Marianne Williamson

Rank 17 of 47
|
Score 55
11/13/2024, 7:17:41 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt A. Myers ▲
@mattamyers
·
439d
@marwilliamson Better than straight-up communism-fascism though, no?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
439d
Let me make it simple for you. This is a complicated, lovely sounding way of saying that whatever Trump and his corporate sponsors want, Vivek and Elon will make sure they get.
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
·
439d
Here’s a key point about our mission at DOGE: eliminating bureaucratic regulations isn’t a mere policy preference. It’s a legal *mandate* from the U.S. Supreme Court:
- West Virginia v. EPA (2022) held that agencies cannot decide major questions of economic or political…

The statement engages in a political discussion, critiquing the characterization of political ideologies and suggesting an alternative perspective. It uses strong language to counter a previous assertion, indicating a contentious debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language but does not appear to cause direct harm. However, it could contribute to a polarized discourse.
  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, but the tone is dismissive and could be seen as disrespectful. [-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 constructive criticism or dialogue, as it dismisses the previous comment without providing a reasoned argument. [-1]