₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
I see that you not only label yourself, you also like labeling others.

You question is strawmanning! Show me where I claimed "everything is subjective" before you "if" me!

Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Now back to my question, what is it about what I said that you think is objectively wrong?


#Xavier

budaatum:
Everything is not subjective! The post you are currently reading which contains my subjective thought is very objectively in front of your subjective face!


I see you've put "everything is subjective" in quotation marks. Is that to imply I said somewhere that "everything is subjective"?

Show where if so, as I can't find it. And please note that if I never said so, its the second and a half time you've claimed I said what I never said.

So everything is no longer subjective, but there are things that are objective? Good. Now we are getting some where.

So, now back to my question, what is it I said that you think is objectively false?


#Xavier

budaatum:
No, your religion is not my problem. And in fact, nothing about your post is a problem for me.

Your use of words like subjective and objective was of bigger interest than your religion, along with a lot else. But now you've gone and added assumptions to your subjectivity, i actually have no more interest unless in a thread of its own.

You've not answered any of my questions, I see you're trying to avoid them. Always typical of relativist. Contradict themselves, and avoid the questions.

Now, if everything is subjective, why is my statement an interest to you... except you believe that;

* I am objectively wrong... hence your cringe 😏🙄
* That the statement, "every thing is subjective" is objectively true... hence your cringe 😏

Bro, you're just contradicting yourself. You can not believe everything is subjective, and then believe I am objectively wrong.

But, let me ask another question, I hope you will answer it. What is it about what I said you think is "objectively" wrong? 🤨


#Xavier

budaatum:
The fact it's a claim made by a subject makes it a subjective claim based on the objective evidence before me that you subjectively provided.

How objective subject you see my claim is entirely up to subjective you.

What is objective evidence if everything is subjective? 😏

And isn't the statement that "everything is subjective" subjective also? So what's the truth in that?


#Xavier

budaatum:
Do note that you are asking me for "reasons for yourABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY", which I never said I have except for this one particular instance.

An objective person would know the subjectivity of this thread makes it impossible to objectively discuss either here. Baby tomato, ketchup.

A religious person can not stay secular, or at least you certainly haven't! By your own admission and as is clearly obvious in your post, you reverted after diverting, and if this is what you did with your liberalism, I can see why Ijebos went off on one with you, and I'm very tempted too.

Is this an objective claim or a subjective one? 🤔

Secondly, so your problem with all I said is because I briefly brought in religion to give further details within that context, even though I made sure I stayed secular before and after that 🤨... wow!!! Never knew such minute religious input would trigger an Atheist 😏



#Xavier

budaatum:
My Lord I hope you form a thread with Xavier5's response so it can properly be considered. Preferably in the religious section where it rightly belongs!

His "universal objectivity" is making me cringe.

The topic of objectivity is a discussion for another day, but when we get to that, I just hope you have good reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY whose opposing view makes you "cringe" 😏.

And for the record, I'm not pro absolute objectivity, because in life we have both objective and subjective morality and truth. But when the time comes for such discuss, we will have it.

Secondly, religion indeed... despite Xavier staying secular. Religion was briefly brought in to give further details, but the explanation reverted back to secular, and stays that way.


#Xavier

LordReed:
OK. Go ahead, tell me your reasons for holding your position on abortion.

It's going to be a lengthy, sophisticated discussion. So brace yourself 😎. To answer your question, I have to start from the very beginning.

Liberalism as an ideology is fundamentally based on the value of human value, which is the belief that all human life has value irrespective of their race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, and as such should be respected, cared for, loved and protected.

This value is what other liberal values such as liberty, human rights, equality etc are built on. The value of human value is the very foundation of liberalism, without which other liberal values are useless, due to the absence of a rational root or effective foundation.

How do we know about this fundamental value? Simple, there's a universal intrinsic knowing in humans of the value of human life simply because it's a human.

Now, why such knowing? What is it based on? Secularly, we can't give provide an answer, but if we involve religion, we get to know the concept in which such intrinsic knowing is based on, which is, human life is valuable because it's the image of God.

