Was extending literacy to the lower classes a mistake?

[Kondor3]

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

 

[Kondor3]

Was extending literacy to the lower classes a mistake?

Well, that's ONE way to put the nigras back in their place, ain't it, Jim?

----------

What a pile of hor$e$hit, from GreenAndBlue's alternative sock.

Dat'z very Raciss of you.

Sure it is, Jethro...

 

[B. Kidd]

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

So, in your bubble-boy world, only elitists are literate?
Come on, you gotta do better than that.

 

[Questioner]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level

Did your parents write this thread for you?

No, the bare minimum literacy required to participate in politics or watch mass media is at a 6th grade level - entrepreneurial minded individuals have to learn more on their own.

A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

 

[Questioner]

A

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

In practice, no - the Framers were aristocratic and meritocratic, they were "elites" in the very definition thereof. "The people" doesn't mean mob rule or anarchy.

The government was designed as a Constitutional Republic, with elected representatives and the electoral college as a bullwark against mob rule.

Theoretically, the college could simply ignore the popular vote entirely, and often for good reason - if anything, the discussion should be about eliminating the popular vote, not the college.

Much as the state government is "authoritarian", at least in the sense that it has power over the people, as it was designed to; such as in punishing or preventing crime and immorality - and a lawyer or judge will have more practical authority than an average person.

America's government, as is arguably the case in any civilization, was built by thinking men and women of high standards and character.

And ultimately, as per the Constitution, our government could be changed into something more overtly aristocratic and meritocratic anyway - even if one is naively appealing to the "Constitution", or their infantile idea of it anyway - that's still appealing to the authority of some "elites" - given that if one didn't feel the need to appeal to "elites", then "America" as an institution or ideal would be irrelevant, and they could just as well become an anarchist.

A true anarchist couldn't care less about any government, "American" or otherwise. The framers and their ideals and character would be irrelevant.

 

[Questioner]

Was extending literacy to the lower classes a mistake?

Well, that's ONE way to put the nigras back in their place, ain't it, Jim?

----------

What a pile of hor$e$hit, from GreenAndBlue's alternative sock.

That's a racist stereotype, it would discriminate against illiteracy, not race.

There are literate black men and women.

 

[Kondor3]

...That's a racist stereotype...

Yep. And it's a projection onto your side's true mindset in the matter. Apparently, the subtlety inherent in all that escaped you.

...it would discriminate against illiteracy, not race...

That's what they said back in Jim Crow times, too. No sale.

 

[lennypartiv]

Our Founding Fathers were ahead of their time. Restricting the vote to land owners was the best way to insure we had competent leaders who would not destroy our country.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Our Founding Fathers were ahead of their time. Restricting the vote to land owners was the best way to insure we had competent leaders who would not destroy our country.

I disagree.

restricting the vote to landowners would still end up with trump as president.

destroying our country

 

[aaronleland]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level

Did your parents write this thread for you?

You missed his point, 6th grader.

For your information, I didn't make it to the sixth grade.

 

[Kondor3]

Our Founding Fathers were ahead of their time. Restricting the vote to land owners was the best way to insure we had competent leaders who would not destroy our country.

Collectively, our Founding Fathers were both geniuses and highly flawed and mistaken men.

They did more good than bad, and they gave us one helluva start, and a marvelous set of guidelines by which to govern ourselves.

The idea of Universal Enfranchisement had not yet taken root in the wider world in the 1780s, so they served-up what worked back then.

Two centuries plus change of political and social evolution and public education have long-since set aside Property and Literacy Tests.

Rightfully so.

President Abraham Lincoln observed that we are a "...nation of The People, by The People, and FOR The People..." .

That means that you-and-yours are no longer empowered to decide who votes and who does not.

You will abide by the laws of the Republic.

Period.

You can always try to amend the Constitution for your purposes here.

Or...

You can try developing, promulgating and executing a vision and accompanying policies that have the support of a majority of voters.

That's the way we attain and retain political power in the United States... by garnering the support of The People, not restricting the Franchise.

---------

Sheeesh... it seems like with every new generation, some collection of schmucks or another lose sight of this, and try to pull a fast one.

 

[lennypartiv]

Our Founding Fathers were ahead of their time. Restricting the vote to land owners was the best way to insure we had competent leaders who would not destroy our country.

I disagree.
restricting the vote to landowners would still end up with trump as president.
destroying our country

The "president" destroying our country left office in January of 2017. And based on the Constitution, he wasn't eligible to be president.

 

[aaronleland]

And based on the Constitution, he wasn't eligible to be president.

Maybe the OP has a point...

 

[my2¢]

It is bad enough that the Democrats want to take the presidency away from Trump and now we have this guy wanting to deny him his vote.

