Gary Marcus

Rank 37 of 47
|
Score -82
7/31/2024, 11:20:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Elliott is a Shannon Entrepreneur
@ElliottChMiller
·
93d
@GaryMarcus I interpreted his statement to mean that his performance would be so good that voting for that specific group would be unnecessary.

Is there any law he could realistically pass that could land him an actual authoritarian dictator? I don't really think so.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
93d
@ElliottChMiller Democracy is the whole ball game, and Trump has already once tried to steal an election and now threatened to end elections.

If you have fair elections, errors can be fixed. If you don’t, things tend to get bad, fast.
Elliott is a Shannon Entrepreneur
@ElliottChMiller
·
93d
@GaryMarcus So you in general agree with Biden's policies? I mean that is fair.

What would you say to convince someone that is 50/50 about what Harris/Trump propose to convince them to vote for Harris?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
93d
@ElliottChMiller Actually, congress writes the laws, she will merely sign some and veto others. but roughly speaking she seems in line with Biden who has for the most part done very well, and gotten the ship back on track.
Elliott is a Shannon Entrepreneur
@ElliottChMiller
·
93d
@GaryMarcus But what about the laws she may or may not pass? Which ones do you agree / disagree with?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
93d
I am not voting for Kamala
because she is partly of African descent
or because she is a woman

I am voting for her because she is decent human being
who cares about other people
and their human rights
and about democracy

and the other guy doesn’t.

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about political figures, their policies, and the implications of their actions on democracy. It engages with public issues and debates, particularly around the role of laws, the Supreme Court, and potential authoritarianism, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to intentionally cause harm, but the tone is somewhat sarcastic and could be interpreted as dismissive or accusatory, which might indirectly cause harm. [-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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the sarcastic tone could be seen as disrespectful.
  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 seems to mock the idea of needing laws if one has the Supreme Court's backing. [-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.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It leans towards a personal attack by implying that the individual in question would not need laws due to their influence over the Supreme Court. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principle of free speech but does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, given its sarcastic and potentially inflammatory tone. [-1]