Marianne Williamson

Rank 8 of 47

Score 136

@DavidC89945646 Right back at you. What evidence do you have that they’re not? The police chief of Portland said repeatedly that the protests against the ice facility were just on one city block and local law-enforcement had it handled.

10/5/2025, 12:17:35 PM

In reply to:

David&C

@DavidC89945646

@marwilliamson They are not peaceful. Why do you keep lying?

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

That’s why heavy duty U.S. military is in Portland at the ICE facilities now, using tear gas and mace against peaceful protesters. The Trump administration is shredding our Constitution and waging war against the very freedoms they swore an oath to protect. 3/

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

Whereas the First Amendment gives us the right to peacefully protest, NSPM – 7 argues that any disagreement with their agenda creates the potential for violent extremism, therefore the government has the right to disrupt it. 2/

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

With NSPM-7, the Trump administration claims the right to replace the authors of the US Constitution in determining what freedom we will and will not be allowed. 1/

The statement engages in a public discourse about the nature of protests in Portland and the response by law enforcement, which are significant public issues. The tone is inquisitive and challenges the previous assertion by asking for evidence, suggesting a desire for clarification and truth.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and seeks clarification, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By asking for evidence, the statement promotes understanding and encourages a fact-based discussion, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]
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 questioning the evidence behind a claim, rather than attacking the person, aligning with the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]