 

[OldLady]

A

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

In practice, no - the Framers were aristocratic and meritocratic, they were "elites" in the very definition thereof. "The people" doesn't mean mob rule or anarchy.

The government was designed as a Constitutional Republic, with elected representatives and the electoral college as a bullwark against mob rule.

Theoretically, the college could simply ignore the popular vote entirely, and often for good reason - if anything, the discussion should be about eliminating the popular vote, not the college.

Much as the state government is "authoritarian", at least in the sense that it has power over the people, as it was designed to; such as in punishing or preventing crime and immorality - and a lawyer or judge will have more practical authority than an average person.

America's government, as is arguably the case in any civilization, was built by thinking men and women of high standards and character.

And ultimately, as per the Constitution, our government could be changed into something more overtly aristocratic and meritocratic anyway - even if one is naively appealing to the "Constitution", or their infantile idea of it anyway - that's still appealing to the authority of some "elites" - given that if one didn't feel the need to appeal to "elites", then "America" as an institution or ideal would be irrelevant, and they could just as well become an anarchist.

A true anarchist couldn't care less about any government, "American" or otherwise. The framers and their ideals and character would be irrelevant.

I don't know, Questioner. Perhaps a lot of people don't have an advanced education, but those people pay exactly the same taxes and are asked to follow the same laws as the more educated neighbor nearby.
If the laws affect you, you should have some say in them, I feel. It was one of the spurs of the American Revolution.

BTW, reading books and starting your own business doesn't make you any more special than the guy who cleans out my septic tank. I know plenty of people who only went as far as high school and are pretty darned wise.

 

[Questioner]

It is bad enough that the Democrats want to take the presidency away from Trump and now we have this guy wanting to deny him his vote.

A

...A semi-literate person who decides to vote is like a chimp with an AK.

Fortunately, the United States is a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people"... not some half-a$$ed elitists.

In practice, no - the Framers were aristocratic and meritocratic, they were "elites" in the very definition thereof. "The people" doesn't mean mob rule or anarchy.

The government was designed as a Constitutional Republic, with elected representatives and the electoral college as a bullwark against mob rule.

Theoretically, the college could simply ignore the popular vote entirely, and often for good reason - if anything, the discussion should be about eliminating the popular vote, not the college.

Much as the state government is "authoritarian", at least in the sense that it has power over the people, as it was designed to; such as in punishing or preventing crime and immorality - and a lawyer or judge will have more practical authority than an average person.

America's government, as is arguably the case in any civilization, was built by thinking men and women of high standards and character.

And ultimately, as per the Constitution, our government could be changed into something more overtly aristocratic and meritocratic anyway - even if one is naively appealing to the "Constitution", or their infantile idea of it anyway - that's still appealing to the authority of some "elites" - given that if one didn't feel the need to appeal to "elites", then "America" as an institution or ideal would be irrelevant, and they could just as well become an anarchist.

A true anarchist couldn't care less about any government, "American" or otherwise. The framers and their ideals and character would be irrelevant.

I don't know, Questioner. Perhaps a lot of people don't have an advanced education, but those people pay exactly the same taxes and are asked to follow the same laws as the more educated neighbor nearby.
If the laws affect you, you should have some say in them, I feel. It was one of the spurs of the American Revolution.

BTW, reading books and starting your own business doesn't make you any more special than the guy who cleans out my septic tank. I know plenty of people who only went as far as high school and are pretty darned wise.

I respect that.

Regardless, why should an entrepreneur like myself, who speaks and writes English at an advanced level, have the same say in the electoral process as an individual who believes "life is meaningless" or doesn't give a damn about the American Dream - preferring his porn addiction instead?

Most of those people don't even know what their rights are, or something as basic as the law of their own state, or how a court or trial process actually works. Most of their information comes from TV, and mindless mass media, not reality or education.

At the most basic levels, even the average person with a degree is barely any more than a "workman" - entrepreneurs, or people with advanced education in any field are a rarity.

 

[lennypartiv]

BTW, reading books and starting your own business doesn't make you any more special than the guy who cleans out my septic tank. I know plenty of people who only went as far as high school and are pretty darned wise.

Baloney. There was a reason our Founding Fathers did what they did. Extending the vote to lesser qualified people has only brought America down.

 

[Lesh]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

In days in which literacy tests were required for political participation, or in which most Americans only spoke English, but couldn't read or right - it was potentially more difficult for the lower classes to participate in politics, and prevent the immorality which is often, but not always associated with them from seeping its way into government - and helped to preserve America's aristocratic heritage.

This has falsely given the impression of many immoral and uneducated Americans a sense of political participation, and imaginary "rights" which they don't necessarily have.

