Perhaps it was true that he was uninformed about the candidates, but that's not a conclusion you can draw solely because he did not consume any news. There are many ways one can become informed about candidates: visit their websites, read Wikipedia articles, see who endorses them, etc.
Some news sources, even "mainstream" ones, are so hopelessly biased that I think they're less informative than consuming candidate propaganda.
Of the cuff comment but it occurs to me that they may have been right.
I am pretty well informed politically and follow the news regularly, however, I still vote for the same party I voted for thirty years ago and always have done.
Knowing what is happening in the news has rarely changed my vote - pretty much whatever happens the parties are not going to substantially change relative to each other to the point where you would prefer a different party so following the news or not doesn’t really make a difference.
You may be in a bubble by thinking this is important when it really doesn’t matter as much as your bubble is telling you it does
Unfortunately I've seen been in such situations. I've politely asked to act in good faith of each other or close the topic. Some people feel better after arguing, I don't.
Fair enough if you don't want to talk about it, but the OP had basically just told the person they were ignorant so probably shouldn't be too surprised at a 'fuck off' response
I do not watch news for 20 years. I am fine if someone thinks I'm ignorant but ready to discuss that. Some people look brainwashed, aggressive, they don't answer uneasy question, they attack instead. Yes, OP provoked, I do not recommend this way. But response depends on the person and that was my message.
I mean sometimes I argue with friends for fun. And we know how to stop while it is fun. Persuasion is not fun.
Some news sources, even "mainstream" ones, are so hopelessly biased that I think they're less informative than consuming candidate propaganda.