But keeping religion aside, the universal intrinsic knowing is the testament of the value of a human life, even though, secularly we may not be able to to explain what it is based on, but nevertheless, we know and perceive it. Yes, sometimes, we deny or suppress such knowing, but reality is reality, whether we choose to deny it or not.

One of the principle of universality is; a universal intrinsic belief or knowing is a testament of the natural establishment of that concept, that is, the concept is beyond humans, wasn't created by humans, but was created for humans. It existed independent of humans, created by a system, irrespective of who or what is it is, that is beyond and above humans, but for humans. Examples of such universal concepts are;

* Universal or objective morality
* Universal desire for love
* Universal knowing of the value of human life
* Universal desire for knowledge and purpose
* Universal intrinsic God desire and awareness
* Universal desire for survival and personal evolution

And a few others.

So here is what it all boils down to, if a human life has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, but because it is a human life, and if a fetus is a human life, then abortion is a crime against a human life, in other words, murder... except of course in the CRITICAL CASES.

So the question is, is a fetus a human life? What makes an entity or organism a human? Does a fetus meets this requirement for a human life? And what are the critical cases I mentioned? I want you to ask these questions... for the purpose of continuity. I want this to be a discussion, so I won't be saying everything at a blow, but rather based on your questions.

Let's get this clear, abortion is a complex system that involves;

* Human life
* Menance of unwanted pregnancy
* Bodily liberty
* Health
* Financial issues
* Emotional and mental issues

I'm very well ready to talk about them one after the other... if you ask the questions.



#Xavier

LordReed:
Let's discuss. Create a new thread and mention me.

I don't usually do threads because I'm not that active on Nairaland, but if you're interested, we can do it here 😎


#Xavier

IjeBos:
I called you out a while ago on it.
It's obvious. I initially just thought you were confused.

But, it's deceptive, no?
It's like these white people on twitter pretending to be black. What the difference?

Okay your Lordship 🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇



#Xavier

IjeBos:
So it is the latter? As I thought.
You are obviously aware you are not a liberal but it serves your purposes to pretend you are to engage other liberals on abortion and other matters.
It would be a good technique if it weren't so obvious.
Question, where did you learn this? Was it self taught or was it in some church you belong?
And don't you think it's deceptive?

Okay sir 😂😂😂😂😂



#Xavier

IjeBos:
Lay a trap? The discussion here is whether you are liberal, not your views on Abortion.
Listen you're not liberal.
And it sounds either
1.) You are not sure of your political ideology and somewhat confused, as you seem to be all over the map with your logic. You're pro-liberty except when it comes to bodily autonomy or the liberty a person has with their own body? What does that even mean?
2.) You're trying to troll, pretending to be a liberal while pushing conservative ideas so make yourself and those ideas some more reasonable. Sort of the same thing JD Vance did in that debate.

Either way, as I said, you're not a liberal. If you aren't trolling, you should evaluate why you feel the necessity to take the "liberal" moniker. It's not by force.

He can't explain how, base on liberal values, Xavier is not a liberal, but rather choose to believe such simply because it makes him feel good

Also, he's not interested in the topic of abortion, and which liberal value made Xavier pro-life, but rather, is more interested in branding Xavier "not a liberal". This is funny as hell 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well, if that makes you be at peace, then good. You have my blessings 😊😊😊😊😊


To my fellow liberals that might be curious on why I chose such stand on the issue of abortion. I'm open to discussion. Liberal to liberal, let's engage, as we appeal to our liberal values on the issue 😎

And one more thing to all who care to know, I personally think pro-life and pro-choice are not conservative and liberal ideologies, I feel we are just the one making them so for political reasons. In my interactions with people, I've come across pro-choice conservatives and pro-life liberals, the latter I happen to be a part of... proudly 😎

But as I earlier said, if any liberal here wants to engage me on the topic, I'm open to that discussion, after all, reasoning is a liberal value 🙃🙃🙃




#Xavier

IjeBos:
So you are anti choice and call yourself a liberal?
Dude, you've confused yourself finish.