If there were some way of rolling things back, or creating a new standard of literacy requirements for voting, so that only those who speak and write English at a much higher level of fluency than the masses do could vote, it might help to improve the morality of the nation, as well as remind the immoral of their proper place in the status quo - it would also encourage entrepreneurship and self-education, which was the hallmark of many Americans of days past - whether Booker T Washington, or others.

I don't see someone like myself, who speaks and writes English at a much higher level of fluency than most of the American population, should have the same voting rights as one whose education stopped at a 6th grade level - such a system is quite anti-meritocratic if you ask me. William Jennings Bryan is one of my family members, so coming from an educated family had something to do with it, but so did merit and my entrepreneurial spirit.

Many, if not most so-called "Americans" were likewise hostile to my entrepreneurship believing it a waste of time, taking away from more "important" things like watching TV or porn - so why should white trash (or trash period, regardless of color) have the same say in American politics as someone like me, who actually believes in the Dream?

So now Trumpers and Russian bots are against an educated population?

Jesus people

 

[Questioner]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

In days in which literacy tests were required for political participation, or in which most Americans only spoke English, but couldn't read or right - it was potentially more difficult for the lower classes to participate in politics, and prevent the immorality which is often, but not always associated with them from seeping its way into government - and helped to preserve America's aristocratic heritage.

This has falsely given the impression of many immoral and uneducated Americans a sense of political participation, and imaginary "rights" which they don't necessarily have.

If there were some way of rolling things back, or creating a new standard of literacy requirements for voting, so that only those who speak and write English at a much higher level of fluency than the masses do could vote, it might help to improve the morality of the nation, as well as remind the immoral of their proper place in the status quo - it would also encourage entrepreneurship and self-education, which was the hallmark of many Americans of days past - whether Booker T Washington, or others.

I don't see someone like myself, who speaks and writes English at a much higher level of fluency than most of the American population, should have the same voting rights as one whose education stopped at a 6th grade level - such a system is quite anti-meritocratic if you ask me. William Jennings Bryan is one of my family members, so coming from an educated family had something to do with it, but so did merit and my entrepreneurial spirit.

Many, if not most so-called "Americans" were likewise hostile to my entrepreneurship believing it a waste of time, taking away from more "important" things like watching TV or porn - so why should white trash (or trash period, regardless of color) have the same say in American politics as someone like me, who actually believes in the Dream?

So now Trumpers and Russian bots are against an educated population?

Jesus people

A K-12 education is barely anything at all - if anything, it gives people the bare minimum necessary to participate in government, without possessing higher qualifications like that of the framers and other ambitious men and women, such as our entreprneurs.

Even the "bare minimum" required to be accepted into colleges or universities is barely anything for a person of higher IQ or ambitions, as per SAT or ACT scores.

The SAT and ACT were so easy I was able to do them in my sleep, as many of the "day jobs" I've had in the past, in comparison to my learning, whether in college or on my own, and entrepreneurial endeavors which I've devoted years to.

 

[OldLady]

The average American only reads at 6th grade level, or at the level most of Olgivy's mass media and advertising is marketed to.

This has potentially made it easier for the lower classes to participate in politics, and meet the bare minimum requirement of voting.

In days in which literacy tests were required for political participation, or in which most Americans only spoke English, but couldn't read or right - it was potentially more difficult for the lower classes to participate in politics, and prevent the immorality which is often, but not always associated with them from seeping its way into government - and helped to preserve America's aristocratic heritage.

This has falsely given the impression of many immoral and uneducated Americans a sense of political participation, and imaginary "rights" which they don't necessarily have.

If there were some way of rolling things back, or creating a new standard of literacy requirements for voting, so that only those who speak and write English at a much higher level of fluency than the masses do could vote, it might help to improve the morality of the nation, as well as remind the immoral of their proper place in the status quo - it would also encourage entrepreneurship and self-education, which was the hallmark of many Americans of days past - whether Booker T Washington, or others.

I don't see someone like myself, who speaks and writes English at a much higher level of fluency than most of the American population, should have the same voting rights as one whose education stopped at a 6th grade level - such a system is quite anti-meritocratic if you ask me. William Jennings Bryan is one of my family members, so coming from an educated family had something to do with it, but so did merit and my entrepreneurial spirit.

Many, if not most so-called "Americans" were likewise hostile to my entrepreneurship believing it a waste of time, taking away from more "important" things like watching TV or porn - so why should white trash (or trash period, regardless of color) have the same say in American politics as someone like me, who actually believes in the Dream?

So now Trumpers and Russian bots are against an educated population?

Jesus people

Do you remember 320 Years of History? This has to be his reincarnation. Or maybe one of his sons. The ego is so huge that as TNHarley would say, if his head were any more swole, it would take a crane to get him out of bed.
lol