Marianne Williamson

Rank 9 of 47
|
Score 127
9/13/2025, 3:10:36 PM
X
In reply to:
OcalaGuy
@GuyOcala
·
5d
@ColinN69630 @StephenM Sorry, but the Left killed our moderate leader who encouraged dialogue. These people do not seek unity, so why should we delude ourselves? They want us and our beliefs dead.
Colin
@ColinN69630
·
5d
@StephenM I was a lifelong Republican and am still pro-life, and I admit that the left scares me; however, you frighten me more with your revolutionary language. I am worried that this administration is not conservative like Ronald Reagon, but intent on conflict. President Trump is not
Stephen Miller
@StephenM
·
5d
In recent days we have learned just how many Americans in positions of authority—child services, law clerks, hospital nurses, teachers, gov’t workers, even DOD employees—have been deeply and violently radicalized. The consequence of a vast, organized ecosystem of indoctrination.

The statement 'The left did not kill your leader' is part of a broader conversation about political polarization and perceived threats from opposing political ideologies. It addresses a claim made by another participant in the conversation, suggesting that the blame placed on 'the left' is unfounded.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but is part of a heated exchange that could contribute to a divisive atmosphere.
  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 cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it is part of a conversation that includes accusatory language.
  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 is a rebuttal rather than an attempt to bridge differences. [-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 engages in dialogue by refuting a claim, but it does not offer constructive criticism or seek to understand the opposing viewpoint. [-1]