> That's certainly your privilege and right but surely you have to recognize it automatically makes any discussion of politics with you impossible or at least,

> That's certainly your privilege and right but surely you have to recognize it automatically makes any discussion of politics with you impossible or at least, deeply unproductive. Why can't he have worthwhile things to say about politics even if he's given up on voting? Actually, I suspect he'll have even better ideas now. > It's just that lumping them all together as equivalent seems so utterly naive and simplistic and wrong that why even bother discussing politics with anyone? Tell me, what exactly was the distinction between voting for Obama over Romney? How would life be different now, had Romney won? Would it be better? Worse? Would Romney have done something to actually help with the economy, unlike Obama? What about jobs then? Would Romney have "created" jobs better than Obama (as if jobs could be created by central planning anyway)? Lumping Obama and Romney together as roughly equivalent is exactly what someone who sees things for what they are would do.