As usual, he didn't ask which liberal value made me pro-life, but rather jumped to branding. You are so easy to lay trap for 😂😂😂

As for your question, I'm not anti-choice, but rather I'm hugely pro human rights and value, a fundamental liberal value.

I'm heavily pro-liberty, but when such liberty stands in the way of a human life to live, I oppose. I will always be in support of women's rights over their body, as far as an innocent, powerless, and voiceless life is not been threatened.

This is the reason why I made it clear that, we should create systems that ensured women shouldn't be mothers if they don't want to, and that deals with the menance of unwanted pregnancies, while also ensuring that the life of the babies are preserved. Liberal values of human rights and value, equality, truth, altruism, morality, reasoning and open mindedness demands such.

Human rights that do not involve unborn babies is not human rights.

PS: I'm pro-life, except in critical cases.

We can have that discussion, or you can choose to brand. Your choice.



#Xavier

IjeBos:
I explained it to you. Reread the post. You keep pushing people like Vance, Vivek and Desantis. You can't be liberal pushing people who are illiberal. Maybe it's because you don't know their policies.

One, I never pushed Vance. Here you are making things up. I made it clear, I would pick Walz over Vance.

Two, as for Vivek, I gave you my reasons for supporting him backed up with the liberal values that made me to.

So, based on liberal values, how's Xavier not a liberal?
Wait a minute, I think I know the answer to that, he does not subscribe, thanks to liberal values of reasoning and open mindedness, to the radical liberalism of 2024 where he has to ass lick the left and DEMS, and propagate those narratives of the powers that be of the left that are insane 🤔😎😂



#Xavier

To the "Xavier isn't a liberal" crew, food don done.

But before anyone start screaming "Xavier isn't a liberal", a wise person will first ask me why I'm pro-life, and which liberal value make me so.

As I said, Abortion shouldn't be a political issue, but rather a moral and altruistic issue.

PS: That's a comment on a Student for Life YouTube video on abortion.


#Xavier

IjeBos:
Look it, here's a tell. If you have MAGA mainly agreeing with you, you aren't liberal or may want to check your views to see if they are reflecting what you want them to.
Just a tell.

Or maybe that's just a person agreeing with common sense.

And by the way, base on the liberal values, you've not explain how Xavier isn't a liberal... 😶


#Xavier

raumdeuter:
I guess this is why you cannot qualify to be a liberal

😂😂😂

IjeBos:
They've done studies on this name thing. In one study called "How gender determines the way we speak about professionals" they did a blind sub study where they found people(men and women) were 4x more likely to call woman by their first names. Google and read that study (The sub study is Study 4) and tell me how you fault with the study. And if you can't find fault with it, then tell me why you are arguing that it isn't a thing?

Again, you probably call woman by their first names which they are generally called, because what they are generally called is rooted in sexism and a power imbalance. You may not be sexist, but wouldn't you be unconsciously perpetuated that? And that is what an implicit bias is. Again, you didn't answer why Biden and Trump are called by their last name(Biden even when he went on a Bus tour with his firs name) and Harris isn't.

Not everything is about race and gender, but lots of things are. Not everyone has to be sexist or racist for it do exist and do real damage.

I call Nancy Pelosy (who am a huge fan of by the way), Pelosy or Nancy Pelosy.

I call Bernie Sanders, Bernie or Bernie Sanders.

So what's the implicit bias? Funny enough, this people, especially the females, are okay with being called by their first names. So are they sexist also? Note, we are taking about enlightened, successful and powerful women here.


#Xavier

raumdeuter:
That is how victimhood works, everything is about bias to them

Bernie Sanders is called Bernie, Nancy Pelosi is called Pelosi. Both are politicians in the same country. Beto ORourke is called Beto, Elise Stefanik is called Stefanik in the same country

Abi?

As a huge fan of Nancy Pelosy, I've never called her Nancy. It has always been Pelosy or Nancy Pelosy. Why? Because that's what she's often called by.

