Reposted by Dr. Jill Stein🌻
The statement questions the motivations behind Kamala Harris's stance on military strength by highlighting her campaign contributions from the defense industry and the background of the current Defense Secretary. The tone is critical and suggests a conflict of interest, aiming to provoke skepticism about political motivations and transparency.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies potential ethical concerns, which could be seen as a form of constructive criticism. It scores +1 for raising a legitimate concern. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy but questions the integrity of public figures, which is a common aspect of political discourse. It scores +1 for maintaining a focus on public figures rather than private individuals. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by providing information about campaign contributions and potential conflicts of interest. It scores +1 for encouraging critical thinking about political motivations. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by questioning the motivations of public figures without resorting to personal attacks. It scores +1 for maintaining a focus on policy and actions rather than personal attributes. [+1]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 uses its platform to highlight potential issues in political funding and decision-making, aiming to inform the public. It scores +1 for using influence to raise awareness about a public issue. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.