Jill Stien

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -97

The statement is a critical commentary on U.S. foreign policy and its support for Israel, touching on issues of international conflict, political dynamics, and domestic politics. It uses strong language to express opposition to perceived actions by Israel and the U.S. government, urging a change in voting behavior.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong and potentially inflammatory language, which could be seen as harmful or polarizing, thus not fully adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
  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 direct harassment or hate speech, but the language used could be interpreted as lacking respect for the dignity of those involved. [-1]
  3. 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 criticism without offering constructive solutions or dialogue. [-1]
  4. 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 uses accusatory language and does not invite discussion or understanding from opposing viewpoints. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement attempts to use influence for societal change by urging voters to reconsider their political choices, aligning with the principle of using influence for betterment. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech and uses the platform to express a political opinion, but the responsibility and integrity of the language could be questioned due to its accusatory tone.