At 3/30/15 03:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Nothing will change either way but I ask people to please respect peoples amendment rights. The Corporations still win in the end.

Alrighty then.

God. Odumba continues to prove he's a piece of shit.
So what happens if you don't go out and vote? Do you get fined like with Obama Care? And if it's an auto register thing are they going to choose a party for you if you don't pick one? (Dems would love that).

It should be up to the individual. NOT the government.

At 3/30/15 10:38 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: taking people liberties away

Y'see, the thing about liberty is that it only really works if you don't give a fuck about the government or anyone else-- if you just shed all your empathy and adherence to anything or anyone, you are a free man, my friend.

At 3/31/15 09:37 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: God. Odumba continues to prove he's a piece of shit.

Hey, Matt Dumba (way to spell his name wrong) is a nice guy and a great athlete.

At 3/30/15 07:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It was a town hall. Not the Senate floor. It was a comment made offhand to a problem he saw. Merely floating the idea in public is not the same as trying to make it law. It's not so naive an idea that the President can't throw it around here or there. Whether it works out or not is a different issue. Then again, it was just an idea (think Star Wars by Reagan, and he actually went forward with that drivel.)

Does not matter where he said it. Any time the president speaks about anything policy-y, his words carry a certain weight that the rest of us will never have a frame of reference for. So it is a strange dichotomy: the president takes an oath to protect Constitutional freedoms...but his ability to speak is constrained by his position.

Seriously, this is government 101 stuff here...

Yes, and no. While it is true that local elections are the closest tied to the person's community and their vote means proportionately more than elsewhere, local elections don't always represent more important issues to the person. I'd say that it's the opposite. Whereas the State and Federal tend to focus on big picture items, local governent tend to focus on minutia. Minutia to the point of being worthless.

Example: State Governor running on policy of more police arms and more force. Local water commisioner running on policy of less rust on the handles of public drinking fountains.

I would say great example...BUT...

The Governor does not determine how local police are armed or manned. That is a local issue. Yes the state has oversight...but the very example you use is municipal one.

Thank you for proving my point!

The reason behind it is irrelevant (so long as it's generally applicable and content neutral.) I would argue that voting is not purely political, but that doesn't matter. The rationale of increasing connecting between the government and the populace through more voting is enough. Like with burning draft cards, there would be numerous other methods of making the same exact message in protest that would be 100% legal. Such as carrying a sign. Wearing a shirt. Openly saying you don't care and randomly scribbling in boxes.

Honestly, what is the public good here beyond merely 'feeling good' about increased voting? Anytime the government limits freedom by imposing a mandate on the public I think there should be a demonstrable boon to the public good. Pushing people to the polls is a very good way to make them resent it rather than respect it.

No, because it's not likely that very many people would vote for nothing in all of their votes. If they vote for just one thing, that makes it enough even to make up for the remainder being entirely "none of the above".

So now we have the problem of people just checking a box because they are forced to be there and might as well get it over. How is this in any way a good thing? We have votes cast out of ignorance now...do we want to compound the problem by forcing people to cast negligent 'don't give a fuck' votes?

My answer to #1 applies here too. As far as the less than 50% of the vote, we sure don't hae a problem with that happening because of the electoral college. Just 15 years ago, we had a less than 50% Presidential win.

And your answer is equally insufficient here as well. Furthermore, the presidential election is not the entirety of American elections. How does this apply in down ticket elections where there is no EC?

Not party, but candidate.

Party, candidate...in this context the terms are for all practical purposes interchangeable.

He was in a situation where such ideas often come out. It was a town hall, not an official governmental function. Town Halls are a great place for such ideas. It gets us talking (as it has) and it tests the water to see if the idea is even worth looknig into enough to carry it on.

The venue is totally irrelevant. Obama could be podcasting while in the bathroom while touring the Magnum PI mansion in Hawaii with his real estate agent. Anytime the president (does not matter who) speaks, their words carry policy implications that no one else's does.

As such he has a responsibility and duty to make sure whatever words come out of his mouth in any public setting are measured and well-thought out. If the president has ideas he wants to float he has various ways of doing it through proxies. Idly presenting half-baked ideas in a public setting...rookie, jay-vee mistake.

Again...this is government 101.