Same with Bernie Sanders (personally, I wished he was the DEMS presidential candidate instead of Biden). I've never called that man Sanders, but rather mostly Bernie Sanders, and minorly, Bernie. Why? Because that's what he's often called by.

As for AOC, I call her AOC or Alexandria Cortez. That's just it.

One of the idea that I do oppose is the idea that everything is rooted in sexism and racism.



#Xavier

IjeBos:
I'm not trying to insult you. You're sound like a smart person.
My beef is with saying you're a liberal.

So, example, this quote. This is what liberals believe.

So if that's what liberalism is, how does Xavier not fit into it?

But if you do believe it, how can you vote for someone who doesn't? The goal of liberalism is to further those believes. By voting for people opposed to those ideas, how do you further say something like equality? Do you think Vivek or Desantis believes similar?
If you aren't trying to further equality do you really believe in it?
And if you do really believe those things, how can your resonate with people like Desantis and Vivek who preach hate, non inclusion, non equality, etc. etc. You get?
It's one thing to say you are liberal, but liberalism is in your actions and deeds. Desantis literally believes in book bannings. Is that liberal? And so by voting for him, you would be forwarding a policy of book bannings. Is that liberal?

[quote]You never said you would vote for Trump. But Desantis was trying to out Trump Trump's policies to win the Republican nomination. Unless you couldn't vote for Trump because of his behavior, Desantis had the same or even more conservative policies.

So if I never said I would vote for Trump, then why did you say I said I would vote for Trump?

And talking about DeSantes, can you also show me where I said I would vote for him?

I only said I like DeSantes because, hate him or love him, he's a good, not perfect, but good governor, same as Tim Walz. I've never said I would vote for Ron DeSantes. The only GOP candidate, I've always been screaming my support for is, Vivek Ramaswamy. And I made known the reason for such decision; he's smart, patriotic, passionate and has character, and please don't tell me he has lied. Show me one Dems or GOP politician in America today that hasn't lied? It's not about if they've lied, but rather about the degree of the lies. All politicians lie, it's part of the job, but some lie more than others.

For Vivek, when he lies, I do call him out for that, same way I do call Obama out if he lies. That's it. Truth, reasoning and morality, which are liberal values, demand I do so.

Do I support all of Vivek's views? No. But does that negate the fact that he's a guy of character, patriotism, passion and intelligence? No, of course. So what does liberal values of reasoning and open mindedness demand I do? Villify him because he's of the right, or give him my support if I feel or think he's the better person in the race while also disagreeing with some of his views? Of course the latter.

I will always say it, the liberal values of reasoning, truth, and open mindedness demands I focus on candidacy quality, and not party

So if;

* The GOP candidate is better than the DEMS candidate, I support the GOP candidate.
* If the DEMS candidate is better than the GOP candidate, I support the DEMS candidate e.g Obama and Hillary.
* If neither candidates are good, I'm supporting neither e.g 2024 presidential election.
* If both are good, then my liberal bias comes in, which will cause me to support the DEMS candidate e.g I would pick Walz in a Walz --- Vance presidential race.

How do you further say something like equality? Do you think Vivek believes similar?

Do tell, how does Vivek not believe in equality? 🤨




#Xavier

IjeBos:
I did bias training a couple of years ago. When I did the 'evaluation' there were some biases I had I wasn't aware of. It wasn't until I thought about did I realize it. It you have never done implied bias training, you should, it's interesting.

So, one thing that you said, is no one calls Trump, Donald. I know his full name, I think everyone does. I even know his initial, Donald J. Trump. He signs it everywhere. But the world calls him Trump. I write Trump. Sometimes rarely they call him Donald Trump. But noone ever calls him Donald. Why? A man whose signature is strength is never called his first name. Think about it.
Onto, Biden. People rarely if ever call him his first name. Sometimes Joe Biden, but rarely if ever Joe. In 2020, Biden had a bus tour, where his slogan was "JOE, No Malarkey". But still he is rarely called Joe. Why?
Yet Harris is more likely than not to be called Kamala than Harris. Why? You dismissed it easily. You didn't explain the apparent contradiction in the treatments of all 3.

