Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 76
8/31/2025, 6:29:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Jim
@jmacken2013
·
1d
@helencaddes @katewillett And if you believe that I've got a bridge I'd love to sell you.
Helen Caddes 🔥
@helencaddes
·
1d
@jmacken2013 @katewillett If you supported a ceasefire, arms embargo, Medicare for All, the Equality Act, the Green New Deal and money out of politics, she was your candidate.
Jim
@jmacken2013
·
1d
@helencaddes @katewillett Any time Marianne Williamson pops up in my feed I tell her to kick rocks.

She is bad, and she should feel bad. And anyone who supports her should also feel bad.
Helen Caddes 🔥
@helencaddes
·
1d
@jmacken2013 @katewillett Then why don't you "bully" one of them?
Jim
@jmacken2013
·
1d
@katewillett Bullying anti-science grifters is good actually.
Kate Willett
@katewillett
·
1d
On their website, Organizer Memes sells their services as a professional bully. I'm not against online dragging (obviously) but you can't be a LITERAL PROFESSIONAL BULLY and complain when someone posts your DNC payday receipts.

A paid bully!! Do it for the love of the game.

The statement and conversation involve a discussion about political issues and candidates, specifically referencing Marianne Williamson and her platform. The tone is contentious, with elements of sarcasm and criticism. The conversation touches on public discourse as it involves political opinions and the promotion of specific policies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation includes negative and dismissive language, which could be seen as harmful, particularly the suggestion that someone should 'feel bad.' [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    There is a lack of respect for privacy and dignity, as the conversation involves personal attacks and dismissive comments. [-2]
  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 dialogue lacks constructive criticism and instead includes personal attacks, reducing the potential for meaningful discussion. [-2]