Can the President not have a converation with the people? And no, his words are not always policy. They may indicate his motives, leanings, and intent with which he enacts policy, but mere words at a town hall are not policy. Frankly, I like the idea of a President throwing things out there. I want to know more about what the President is thinking. I want him to bounce ideas off of us. It gives us a better [icture of what the President is thinking. In this case, it shows us he's concerned about voter turnout and efficacy. Is this solution the best way to deal with it? Absolutely not, but then again, he's not actually going through any steps to make it law.

Yes the president can have a conversation with the people. However, his words always carries the weight of policy. From the 'red line' in Syria to idle quips...his public words carry significant weight to them. They signal either how something will be implemented or what policy he intends to pursue in the future. Sorry, but you are completely wrong to assert that his words do not carry this weight.

Now had he said something along the lines that "wouldn't be great if everyone voted" he'd be fine. However, he brought up a specific policy other countries have enacted...this makes it very much a means of introducing a (minor) policy initiative. Now it is not super-formal and the amount of flak and lack of meaningful support means it's DOA. But to think it is anything but is (willful?) ignorance.

He's doing what a professor would do. And, frankly, I'd like some more professorial conduct in the White House.

The White House is not a classroom, it requires a completely different set of skills. I just want some competence.

At 3/30/15 03:20 PM, lapis wrote:

At 3/30/15 08:40 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) How do you count 'none of the above'? If 'none of the above' gets 51% of the vote...do you have another election? (Talk about a waste of public funds...and now MORE campaign dollars).

What legitimacy does a supposedly democratic system have when 51% of the electorate would not have been comfortable with any of the available parties? This would be such a serious indictment of the system as a whole that the waste of public funds should one of the lesser concerns.

My concern here is that in some cases (local & state elections) we'll have this not because of any measured thought behind the votes but as protest or expressions of either nihilism or apathy. This would unnecessarily cause noise, confusion, and chaos. Americans can be an unruly lot and about 53% (j/k) hate being mandated to do things. When we are we tend to act out...sometimes to our detriment.

At 3/31/15 10:10 AM, ThePulp wrote:

At 3/30/15 10:38 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: taking people liberties away

Y'see, the thing about liberty is that it only really works if you don't give a fuck about the government or anyone else-- if you just shed all your empathy and adherence to anything or anyone, you are a free man, my friend.

How bad do things have to get before citizens that advocate corrupt Government/Corporation and Banking cartel wake up ?

At 3/30/15 09:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 3/30/15 09:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Well you can tell wrong LOL ! But hey lets not get in the way of your pro American Government/Corporatocracy pipe dreams and theory's ROFLMFAO !

Now you're just trolling kid. How about we get back to something of substance and get out of the mud puddle huh?

How about you stop making wild and erroneous personal accusations toward myself.

And what happens to the subordinates that choose to exercise their freedom and not vote? Are we just going to throw them in jail, too?

I definitely agree that we need to be taking more steps in getting the younger generations more involved in political affairs. Many problems we face today are caused by the majority not paying attention. When we start throwing laws around over simple affairs, we end up with less freedom, and a packed prison as a result.

Just a thought.

At 4/1/15 11:20 AM, injexen wrote: And what happens to the subordinates that choose to exercise their freedom and not vote? Are we just going to throw them in jail, too?

They can't cause the prison system is overcapacity as it is. Geuss they will have to open up the dormant FEMA concentration camps. Oh and refering to none voters as subordinate if fuck arrogant, ignorant and just a plain dumb and erroneous use of language.

I definitely agree that we need to be taking more steps in getting the younger generations more involved in political affairs. Many problems we face today are caused by the majority not paying attention. When we start throwing laws around over simple affairs, we end up with less freedom, and a packed prison as a result.

How is average joe supposed to study Politics full time and support themselves and possible a dependent family ? You can't ask a person living their own life that has little understanding and no time to study and grasp Politics let alone care about it to come to a solid conclusion on whom to vote for.

Can someone tell me why we can't have mandatory voting and not arrest people for it at the same time? I haven't heard of a free and fair democracy which does this.

At 4/1/15 04:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: They can't cause the prison system is overcapacity as it is. Geuss they will have to open up the dormant FEMA concentration camps. Oh and refering to none voters as subordinate if fuck arrogant, ignorant and just a plain dumb and erroneous use of language.

