Marianne Williamson

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 63
11/8/2024, 8:40:24 AM
X
In reply to:
Natalie
@NatalieFl23
路
263d
@marwilliamson @CivOptimist @THC_ZAR We have the EU technocrats as our overlords in the EU. The Union is new. Abortion never became a political issue as sadly, was turned into in the USA for political reasons.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
路
263d
@CivOptimist @NatalieFl23 @THC_ZAR No, we are not more like Europe on the abortion issue (they're not states; they're countries). And most states in the U.S. are not liberal on this front.
American Caesar 馃嚭馃嚫馃尶 Constitutional Nationalist
@CivOptimist
路
263d
@NatalieFl23 @THC_ZAR @marwilliamson Tulsi, RFK, Rogan, and so many other liberals have moved over. We are actually the classical liberal party. As for the abortion issue, we're now more like Europe, with each state getting to choose. Most states are liberal on this front and this will be less divisive over time.
Natalie
@NatalieFl23
路
263d
@THC_ZAR @marwilliamson @CivOptimist Good point!
CZAR
@THC_ZAR
路
263d
@NatalieFl23 @marwilliamson @CivOptimist @marwilliamson you are more like us than you think, you were just trapped by your party
Natalie
@NatalieFl23
路
263d
@THC_ZAR @marwilliamson @CivOptimist The corrupt system you can't believe that went after you Marianne here in America is the beast we are all facing and voted to overhaul.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the political nature of abortion in the U.S. and its historical context with Roe v. Wade. It implies that Roe v. Wade previously prevented abortion from becoming a divisive political issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm others but touches on a sensitive topic that can be divisive.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It does not actively promote understanding or empathy, as it assumes a stance without elaboration.聽[-1]
  3. 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 personal attacks but lacks constructive dialogue or criticism.