Current Events > "Democrats and Republicans don't care about you!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

I never understood this mindest. Yes, they likely do not care about me. But why should I care about that? In a normal world, a relationship between a politician and their constituents should be purely 100% transactional: they pass legislation I like, I vote for them. They don't pass that legislation or prove to be incompitent, I vote them out.

With this reality, why should I give a flying fuck what they think about me? It's almost as if I'm being told that I should pursue parasocial relationships with my elected officials, which just screams wrong to me.

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Ok? The other party doesn't even offer that

I mean dems arent pushing sharia type laws and proping up white supremacists

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Ok? The other party doesn't even offer that

Reminds me of when they were going on and on about how "Hillary was late to the table on supporting same-sex marriage!" even while they themselves were only pushing candidates who still wanted to ban it.

That's not entirely true. They do care about you when they need your vote. Then they go right back to saying "who?"

Tell me which party is trying hard to remove a lot of middle-class laws that protect us, Programs that help us, most of our right to benefit them, and hell worship and orange fat pos clown?

IMO most of this crap comes from Republicans trying to depress D turnout.

The old joke is still mostly true, that in elections Democrats want to fall in love and Republicans want to fall in line.

That means that subtly playing up the idea that voters should love their candidates while blatantly going on about how disappointing the D candidates are is often a very effective line of attack for Republican shills. Especially vs. younger voters that haven't seen this shit over and over.

Dems

-Some care
-Most that don't at least have passable moral standards
-Very few extremists in government.

Republicans

-Most don't care and many of those actively wish harm on others for simply existing
-Virtually none have passable moral standards
-Large number of extremists in government(and outside it too)

Republicans are also less competent and more corrupt. They get by on exploiting the easy emotions of greed, anger and hate and supressing the voices of those they don't fool.

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Works for me.
I don't need something to be altruistic to reap the benefits. I just want to live my best life.

Xenogears15 posted...

I never understood this mindest. Yes, they likely do not care about me. But why should I care about that? In a normal world, a relationship between a politician and their constituents should be purely 100% transactional: they pass legislation I like, I vote for them. They don't pass that legislation or prove to be incompitent, I vote them out.

With this reality, why should I give a flying fuck what they think about me? It's almost as if I'm being told that I should pursue parasocial relationships with my elected officials, which just screams wrong to me.

That's not what that means.

"Democrats and Republicans are not dealing with the issues you elected them for, and are spending time and resources on weird tangents that you could care less about."

"Politicians are not engaged with your actual concerns."

"They don't care about you."

Democrats don't care about me but at the same time they also don't actively support me being murdered

EPR-radar posted...

IMO most of this crap comes from Republicans trying to depress D turnout.

The old joke is still mostly true, that in elections Democrats want to fall in love and Republicans want to fall in line.

That means that subtly playing up the idea that voters should love their candidates while blatantly going on about how disappointing the D candidates are is often a very effective line of attack for Republican shills. Especially vs. younger voters that haven't seen this shit over and over.

So this actually makes sense. Never considered that angle before. Thank you. Now I got more ammunition to use when I see this argument again.

Anyone who says both parties are the same clearly does not keep up with anything that's actually happening. Democrats are mildly incompetent liberals who have policy goals and plans to keep the country running without rocking the boat in any direction. Republicans are essentially terrorists.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They only want people to be happy so they'll think the Democrats are worth voting for! People should be miserable like God intended!

Bad faith posters like this guy exist.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/22b142a2.jpg

I don't need my politicians to care about me, just like I don't need my bank to care about me.

I just need them to do their fucking jobs.

The point is that they don't actually care about passing legislation you like either.

Granted that depends on your political preferences.

People act like they get to just live in a separate reality from politics. That's not how it works, there will always be people in charge doing things and whether directly or indirectly a lot of the things they do will impact you. So yes, instead of whining about motivations or whatever, just vote for the outcomes you want, because "no outcomes" is not a thing.

myusernameislame posted...

People act like they get to just live in a separate reality from politics. That's not how it works, there will always be people in charge doing things and whether directly or indirectly a lot of the things they do will impact you. So yes, instead of whining about motivations or whatever, just vote for the outcomes you want, because "no outcomes" is not a thing.

The outcome non-voters want is for the parties to fend for themselves and be forced to improve as a result.

DuranOfForcena posted...

they do though

As said that depends on your preferences.

SecretBase posted...

The outcome non-votersnwant is for the parties to fend for themselves and be forced to improve as a result.

By letting people that like them the way they are get all the say in which one of them wins?

SecretBase posted...

The point is that they don't actually care about passing legislation you like either.

Granted that depends on your political preferences.

Democrats are at least interested in having a semi-functional government that does things, versus Republicans who don't want to do anything other than hurt minorities and queer people.

SecretBase posted...

The outcome non-votersnwant is for the parties to fend for themselves and be forced to improve as a result.

That's pants-on-head stupid. The only thing that non-voters do is remove themselves from the system, which necessarily means the parties focus only on the concerns of people who do vote.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Democrats are at least interested in having a semi-functional government that does things, versus Republicans who don't want to do anything other than hurt minorities and queer people.

That's unfair to Republicans. Republicans also want tax cuts only for the rich.

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

"yes that is how representative democracy works"

SecretBase posted...

The outcome non-voters want is for the parties to fend for themselves and be forced to improve as a result.

That's stupid though and there's a reason no one takes that seriously.