I was more or less on your side until you soiled yourself.

As for your second argument, you're saying that we should ignore the political spectrum because of time purposes, yet expect things to change? That could be a misinterpretation (I really hope so), so if you'd care to elaborate?

At 3/31/15 03:27 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: How about you stop making wild and erroneous personal accusations toward myself.

Seemed reasonable assumptions based on the pseudo-intellectual patter and just flat out erroneous statements you were making. There ARE public ballot questions on election forms in many many states (my own included). The REASON you don't see a lot of Federal ones is because the country is simply too big and it would take too long. That's why the Founders opted for a Representative Republic instead of a full out Democracy.

At 4/1/15 04:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: How is average joe supposed to study Politics full time and support themselves and possible a dependent family ?

You act like it's super hard to be informed. It isn't. You simply type a candidates name into Google and you'll get a million articles on them, you can easily access their voting records. At most it would take you an hour or two of reading to figure out if someone is worth your vote or not. You're arguments ranged from this kind of erroneous stuff up to acting like it's some noble gesture to not even try, but what it boils down to is you want the right to be lazy and apathetic.

You can't ask a person living their own life that has little understanding and no time to study and grasp Politics let alone care about it to come to a solid conclusion on whom to vote for.

You're right, what WERE the Founders thinking. Clearly Democracy is too hard and we should just cut it out already.

At 4/1/15 05:14 PM, injexen wrote:

At 4/1/15 04:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: They can't cause the prison system is overcapacity as it is. Geuss they will have to open up the dormant FEMA concentration camps. Oh and refering to none voters as subordinate if fuck arrogant, ignorant and just a plain dumb and erroneous use of language.

As for your second argument, you're saying that we should ignore the political spectrum because of time purposes, yet expect things to change? That could be a misinterpretation (I really hope so), so if you'd care to elaborate?

So working 40 to 80hrs a week between home and workplace, sleeping, eating and raising a family as well as trying to have some free time in between to just chill, leaves time to take into deep studying and learning of fundamental Political sciences and economics ?

At 4/1/15 07:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So working 40 to 80hrs a week between home and workplace, sleeping, eating and raising a family as well as trying to have some free time in between to just chill, leaves time to take into deep studying and learning of fundamental Political sciences and economics ?

Yup, I know someone who does it now. That's how easy that argument is to refute. I'd also like to point out that you ignored just about everything I actually said to continue with this strawman that was easily obliterated with barely a match strike.

At 4/1/15 06:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You act like it's super hard to be informed. It isn't. You simply type a candidates name into Google and you'll get a million articles on them, you can easily access their voting records. At most it would take you an hour or two of reading to figure out if someone is worth your vote or not. You're arguments ranged from this kind of erroneous stuff up to acting like it's some noble gesture to not even try, but what it boils down to is you want the right to be lazy and apathetic.

I have to take LL1's side on this...

It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

First, when you type a name into Google you need to be prepared to sift through a multiplicity of links. Which links can one trust these days? Someone mentioned the effect of cable news as turning the country Right. Well...it's not so simple. We live in a media saturated society these days...so people run the risk of being highly underinformed because despite reading a lot of articles and sources on an issue or a candidate...they tend to gravitate towards news sources that ideologically agree with them. So a person needs to have the time and patience to sift through the chaff to find the wheat.

And that's just knowing the candidates.

Now you have to also be aware of:
* How the government works.
* What the politician can accomplish in the office they are running for.
* Research the issues of the day he will be casting ballots on your before over...or signing into law.

So no...to properly cast an informed ballot the average voter needs to spend considerable time studying the candidate, issues, and news. Much more than an hour or two. And in the end people who work multiple jobs or one job with a lot of demands outside of the 8hr work day...just don't have this much time. So yeah, those who are self-aware enough to know they are casting an ignorant ballot and just stay away are doing something just as noble as voting.

You're right, what WERE the Founders thinking. Clearly Democracy is too hard and we should just cut it out already.

Actually, the Founders were very down on the concept of democracy (you don't capitalize it in this context). They understood from both a classical sense and historical record. This is why with the federal government, originally only one half of one branch was directly elected by the people. The other half of the legislative branch (and the branch deemed most important and powerful by the Founders) was appointed by the state executives and legislatures. They developed the Electoral College for electing the president and an entire branch is decided through an appointment system.

