I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time.
Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context.
Nothing personal.
I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid.
You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.
We could simplify that to: they don't know how it works.
If you want to take a minute and get better clarity on our lack of a basis for the other discussion, I'm good with that.
There is what you said, in the literal sense, and there's what it means. All I can communicate to you is how I take that meaning.
As for troll, and any other personal judgments, I tend to avoid those.
Finally, the way I see it is simple: people can participate, and should have a voice in the democracy. There should be few limits on that, in fact the minimum possible, none ideally.
They would also benefit significantly, in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now, with improved ability to work together, understand one another better, find solidarity, and make that participation more than symbolic.
They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side.
"There should be few limits on that..."
I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test.
"They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else."
Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation.
If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.
