Marianne Williamson

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 57
12/8/2024, 10:03:00 PM
X
In reply to:
Ro Khanna
@RoKhanna
·
211d
@marwilliamson @DOGE I have voted for defense cuts as the lone vote on the House armed services committee (often 67-1) for years. We will need the executive branch's assistance in reigning in defense contractors. I will oppose strongly any cuts to CFPB, social security or medicare.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
211d
@RoKhanna @DOGE Two things are going on here. Should we cut defense spending? Of *course* we should and you have called for it before. But *you* are the elected Congressman, not Musk or Ramaswamy. *Your* institution holds the power of the purse, not DOGE. Saying you will “work with them” because…
Ro Khanna
@RoKhanna
·
211d
@marwilliamson @DOGE You have always been for cuts in the bloated defense budget and a courageous voice for that. Shouldn't we work on that with them?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
211d
@RoKhanna @DOGE My Lord
Ro Khanna
@RoKhanna
·
212d
X isn't always real life. But 23 million plus views is the most any post of mine has had in 9 years in Congress. Millions of Americans want us to work with @DOGE to cut wasteful spending. I am for spending money to improve peoples' lives, not wasting money. It's common sense.
Ro Khanna
@RoKhanna
·
213d
I'm ready to work with @doge, @elonmusk + @VivekGRamaswamy to slash waste. I have a track record of doing so. I led the charge to get TransDigm to refund $16 million after investigative reporting exposed price-gouging. Let's look to the Truman Committee and ensure Americans get…

The statement 'Respectfully, you’re playing checkers and they’re playing chess' is a metaphorical critique suggesting that Ro Khanna's approach is simplistic compared to others involved in the discussion. It engages with the public discourse on defense spending and government accountability, as it is part of a broader conversation about fiscal policy and political strategy.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses a metaphor to critique strategy, which is a common rhetorical device in public discourse.
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on critiquing strategy rather than fostering dialogue. [-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 a form of critique but does not resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, maintaining a level of respectfulness. [+1]