Part of this was they not only wanted to check and balance each branch of government, they wanted to check and balance the people as well. They feared mob rule and the tyranny of the majority if passions got enflamed. So I very much doubt they would be in favor of mandatory voting. In fact, they may even say that the participation rate is too high.

At 4/1/15 08:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/1/15 07:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So working 40 to 80hrs a week between home and workplace, sleeping, eating and raising a family as well as trying to have some free time in between to just chill, leaves time to take into deep studying and learning of fundamental Political sciences and economics ?

Yup, I know someone who does it now. That's how easy that argument is to refute. I'd also like to point out that you ignored just about everything I actually said to continue with this strawman that was easily obliterated with barely a match strike.

Again to take LL1's side; yes you know one person. That is anecdotal and not necessarily representative of the entirety of the population. Now anecdotes have their time and place...but they are very rarely strong enough to refute an argument. But that person has (probably) a much higher inclination and ability than the average 47percenter (j/k). I would hazard to say most in that situation would not be so inclined to in-depth study.

At 4/1/15 09:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/1/15 08:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Yup, I know someone who does it now. That's how easy that argument is to refute.

So one persons actions are enough to justify forced voting for all LOL ? I guess since we are entertaining forced voting for all then that means people with serious cognitive disabilities as well as up to and including Down Syndrome will be placing a vote ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

At 4/1/15 08:45 PM, TheMason wrote: Again to take LL1's side; yes you know one person. That is anecdotal and not necessarily representative of the entirety of the population.

No, but my point was that LL1's argument for being lazy is shitty, it's easy enough to shred when someone says "so no one can do this" then all I really need to unravel a net that huge is to find one hole.

Also I notice in all of your assist to lean you tend to ignore one of the easiest things I mentioned that someone can use to determine if they agree with a candidate or not: Voting records.

Serious presidential candidates and most office seekers (incumbents of course, but even most challengers) have held some form of elective office before, requiring them to vote, and the records of those votes are public and easily findable (hell I can even use wikipedia for that). So....you know, it's not that hard to do. I'm sorry but I find your arguments about this to be only slightly better then what LL is putting forth. You both seem to be arguing for people to have the right to stay ignorant and be lazy. That sort of attitude is why we have the leaders we have and the style of election we have.

At 4/1/15 09:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So one persons actions are enough to justify forced voting for all LOL ? I guess since we are entertaining forced voting for all then that means people with serious cognitive disabilities as well as up to and including Down Syndrome will be placing a vote ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Oh, of course! Because we seriously wouldn't be able to put into the law exemptions for people like this!

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Bad boy, very very bad.

At 4/1/15 11:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/1/15 08:45 PM, TheMason wrote: Again to take LL1's side; yes you know one person. That is anecdotal and not necessarily representative of the entirety of the population.

No, but my point was that LL1's argument for being lazy is shitty,

Personally attacking ones character and not the topic at hand is lazy. You lost this debate a long time ago and are now derailing the thread. Are you done yet ?

There's mainly two big things that explain why people don't vote. One of them is the transparency in the fact that, on its own, your vote is statistically worthless and is extremely unlikely to influence a presidential election in any meaningful way (barring extremely unusual circumstances like Florida in 2000). The other is that voting costs you time and resources -- you need to dedicate a portion of your day to actually go to the booth. As a consequence of these considerations, there's a huge number of people who actually care about the issues on the ballot, but don't go out to vote because they have (perhaps correctly) determined that the benefit of voting is not worth the cost in terms of time, resources, etc. The cost of voting is also much higher to certain individuals depending on their circumstances: people who work and cannot get time off, and/or those who don't have a convenient polling location, etc.

With those considerations in mind, there's absolutely no reason to believe that you are any more informed than a non-voter. Mason actually supports my point by explaining just how difficult (if not impossible) it is to be a truly informed voter -- a vast, vast majority of voters are not perfectly informed about what they're voting on. Just because you care enough to vote and have the ability to do so doesn't necessarily means you're more informed - I think we all know certain individuals who have very strong opinions about subjects they know less than nothing about. There's no reason to think non-voters are somehow even more ignorant than the ones already going to the polls.

