Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement is a critique of the Democratic Party's decision not to bring a witness in a context related to USAID's spending. It implies that the spending is embarrassing and credits President Trump and others for exposing it. The statement is political in nature and engages with public issues, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not directly harm others with words, but it implies criticism of the Democrats without evidence, which could be seen as indirectly harmful. [-1]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 criticize a political group.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 is accusatory and lacks constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it makes an accusation without providing evidence or inviting discussion. [-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 uses influence to criticize a political group, but it does not clearly aim for the betterment of society. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but does not use the platform to responsibly engage in a constructive manner.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.