The outcome non-votersnwant is for the parties to fend for themselves and be forced to improve as a result.

And when them doing nothing to prevent one of the parties from stripping their rights they'll blame everybody for not catering to them.

We know.

Humble_Novice posted...

Bad faith posters like this guy exist.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/22b142a2.jpg

They're always planning evil as fuck shit that they know is evil as fuck, but they also always think they can justify it with "BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SECRETLY PLANNING TO DO IT, TOO!"

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Democrats are at least interested in having a semi-functional government that does things, versus Republicans who don't want to do anything other than hurt minorities and queer people.

Yes, based on what your priorities are there are benefits to voting.

myusernameislame posted...

By letting people that like them the way they are get all the say in which one of them wins?

The party that loses because there aren't enough people who like them the way they are would be forced to adjust itself to genuinely attract more people.

EPR-radar posted...

That's pants-on-head stupid. The only thing that non-voters do is remove themselves from the system, which necessarily means the parties focus only on the concerns of people who do vote.

Record numbers of people voted in recent elections only for some of their concerns to not be focused on anyway. If politicians are getting tons of votes the way they are then they're not going to change anything.

Heineken14 posted...

That's stupid though and there's a reason no one takes that seriously.

Non-voters similarly don't take your nominees seriously.

mercurydude posted...

They're always planning evil as fuck shit that they know is evil as fuck, but they also always think they can justify it with "BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SECRETLY PLANNING TO DO IT, TOO!"

That's why GOP is short for Gaslight, Obstruct, Project.

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Ok? The other party doesn't even offer that

This!
I don't need them to love my friends. I need to protect them from the ones coming to jail them.

SecretBase posted...

Non-voters similarly don't take your nominees seriously.

That's fine. Keep yelling at them clouds and hoping things will change for absolutely 0 reason. You're doing great.

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Ok? The other party doesn't even offer that

Yeah, it's like, ok guys but it sure beats the fucking gas chambers the other dudes want to put us in.

mercurydude posted...

They're always planning evil as fuck shit that they know is evil as fuck, but they also always think they can justify it with "BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SECRETLY PLANNING TO DO IT, TOO!"

In their minds, politics is just two groups of people trying desperately to fuck each other over...."but at least the GOP is honest about it" or some bullshit like that.

SecretBase posted...

Non-voters similarly don't take your nominees seriously.

Non voters are useless. So why discuss them. If a person saying he will be a tyrant and enact vengence on those who refused to vote for him doesn't get them voting than clealry they are people of little sense.

havean776 posted...

Non voters are useless. So why discuss them. If a person saying he will be a tyrant and enact vengence on those who refused to vote for him doesn't get them voting than clealry they are people of little sense.

The thing about non-voters is that they think someone campaigning on what the other person is doing bad is a lazy tactic.

DuranOfForcena posted...

well gee, it's just odd that a lot of the people who make the claim that neither party cares about you and both sides are bad generally have preferences that are aligned with the Republican party. hmm.

If they have a preference for one party there's no need to attack both parties. For example they could just omit the party they prefer from the critique and target it only at the party they dislike.

SecretBase posted...

The thing about non-voters is that they think someone campaigning on what the other person is doing bad is a lazy tactic.

If they have a preference for one party there's no need to attack both parties. For example they could just omit the party they prefer from the critique and target it only at the party they dislike.

That's okay I think non voting is lazy, selfish and idiotic.
When the other person is campaigning for my friends to be jailed for exisiting. You bet your ass I'm not going coddle you.

havean776 posted...

That's okay I think non voting is lazy, selfish and idiotic.

Yes and they think nominating the likes of genociders, corporatists, people who want to keep healthcare tied to employment even during pandemics featuring tons of layoffs, etc. is lazy, selfish, and idiotic. It's a pointless tit for tat, nobody is budging so I don't get why people keep trying to poke the nest. Live and let live lest you draw more heat upon your candidates than necessary.

SecretBase posted...

Live and let live

Ironically enough, the fence-sitters are shit at this.

hockeybabe89 posted...

I get a chuckle out of hearing this about LGBTQ rights.

"Democrats only let you have freedoms so you'll vote for them!"

Ok? The other party doesn't even offer that

Someone gave me that exact line the other day and all I could was laugh.

DrizztLink posted...

Ironically enough, the fence-sitters are shit at this.

Non-participation is not the same concept as fence-sitting. The former is not undecided, they're making a conscious decision.

Honestly if you dont vote you don't get a fucking say about anything. Idgaf who you vote for. I'm voting for the person who at least has some of my best interests at heart. Sadly that happens to be Biden.

SecretBase posted...

Non-participation is not the same concept as fence-sitting. The former is not undecided, they're making a conscious decision.

Yeah non voters are useless wheres fencesitters can make a diffrence.
It doesn't matter however as 2020 showed we don't need non voters. We kicked the GOP ass without them than did it some more leading up to 2024. We will kick them again.

Your non vote protest is useless. You will never encourage change you just want to feel moraly better than people who go out and vote for a better tomrow.

SecretBase posted...

Non-participation is not the same concept as fence-sitting. The former is not undecided, they're making a conscious decision.

Congratulations, you've successfully argued that you're more useless than the fence-sitter.

DrizztLink posted...

Ironically enough, the fence-sitters are shit at this.

As well as an entire party so you would think a person with that motto would be very against removing rights from people daring to exist.

And yet they can never bring themselves against a party that actively runs against the notion of live and let live.