This might sound weird but being an ~*~informed voter~*~ is extremely overrated anyway. There's really nothing wrong with just voting straight-ticket, for both Republicans and Democrats. If anything that's exactly what you should do. You should vote straight ticket for the major political party that most closely aligns with your politics. It is very rare that one of their candidates will stray from the major positions on the party platform. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is the whole point of having political parties.

And, for the record, I don't think voting should be mandatory. I just think that particular argument against it doesn't make any sense.

At 4/1/15 07:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So working 40 to 80hrs a week between home and workplace, sleeping, eating and raising a family as well as trying to have some free time in between to just chill, leaves time to take into deep studying and learning of fundamental Political sciences and economics ?

Yes. There's no excuse to not find time to figure out what is going on with your country.

At 4/2/15 03:41 AM, Feoric wrote: And, for the record, I don't think voting should be mandatory. I just think that particular argument against it doesn't make any sense.

There are several points you made that are spot-on. However, there are two that I'd like to address:

1) You seem to make the point that the ignorant already vote. (If I'm misunderstanding, my apologies!) While this is true, I do think that it supports the notion that the informed voter argument 'doesn't make any sense'. So while yes, the ignorant do vote already...on both sides...this does not undermine the argument at all. In fact, given that the number of low-information voters outnumbers 'informed' voters to the same ratio as the undead to survivors in the zombie apocalypse...why increase the problem?

And that's the thing: I view casting an ignorant or low-informed ballot as worse than not voting.

2) Being totally informed, like being totally ignorant/uninformed is a theoretical. There are degrees of being informed. Part of being sufficiently informed enough to make a clear, sober, intelligent vote is being able to parse out the bad information from the good. This takes time.

At 4/1/15 11:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also I notice in all of your assist to lean you tend to ignore one of the easiest things I mentioned that someone can use to determine if they agree with a candidate or not: Voting records.

I'll be honest, I missed your original post. I didn't have much time to re-read the entire discussion.

However, voting records are good but insufficient by themselves. Why didn't that Senator vote for a bill to stop human trafficking? What was the rider that kept it from being a good bill? In order to properly interpret a voting record, you need to have some knowledge of how the system operates and the issues and bills themselves. Again...this takes time.

... I'm sorry but I find your arguments about this to be only slightly better then what LL is putting forth. You both seem to be arguing for people to have the right to stay ignorant and be lazy. That sort of attitude is why we have the leaders we have and the style of election we have.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

And yes...people do have the right to stay ignorant and be lazy. It's called a 'free society'. No one can compel a person to read up on the issues of the day or become politically active. Every person has the right to make the choice for themselves. Do I think it is a good choice? A responsible choice? No. But the alternative of forcing people to vote is much worse than what we even have now. Once you go down that path you create systems that can be manipulated (see Rydia's example from South America).

Also...I would be careful about painting with a broad brush lest I start calling you ARomney. ;) Someone may determine that they are not going to vote because they do not live a society that will tolerate hard-Left or Right parties that represent their views. So they calculate that both parties are the same. This is not ignorance, but calculation. As for lazy: if someone is busting her ass to become a Doctor...she is not being lazy. If someone is working two-three jobs to put food on the table or become financially secure...that is not being lazy.

At 4/2/15 09:56 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) You seem to make the point that the ignorant already vote. (If I'm misunderstanding, my apologies!) While this is true, I do think that it supports the notion that the informed voter argument 'doesn't make any sense'. So while yes, the ignorant do vote already...on both sides...this does not undermine the argument at all. In fact, given that the number of low-information voters outnumbers 'informed' voters to the same ratio as the undead to survivors in the zombie apocalypse...why increase the problem?

Because, as I explained earlier, there are a multitude of reasons why people don't vote which doesn't boil down to them being dumb. I'm not convinced that the percentage of non-voters who are completely and totally ignorant is higher than the percentage of voters who are completely and totally ignorant. I think it would be roughly equal -- you'd have informed non-voters cancelling out the vote of uninformed non-voters. I don't see how it makes any problem worse.

And that's the thing: I view casting an ignorant or low-informed ballot as worse than not voting.

