Melagros:

You can see why I said that sometimes we are the cause of our problem, are the two stories not synonymous?

Some commentators didn't digest the thread the way you do, they were just posting out of context

Don't mind them. They are looking at the reaction not minding the action that caused the reaction. 20 years and you still betrayed him! Why?

maasoap:


I don't think he's coming back anyway knowing fully well the kind of people he had been with and helped for over 20 years. I only hope that the one they sold their votes to really remembers them and their needs because they have made their choice

You're making it seems everyone there voted for his opponent.
We don't have the details of the results, but I don't think he should expect every living soul that's qualified to vote to cast the ballot in his favor because he built boreholes?

maasoap:


I don't think he's coming back anyway knowing fully well the kind of people he had been with and helped for over 20 years. I only hope that the one they sold their votes to really remembers them and their needs because they have made their choice

It's very disturbing that you're all too willing to completely neglect the human cost of political vendetta here just to make a flat point about "not selling your votes". I don't know if you're aware, but just in case, I'll clue you in anyway: In a proper democracy, the voting public do NOT deserve to be treated like pawns in a game of political patronage.

Are you seriously making the argument that water, a basic human right, is now a luxury for those who dared to exercise their democratic franchise? Seriously? So what about those who actually cast their votes for this entitled piece of shit politician? You think they too are complicit in their own disenfranchisement? You think they don't deserve good things because this guy lost? It's odd that you can easily condone this egregious display of political narcissism.

That man is NOT the sole arbiter of progress, and by that logic, his constituents can not merely just be seen as beneficiaries of his so-called magnanimity. He is just another example of the paternalistic tendencies that plague African politics, where the leaders foolishly believe that their personal interests are synonymous with the public good.

Africa definitely has a long way to go.

JessicaRabbit:


It's very disturbing that you're all too willing to completely neglect the human cost of political vendetta here just to make a flat point about "not selling your votes". I don't know if you're aware, but just in case, I'll clue you in anyway: In a proper democracy, the voting public do NOT deserve to be treated like pawns in a game of political patronage.

Are you seriously making the argument that water, a basic human right, is now a luxury for those who dared to exercise their democratic franchise? Seriously? So what about those who actually cast their votes for this entitled piece of shit politician? You think they too are complicit in their own disenfranchisement? You think they don't deserve good things because this guy lost? It's odd that you can easily condone this egregious display of political narcissism.

Water from who? From their government or the one they trusted enough to give their majority votes to or from the private individual gentleman they rejected at the ballot after 20 years of him identifying with them? They let him down, he owes them nothing. Now, they have the government and their own representative. Let's stop this emotional blackmail, every choice and decision has consequences.

That man is NOT the sole arbiter of progress, and by that logic, his constituents can not merely just be seen as beneficiaries of his so-called magnanimity. He is just another example of the paternalistic tendencies that plague African politics, where the leaders foolishly believe that their personal interests are synonymous with the public good.

Africa definitely has a long way to go.

Too much English my friend, no emotional blackmail.
They made it clear that they didn't owe him and he equally made it clear that he doesn't owe them.

DeOTR:

You're making it seems everyone there voted for his opponent.

The basic message is that majority of the voters rejected him. There's no argument about that, simple as ABC.

We don't have the details of the results, but I don't think he should expect every living soul that's qualified to vote to cast the ballot in his favor because he built boreholes?

And this is what we're trying to tell you guys, it is all about individuals right to do what they like. He can't force them to vote for him if they don't trust him enough to represent their interests even after helping them for 20 years and they too can't stop him from taking what he gave them if he thinks that they don't deserve it. Neither party should cry, they're all making their choices within the ambit of law

maasoap:


Water from who? From their government or the one they trusted enough to give their majority votes to or from the private individual gentleman they rejected at the ballot after 20 years of him identifying with them?

Don't be ridiculous. Basic human rights aren't conditional rewards for political loyalty. Access to water is a fundamental necessity, not a partisan favor. Your mental gymnastics are unimpressive, and more importantly, they do not help your case here in the slightest. And please miss me with that "private individual gentleman" nonsense. It's funny watching you desperately trying to humanize a politician who's clearly more interested in consolidating power than serving the people.

I have an idea for you to consider. Why don't elected officials prioritize the well-being of all citizens, regardless of their voting choices? After all, that's what public service is supposed to be about serving the public, and not just your political cronies.

They let him down, he owes them nothing. Now, they have the government and their own representative. Let's stop this emotional blackmail, every choice and decision has consequences.

If a politician's only obligation is to those who voted for them, then we're not living in a democracy my friend, we're living in a feudal system with better marketing. I think the real problem here is that you think democracy is a zero-sum game. Newsflash, kiddo, it isn't.

Too much English my friend, no emotional blackmail.

Hey, you're absolutely right! I'll be sure to use more monosyllabic words in the future, like "duh" and "um". Perhaps that will make my utterances more intelligible to your limited vocabulary. 🙄

They made it clear that they didn't owe him and he equally made it clear that he doesn't owe them.