And FYI, that flow you talk about is sexism and when we go with it unawares it becomes an implied bias.

What I'm saying is, me calling people by their first name, surname or full name has nothing to do with sexism, but rather what they're often called by. I do this to both male and females. I've called men and women by their first names, surnames and both, depending on the circumstance or what they are often called by. If it's sexism, I would only be acting in such manner only towards females, but I do it to both male and females. And this applies to a lot of people.

Are there people that might do it because of sexism? Yes... or I might also say, maybe. But that doesn't apply to everyone, certainly not me.

Not everything is rooted in sexism. Not everything is about race and gender. That's just it.


#Xavier

IjeBos:
Words have meaning and you can't change words to suit you.

What you espouse in this thread is not liberal ideology. If you ran on what you espoused, no liberal would vote for you.
Bernie Sanders is liberal. AOC is liberal. Elizabeth Warren is liberal. You are not liberal.
Look it, Liberals wouldn't think the Wall St. Journal is unbiased. The Wall St Journal is known to be Conservative outlet in it's editorializing.

Read this part of your post. Liberal and Conservative ideology is diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives reject change and tolerate inequality and liberals want to advance change and oppose inequality. Liberals would not be seeing eye to eye with someone who thinks immigrants like the Haitians are basically animals. The phrase "liberals and conservatives seeing eye to eye with each other" sounds nice but it is a literary flourish without meaning.



And lastly, no liberal would say Desantis, Vivek would be a great president. Desantis believes in book burning. He is so antithetical to liberalism. He is literally illiberal. Destanus and Vivek are smarter Trump's.

@bolded, define liberalism, and explain how Xavier doesn't fit into it?

@colored, show me where I supported that statement by Trump? If you've been observant, and not try to say BS simply because it suits your narrative, you would have seen multiple times where I criticized and ridiculed Trump for making that statement.

Bro you can scream all you want about me not being liberal. That's your damn business. But the truth remains, your view of me is irrelevant and useless.

Every socio-political view I hold is rooted in a liberal value, and when I express those views, I make sure I reveal the liberal values they are based on. That's it.

So if my view, or whom I choose to support, triggers you, that's your issue to deal with. But the fact remains, screaming Xavier is not a liberal won't stop Xavier from being a proud liberal.

As for Vivek, I support him because he's smart, patriotic and passionate. Same way I support folks like Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosy, Tim Walz etc. Reasoning and open mindedness, which are liberal values, demands I do such while also prompting me not to agree with all their views and policies. Supporting someone doesn't mean you have to agree with him or her on every thing.

So, as I said, if it makes you feel good to believe whatever you wish to believe of me, then be my guest. But, I will always say it, as a person, I live my life base on liberal values of truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc. If that's not one being a liberal, then good for you.

When you started these "branding", it was funny, but now it's just so ridiculous and annoying. But to settle this unnecessary argument, just respond to the first question I asked, what's liberalism, and how does Xavier not fit into that?

And would a liberal say they would vote for Trump?

And talking about Trump, show me where I said I would vote for Trump?

I've always made it known, that far as Kamala and Trump are on the presidential ticket, I wash my hands off the election. So please, stop saying things that were never said. You are just fond of saying imaginary BS in other to suit your narrative. If that makes you feel good, then good.



#Xavier

budaatum:
Basically, Americans are not complacent, as I said.


As in, if Americans become complacent, which is unlikely.


The fear mongering is indicative of a lack of complacency. Complacent people do not fear and therefore end up with weak institutions.

One just need compare to complacent Nigeria, where about 94 million registered to vote and less than 9 milion elected the president and about 20 million in total voted. That, is complacency. A malardy America does not suffer from, and the reason their democracy is strong.

Where's the lie in this?...

In addition to that, majority of Nigerians are unwise (I tend to use the word, zombies) when it comes to voting. Nigeria is suffering today, not because of bad governance, but because of majority unwise voters.

