only contaminated the air and water of East Palestine; 2 months later, toxic chemicals were found in West Virginia 150 miles down the Ohio River - the source of drinking water for 5 million people!
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
When railroad workers tried to strike for better working conditions and safety measures that could have prevented the East Palestine derailment, Biden and both parties voted overwhelmingly to prevent the workers from striking and force them to accept a contract they’d rejected.
Dr. Jill Stein🌻
@DrJillStein
·
743d
The East Palestine disaster was a corporate crime scene from day one.

Are Norfolk Southern and the government covering up the extent of the toxic environmental damage to minimize their accountability to the victims?

The statement is critical and political in nature, expressing discontent with the government's response to a domestic disaster and its foreign aid policies. It implies negligence and prioritization issues, and also makes a contentious claim regarding the nature of foreign conflict.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful or inflammatory, particularly the use of the word 'genocidal'. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not directly violate privacy or dignity, but the language used could be perceived as disrespectful.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a tone of understanding, empathy, and compassion, focusing instead on criticism. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    While the statement engages in criticism, it does not invite constructive dialogue or acknowledge the complexity of the issues. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement aims to highlight perceived injustices and could be seen as an attempt to use influence for societal betterment, but the approach may not be effective.
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but may not be using the platform with the integrity and responsibility expected, given the contentious language used. [-1]