I don't necessarily agree. That's not to say I think being ignorant is a goal, or that people shouldn't bother to educate themselves, but considering the way our system is set up it really doesn't matter how informed you are. There's no difference between a completely perfectly informed voter voting straight-ticket and a complete fucking moron voting straight-ticket for the same candidate. Your votes still have equal weight. The only real obligation any citizen has when it comes to voting is figuring out which party platform best represents your beliefs. Everything else beyond that is purely optional.

At 4/2/15 08:32 AM, injexen wrote:

At 4/1/15 07:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So working 40 to 80hrs a week between home and workplace, sleeping, eating and raising a family as well as trying to have some free time in between to just chill, leaves time to take into deep studying and learning of fundamental Political sciences and economics ?

Yes. There's no excuse to not find time to figure out what is going on with your country.

Ya there are many excuses ... it's called life, Family, jobs, hobbies, other educational pursuits and responsibility's do not leave time for people that have a life outside of what your reality and interests might be up to and including Politics.

At 4/2/15 12:02 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Personally attacking ones character and not the topic at hand is lazy. You lost this debate a long time ago and are now derailing the thread. Are you done yet ?

Projection is ugly. Also you're not doing proper reading comprehension again. Attacking someone's ARGUMENT is not the same as attacking their CHARACTER. Yes, I'd be lying if I said I didn't think you were someone with a poor moral character, but that's not germain the discussion. But what you're argument is, and how good or poorly it's constructed IS absolutely the point. But hey, if you're done with the discussion, that's fine too. Up until TheMason chimed in it's pretty much been you and I going back and forth with very scattered interruption.

At 4/2/15 09:56 AM, TheMason wrote: I'll be honest, I missed your original post. I didn't have much time to re-read the entire discussion.

Probably a good idea to not do that in future, yeah :)

However, voting records are good but insufficient by themselves. Why didn't that Senator vote for a bill to stop human trafficking? What was the rider that kept it from being a good bill? In order to properly interpret a voting record, you need to have some knowledge of how the system operates and the issues and bills themselves. Again...this takes time.

But not an amount that I think disqualifies the average person from informing themselves. I simply do not buy the argument that there is a valid reason other then "I simply don't want to" when it comes to getting a basic understanding of who's running, what they're about, and which choice is the right one for the person voting.

And yes...people do have the right to stay ignorant and be lazy. It's called a 'free society'.

That's not what the Founders were shooting for, that's not how most societies work and if we don't have at least SOME rules and compunction towards people participating in bettering themselves then we're screwed. We simply are. But I will file this away for the next time we talk about welfare or entitlements in a negative manner ;).

No one can compel a person to read up on the issues of the day or become politically active. Every person has the right to make the choice for themselves. Do I think it is a good choice? A responsible choice? No. But the alternative of forcing people to vote is much worse than what we even have now. Once you go down that path you create systems that can be manipulated (see Rydia's example from South America).

System is already manipulated. The last mid-term went the way it did because a small portion of the electorate was more motivated then the rest and now a small minority has made a decision that effects ALL Americans. That's not what the system is supposed to be, that is a perversion of it and it's something that should trouble us as much, if not more so, then a proposal for compulsive voting.

Also...I would be careful about painting with a broad brush lest I start calling you ARomney. ;) Someone may determine that they are not going to vote because they do not live a society that will tolerate hard-Left or Right parties that represent their views. So they calculate that both parties are the same. This is not ignorance, but calculation. As for lazy: if someone is busting her ass to become a Doctor...she is not being lazy. If someone is working two-three jobs to put food on the table or become financially secure...that is not being lazy.

Fair enough, but you get breaks at those jobs, I know people in that situation you're talking about and they're very informed and super politically active. As you chide me for painting with a broad brush, so was I chiding lean because the essence of his argument seemed to be nobody in that situation could POSSIBLY find the time to be politically active. If that's the argument, then all one needs is one exception and it's disproved. That's all I'm really trying to say on that. People might have some good reasons, you're right, you're right I should have been more careful in what I was saying.....but the idea that there is a group beyond the mentally handicapped who is simply INCAPABLE of finding the time and mustering the give a damn....I just don't accept that, I can't accept that. Maybe that's just a thing I need to believe in, I'm aware of that.