Politicians are the same everywhere, but in a society where "we the people" make the politicians accountable, especially with their wise or majority wise votes, politicians will have no choice but to render good governance... cos that's the only way to grab and retain power.

Take Nigerian politicians to America, and they will perform well. Bring American politicians to Nigeria and they will perform worse, especially with some of those rascal GOP politicians. Why? One society has a strong politically accountable system thanks to "we the people", especially with their wise or majority wise votes, while the other society lacks such.

As I always say, a democratic nation is as sound as it voters or majority of its voters.


#Xavier

IjeBos:
A lot of the sentiment you hear and I hear is implicit sexism. I realized a lot of Nigerian men do not want Harris to win because it will affect theit world view and their belief that they are dominant over woman. Cna't relaly tell your wife you're a woman and I'm a man so I have more power, when the most powerful person in the world is a woman.
And everyone has that implicit bias, I realized even I do. I call Harris by her first name Kamala and Trump and Biden by their last. Why? Read a good article that it's sexism and it happens to a lot of female doctors. So, I've been making an effort to call her Harris.

Honestly, this implicit bias you're talking about is alien to me. I've always called people by first name or their full name, and if there's a title, I add it. Yes, at times I call people by their surnames if that's what I noticed they are often being called with, and this has nothing to do with sexism to me, because I do it both to males and females.

For example, I call Kamala Harris, Harris. Sometimes, Kamala, other times Kamala Harris, Vice President, Vice President Harris, Vice President Kamala or Vice President Kamala Harris. This is also applicable to the way I call Trump with the exclusion that I've never called him, Donald, and that's because I rarely hear people call him that, so I just go with the flow, unlike Kamala Harris that gets called often with Kamala, Harris or Kamala Harris. To me, this has nothing to do with sexism, but rather how a person is often called by people. And this, I think, is applicable to lots of people. Not everything is sexism.


#Xavier

budaatum:
It is not Trump or Kamala that are looking to weaken the democratic and governmental institutions. One can't argue however that there aren't some (Thiel, Hamas, Putin, Rocket Man, China, etc), who will profit from such weakening, and are prepared to work towards weakening it by using the unaware trumps and kamalas.

The democratic and governmental institution will become weak when people become complacent. Thankfully, the constant resilience and strength I see encourages me.

Every institution that exist have opposing systems attempting to pull it down, and democracy won't be the anomaly.

Democracy, especially, America's democracy, have always been under attack and will always be, just like every other institution out there.

But here's the fact, America's democracy have been winning over its opposing systems and will continue to win. Why? Because Americans are one, committed to progress. Two, Americans, are patriotic, and thirdly, Americans love their liberty, and will fight through tooth and nail to ensure that. And by Americans, I mean liberals, conservatives and independents. Yes, there are very few bad eggs, but hey, good luck with them going against the vast majority.

America's democracy will crumble if and only if Americans let it, but due to the mentioned, such will not happen, be it or now or the future. I don't see any cause for alarm.

So all those noise about threat to democracy is just fear mongering propagated by certain groups. America's democratic and governmental institutions are strong, all thanks to patriotic, progress, and liberty loving Americans.


#Xavier

IjeBos:
And don't worry I still think you're center right.

Good for you, but here's the thing, what you think of me is useless and irrelevant. You can scream center right from now till tomorrow if it makes you feel good, but that doesn't make me that.

Like it or not, I'm a liberal... a liberal that's enormously committed to Liberal values such as; Human rights and value, liberty, equality, reasoning, open mindedness, progressiveness, democracy, consent of the governed, truth etc

And these liberal values prevents me from going radical in my liberalism. They prevent me from ass licking the left wing, but rather make me stand for what's true and objective. They make me call out the bullshit, irrespective of whether it's left or right, and to commend goodness, irrespective of it's left or right. That's just it.

Commitment to these values make me clash with some liberals at times, which results in the tag, "not liberal enough", because I chose not to accept their myopic or radical liberal views that now dominate 21st century liberalism.

