Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -108
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
142d
You're allowing foreign fentanyl dealers to murder mentally ill people on the sidewalks of downtown San Francisco.

YOU ALLOWED YOURSELF TO BECOME NUMB TO THIS
9/7/2025, 3:43:27 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
141d
" We all need to self medicate periodically." — @GavinNewsom

Gavin Newsom is currently refusing to implement the law we passed 68-32 last November to crack down on open air fentanyl drug dealing.

Nothing will change in California without a new governor.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
141d
In Singapore, the government executes drug dealers. In California, Gavin Newsom gives sanctuary to the drug dealers who execute drug addicts. When asked why, @GavinNewsom said, "We all need to self-medicate periodically."
Kevin Dalton
@TheKevinDalton
·
142d
The 37 BILLION taxpayer dollars are far from the only cost of Gavin Newsom's failure on homelessness as governor of California.

The statement criticizes Gavin Newsom for his handling of drug-related issues in California, particularly fentanyl dealing. It uses strong language, suggesting he is indifferent to the consequences, which could be seen as an emotional appeal to highlight perceived inaction.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses emotionally charged language that could be seen as harmful, reducing its alignment with the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement could be interpreted as disrespectful, potentially violating the principle of respecting the dignity of others. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on blame rather than constructive 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 lacks constructive criticism and engages in personal attacks, violating this principle. [-2]