"And no, it's not a pat phrase to distract."

Funny how it is a conservative media buzzword at the moment. My dad who listens to Rush, Hannity, et all non-stop has started using "Low information Voter" to describe basically everyone he doesn't seem to agree with. Basically it is an odd Ad hominem attack against a generalized group of people one takes issue with.

Reminds me of when the Liberals where slinging around phrases like republitards or conservatives slinging around phrases like libtards. Perhaps more crude and organic, but never-the-less pat phrases which are generalizations. The phrase seems pretty pat when it is a recent and popularized conservative media buzzword to run-down a entire groups of people, but then again your experience may vary. One group calling the other group "Low Information" is pretty much a nice tidy label for your political opponents which entirely ignores the fact that almost everyone is "low information".

"Odd that I can pay attention to both Canadian and American politics at a level where I know what's going on. High consumption of politics isn't required, at most 35mins a day, on the most highly trafficked political sites will get you up to a "medium" level voter."

Do you know whats going on? That is a fairly large assumption. I take the opposite view myself. I don't know most of what is going on. Getting truth out of propaganda is a tricky business. If you think 35 min a day gets you to a medium level of knowledge of politics... then you definitely have a low bar of expectation of actual understanding. Even more so given that you are relying on this knowledge from a few "highly trafficked political" sites. It often takes me many hours of research to look at what folks are saying and verify if it has any merit at all. Even after checking things out I often am not certain what the real story is. But then again, l tend to be skeptical about what is being fed to me.

Being fed your political regurgitations from some websites informs you up to a certain level, but real understanding is much harder to come by.

"They're the people who don't really have an interest in politics at all, but are easily swayed by blasts of information for either or both parties. Which fit their viewpoint."

I think you could say the same thing about partisans. Are partisan voter generally more informed in your estimation? Seems to me that most people don't have much of the actual information. I get pat stuff from both sides of the political aisle all the time which makes no sense what-so-ever. In the end it turns out to be just propaganda and not real information.

In my view, partisans usually don't have much interest in politics other than getting all bunched up about this or that thing every so often. Partisans are the ones who have drunk the coolaid and don't seem to have much ability to think outside of their info food chains. If they get a piece of information... they spend a huge amount of effort to make it fit their world view.

Low information voter is simply not being used to describe swing voters as seems to be your assertion.
Here is what Rush Limbaugh said for your edification.
"Low-information voters are clearly people that don't have all the information available to make a voting choice. That's all they are. And they're all over the place. And most of them do vote Democrat. Most of them did vote for Obama. It's not a comment on their intelligence. It's not that they're stupid or don't understand the issues. They just haven't had it all explained to them."

So... if these voters had things "explained" to them somehow make them better voters? Probably not. It depends on who is explaining and whether the information they are using is actual and not propaganda. I prefer to not digest pre-digested information from a few top political sites which are almost entirely partisan propaganda machines. The information is out there, but it usually is not found on highly trafficked political sites.

"leave that crap out of the federal government."

Sounds like a nice idea, but on a practical, real-world level completely impossible.
The problem is that people are involved in the equation and there could never be a consensus to adhere to separation of dogma like libertarian at the federal level and/or socialist at the local level.
Even though I am a libertarian, I realize that my ideas generally are in the minority and have been so for longer than my whole life.

All voters are low information. There simply is not the time to be a high or even medium information voter.

Btw.... terms like "low information voter" are just more pat phrases invented by the machine to distract and isolate the citizens.
Easier to control the masses by creating buzzwords that blame everyone but oneself.

"... if engaged in hunting at the time then the guns could be confiscated as well."

And by hunting you mean poaching by the side of the road.
Poachers should have their guns confiscated. All gun owners need to be responsible and obey the laws. Just because you don't like this law or that law doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

The purpose of having is a gun rack is to carry your guns to where you will be hunting. Whether they are sheathed in a soft case is not really a problem unless it impedes you from jumping out of your truck and nailing a deer by the side of the road. I remember hunting as a kid some 40 years ago with my grandpa and my dad. We always kept the guns sheathed until we got out where we were going to hunt.

Having a gun rack in Wisconsin was not illegal.
Having unsheathed guns in the gun rack was illegal.

That difference is significant although apparently not to you.

But having a rack isn't illegal... there are 4 states that have regulations about the status of the guns being carried in the racks as I understand it.
In Wisconsin the DNR had a rule that guns couldn't be carried outside of a case in order to discourage spontaneous poaching. The rule apparently was working to prevent roadside poaching since people wouldn't be caught driving down the road with their guns unsheathed. I read a couple anecdotes that poaching since the rule was repealed has been on the rise and these anecdotes were on hunter's forums.

Sounds like the police were much too zealous or overbearing in their enforcement of that rule... which is probably why it is no longer a rule.

I am not sure the racks are illegal. The original poster I responded to was insinuating that people could be arrested merely for having a gun rack in their truck. I still have not seen a case where that is true.

Business is booming is funny comment but in a very sad way for those who died.
I think the business was ignoring some regulations however.

Can't find anything on the google about people getting arrested for having a gun rack in their car in either Wisconsin or Illinois. Do you have some more info or a link I could look at?

Is it deregulation or lack of regulation to begin with?

Who can't buy a gun at Walmart anywhere in the country?
Who gets arrested anywhere for a gun rack?

Sounds like you don't get out of Texas much.

Funny how the coffers of Social Security are "still bleeding" and yet they have a greater than 2 trillion surplus in T-bills. Pretty good for a pay-as-you go system. Funny how SS has been going bankrupt for the last 70+ year.

Wish I had mod points.....
+1 for being succinct and absolutely correct

Oh right... incompetence was his disguise.

Are you sure this guy isn't from the Surete?
The description sounds like something from Get Smart or something else.....not a serious CIA operative.

I had to quit using firefox for the first time in years because it kept locking up in a very ugly way in 20.4
I have been waiting for the upgrade so I can browse without locking every 6 seconds.
Safari isn't as intuitive for me since I am used to how firefox was and I don't have a chromium based browser on my system anymore.
Opera is a nice browser, but it really does have to do with how used to something one is.