Marianne Williamson

Rank 18 of 47

Score 97

@RogerGreeson @Politi_Quips It’s one thing for people I don’t agree with to win elections and have the right to govern. I didn’t vote for Reagan or for either Bush. But I never said they didn’t have a right to govern, I never thought they were unqualified, I never thought they were illegitimate. Even

4/2/2025, 6:22:02 PM

In reply to:

RogerGreeson 🌽🇺🇸

@RogerGreeson

@marwilliamson @Politi_Quips You champion democracy Marianne. But when the people choose a direction you don’t agree with then the people who are installed by the majority aren’t fit to govern. I see an inconsistency here.

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

@Politi_Quips Great response. And I agree!

PolitiQuips

@Politi_Quips

@marwilliamson Grok counter argument:

While Marianne Williamson’s post rightly points out that digital intelligence cannot replicate the physical and emotional depth of human interactions like hugging or making love, it overlooks the ways in which technology can enhance, support, and even

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

Digital intelligence cannot caress. It cannot hug a child. It cannot make love. It cannot laugh. It has no heart. 1/2

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the legitimacy and qualifications of elected officials, a topic relevant to democratic governance and public trust in political processes. The tone is reflective and seeks to clarify the speaker's stance on respecting election outcomes, even when disagreeing with the elected officials' policies.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm by acknowledging the right of elected officials to govern, even if the speaker disagrees with them, which promotes a respectful political dialogue. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the speaker's position on respecting election outcomes, fostering empathy for differing political views. [+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 engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a perceived inconsistency without resorting to personal attacks, focusing instead on the principles of democratic governance. [+1]