So if my commitment to those liberal values make me "not liberal enough", or make you think I'm center right simply because I clash with you on some issues, then so be it. But irrespective of what you or anyone here thinks, I, Xavier is a liberal... a proud liberal for that matter, but not a radical one, that's the difference, and nothing will ever change that.


#Xavier

raumdeuter:
If you noticed at least on this thread, how many right leaning people have attacked you or characterized you when you criticized them? No.

But you acknowledging there is an inflation which everyone in Biden admin admits is you being MAGA. That is how stuff works

Where's the lie in this... 😔

Well... that's American politics for you; an us vs them thing. Lots of people don't care about the truth or reality anymore, except being loyal to their respective left wing or right wing party.

But all in all, as Dr Phil puts it;

There are the left and the right, and there is fact.

Liberalism, thanks to liberal values of truth, reasoning and open mindedness, demands one follows the path of facts, irrespective of whether it is favourable or not.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
Mexico didn’t pay?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

raumdeuter:
Welcome to the party. You are MAGA if you acknowledge there is inflation and there is a crisis at the border. If you denied the obvious will make you not MAGA

That is how stuff works

Being attacked by the left and the right for my "unpopular views" na normal thing sha.

You should see me having to explain my Liberal values whenever I'm called "not being liberal enough" because I chose to appeal to the liberal value of reasoning which made me not to propagate those narratives of the "powers that be of the left" that are ridiculous and false. E funny die 😂😂😂

Make I no even talk about that of MAGAs whenever I oppose Trump, that one na another case 😂😂😂😂😂.

Do you recall what I told you, that you will get a tag soon from the left. That is how things work.I supported Biden on this thread 4yrs ago because I thought the worst thing was Trumps insults until the economic realities of the last 3.5yrs hit

Wonders 😂😮

Me, after 2016 in which I supported Hillary (I'm still heartbroken she didn't win. When she gave her speech at the DNC, one of the things that came out of my mouth was, "This should have been the President." ), 2020 I was just looking at Trump and Biden like a zombie, same way I'm looking at Trump and Kamala 😂😂😂.


#Xavier

.

AmazonTopaz:
The inflation you MAGA folks keep talking about must be existing in an alternate reality because you people are so out of touch. Jeez.

Who's MAGA? 🤔

I wonder how after going through my post from this thread, one will conclude that Xavier is a MAGA? 😂😂😂😂😂 So anyone that points out the reality of most Americans, if it's against Biden, is a MAGA, and if it's against Trump, is a Libtard. This is nice 😂😂😂.


#Xavier

ObaIgwe1:
I like your analysis. I have posted earlier that the Vance that showed up at the debate is a very likeable guy if only he meant all the things he said and he wouldn't be flip flopping from them in the future as usual

.

Do politicians actually believe EVERYTHING they say? 🤔🤔🤔

The only place he got low was when he chose to be correct with Trump by refusing to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election. I know deep down in his mind he knows Biden won, I don't know if the Americans will see it as a strength or weakness for him trying to be loyal to his Principal instead of being straightforward with the people.

Same way Kamala refused acknowledging the reduction in standard of living of most Americans under the Biden administration due to inflation. Na politics be this, you no go expect person to wash em principal dirty pant for public. Every politician is guilty of this.

Do I support such? No, but it's the reality.

I hope Vance stays true to this "New and Improved Vance", he might be a force when Trump leaves the scene. I don't think there would be need for me to actively campaign for Kamala in 2028 if she wins now. I expect her performance as president to without a doubt do the campaign for her. Being the first female president is a big shoe, and she will owe it to herself and many American women to prove to the generality of Americans that a female president can be as good as a male president.

Time, as they say, will tell 😎


#Xavier

Maeve7:
From your mouth to God’s ear …

I don’t share your optimism. He tried to overthrow the democratically elected government and is thus a danger to democracy. The institutions you are talking about can be destroyed from within faster than from outside.

And what was the outcome, success or failure?

If there's anything I see there is how formidable America's democratic and governmental institutions are. That's the evidence I need to believe in it.


#Xavier