It's funny watching your logic in action - it's like a messy combination of circular reasoning and callousness. Expecting basic human rights to be respected is a fundamental entitlement for all individuals. Human rights, such as freedom from discrimination, torture, and arbitrary detention, are universal and inalienable. Demanding their protection and respect is essential for a just and equitable society, and should not be subject to political manipulation or coercion. So no, it's not emotional blackmail to expect basic human rights to be respected, regardless of political affiliation. But hey, I guess in your world, clean water is just a participation trophy.

JessicaRabbit:


Don't be ridiculous. Basic human rights aren't conditional rewards for political loyalty. Access to water is a fundamental necessity, not a partisan favor.

They don't owe him even after 20 years of being their helper and he has equally told them that he doesn't owe them too. What's so difficult for you to understand? If he's not good enough for them, may be they too don't deserve his generosity.

Your mental gymnastics are unimpressive, and more importantly, they do not help your case here in the slightest.

Life is all about give and take dear friend. At least, he's not their government or representative now

It's funny watching your logic in action - it's like a messy combination of circular reasoning and callousness. Expecting basic human rights to be respected is a fundamental entitlement for all individuals. Human rights, such as freedom from discrimination, torture, and arbitrary detention, are universal and inalienable. Demanding their protection and respect is essential for a just and equitable society, and should not be subject to political manipulation or coercion. So no, it's not emotional blackmail to expect basic human rights to be respected, regardless of political affiliation. But hey, I guess in your world, clean water is just a participation trophy.

You type too much bullshitt my friend. What crime has the gentleman committed here? How coukd I be with you for 20 years. And not only that, showing you that I cared through my resources and you still didn't trust me enough to represent your interests? Then, what exactly am I doing in your midst?

maasoap:

They don't owe him even after 20 years of being their helper and he has equally told them that he doesn't owe them too. What's so difficult for you to understand? If he's not good enough for them, may be they too don't deserve his generosity.


Life is all about give and take dear friend. At least, he's not their government or representative now

This is very funny. Do you even understand the concept of public service? My dear, elected officials are not charity givers who bestow favors upon the deserving. They're only representatives, entrusted with the duty to serve all constituents, regardless of political affiliation or perceived loyalty. Being "good enough" or deserving of their "generosity" is not the point here. The point here is fulfilling your sworn obligations to the public as a representative. Once again, you need to learn the difference between democracy and feudalism, then figure it out by yourself, which of the two systems this case is more applicable to.

Your sanctimonious drivel about people deserving of favors from politicians is dead on arrival in any functioning democracy. In a true democracy, public servants prioritize the well-being of all citizens, not just their sycophants. Anything less is a dereliction of duty. Got that, amigo?

maasoap:


You type too much bullshitt my friend. What crime has the gentleman committed here? How coukd I be with you for 20 years. And not only that, showing you that I cared through my resources and you still didn't trust me enough to represent your interests? Then, what exactly am I doing in your midst?

Sorry chump, but this isn't about your feelings or your perceived slights. So cool it with the tantrums and pay close attention. We're talking about basic human rights, which for some odd reason, you seem to think are optional, when they're absolutely not. They're not even up for debate in the first place.

And as for your question about what crime he committed, how about reckless endangerment? Vandalism? Abuse of power? But hey, I'm sure you think those are just mere foibles, huh? I'm sure his 100 million years of "caring" through "resources" (read: trying to buy loyalty) has totally earned him a pass on accountability, right? Wrong!

As a public servant, if you want to represent people's interests, maybe you should try prioritizing their needs over your own ego. That way, we don't get grown men crying about hurt feelings when things don't go their way.

JessicaRabbit:


This is very funny. Do you even understand the concept of public service?

Public service? He wasn't doing that for them as a public servant.
Who is crying now? Who is suffering? Case closed. Everyone should lick their wound. He wasn't a public servant when helping them. He needed their help after 20 years of helping them and they just realised that he wasn't good enough for them, that's okay. What are we discussing again here exactly?

maasoap:

Public service? He wasn't doing that for them as a public servant.
Who is crying now? Who is suffering? Case closed. Everyone should lick their wound. He wasn't a public servant when helping them. He needed their help after 20 years of helping them and they just realised that he wasn't good enough for them, that's okay. What are we discussing again here exactly?

I'll try to make this as simple enough for you to understand: whether he was elected or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that he was never sincere with his intentions. He chose to destroy the very resources that were meant to benefit the people all because he's a sore loser. Read that again very carefully. His actions scream "self-serving" louder than a playground tantrum, so spare us the semantics. The issue at hand is not about his title or position, but about his actions.

JessicaRabbit:


I'll try to make this as simple enough for you to understand: whether he was elected or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that he was never sincere with his intentions. He chose to destroy the very resources that were meant to benefit the people all because he's a sore loser. Read that again very carefully. His actions scream "self-serving" louder than a playground tantrum, so spare us the semantics. The issue at hand is not about his title or position, but about his actions.

So what? Their newly elected representative or government or you can now step in and we all will have our peace. Are we done or we still crying after individual of us have exercised their right within the law?

maasoap:


So what? Their newly elected representative or government or you can now step in and we all will have our peace. Are we done or we still crying after individual of us have exercised their right within the law?

It's fine. At least now we both know how clueless you are in this discussion. As for the newly elected representative you mentioned? They now have a massive cleanup job ahead, thanks to the mess left behind by that manchild, so maybe we're not done afterall.