Jill Stien

Rank 29 of 47
|
Score 22

The statement is a politically charged critique of President Biden, accusing him of bypassing Congress to support actions that the author characterizes as genocidal. It also criticizes the influence of AIPAC money on Biden and condemns the 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' mentality, advocating for new leadership and promoting Jill Stein and the Green Party.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language and accusations that could be considered harmful, as it labels actions as genocidal without providing evidence. This could incite anger and division rather than constructive dialogue. [-2]
  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 engage in cyberbullying or hate speech directly, but it does make serious accusations that could be seen as disrespectful to the individuals involved. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it uses inflammatory language that could polarize readers. [-2]
  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.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It makes personal attacks and uses ad hominem arguments, particularly against President Biden and the 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' supporters. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to advocate for new leadership and the Green Party, which could be seen as an attempt to influence society. However, the approach is divisive and not necessarily for the betterment of society.
  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 does so in a manner that may not be responsible or uphold integrity, given the serious accusations and lack of constructive dialogue. [-1]