Marianne Williamson

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 45
8/30/2025, 10:19:44 PM
X
In reply to:
John McCarthy
@JohnMcC61971366
·
82d
@marwilliamson The 2 or you had such great chemistry in the past. I think both of you, and all of us, would greatly benefit if you did an open, honest, one on one discussion with each other as a podcast or something like that.
John McCarthy
@JohnMcC61971366
·
82d
@marwilliamson I agree with you about immigration, Marianne, but you should absolutely be defending Tulsi against the CIA. I'm still proud of my vote for her. I'm starting to regret my vote for you.

https://www.zerohedge.com/politi…
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
83d
No. This is beneath you, Tulsi. I’ll tell you what makes God weep: immigrants drowning in the Rio Grande, being ripped from their loved ones or sent to concentration camps; hungry people being unfed; medicine withheld from the sick; children being starved. God is not mocked.
Tulsi Gabbard 🌺
@TulsiGabbard
·
84d
God is love. The very essence of God is love. Therefore, during times of hardship, sadness, pain and suffering, we naturally and spontaneously take refuge in Him — in love itself — because we know in the core of our hearts that it is only the power and light of God’s love that

The statement is part of a broader conversation involving public figures and public issues, such as immigration and political discourse, thus constituting public discourse. The tone of the statement is defensive, aiming to clarify the intent behind a previous disagreement. The intent is to assert that the disagreement was not demeaning but rather a difference of opinion.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by clarifying that the disagreement was not meant to demean, which aligns with the principle. [+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 respects the dignity of the person it addresses by clarifying that the disagreement was not demeaning, thus avoiding harassment or hate speech. [+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 dialogue by clarifying the nature of the disagreement, avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]