In reply to:
Renee Jones
@RenDelSte
·
1d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
1d
The statement engages in a discussion about the balance of power in the U.S. government, specifically addressing the role and powers of the president and the Supreme Court. It challenges the notion of presidential immunity and compares it to monarchical power, contributing to a broader debate on governance and constitutional interpretation.
- The statement does not directly harm others but uses strong language to make a point about governance.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does use a strong metaphor that could be seen as provocative.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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it uses a confrontational tone. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in dialogue but uses a strong metaphor that could be seen as a personal attack, reducing the constructiveness of the criticism. [-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 exercises free speech and engages in a public debate about governance, but the tone could be more responsible and constructive.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.