Marianne Williamson

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 67
11/18/2024, 6:36:51 PM
X
In reply to:
A Crypto Fool
@a_cryptofool
·
422d
@marwilliamson @alexanichadhain I’ll say this, if Trump does create a department of peace, and you are his pick to lead this department, I would be heartbroken if you didn’t accept.

You’d probably lose your job very quickly when you remain critical of Trump, but I’d still like you to give it a shot!
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
422d
@alexanichadhain Neither.
alexanichadhain
@alexanichadhain
·
422d
@marwilliamson I keep asking this but maybe you are not seeing my comment. If Team Trump invited you to create a Dept of Peace now would you do it? Or would you wait 4 years to see if the Democrats will allow you to primary?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
422d
History is being written as we speak. One of the narratives being promulgated is that the 2024 disaster for Democrats was due to Joe Biden not getting out of the race in January. That is disingenuous. More significant is the fact that none of the status quo Democratic…

The statement critiques a political figure's policies regarding peace, suggesting they lack fundamental elements of peace creation. It engages in public discourse by addressing the policies of a public figure and their implications for peace, a significant societal issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language but critiques policies, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by discussing the perceived shortcomings of policies related to peace, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 engages in constructive criticism of policies without resorting to personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]