they'd all be branded as radical wokes by magats. Jesus too.
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
280 points (98.3% liked)
politics
24577 readers
2725 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, they would be arrested on terrorism charges, literally our founding fathers went to their mantle, grabbed their rifles and went to war against THEIR king. You think they'd tolerate Trump? LOL
Jesus would be deported for not being white and looking like Ted Nugent.
They would've sent him packing back to king George if he somehow eluded the hangman's noose
The founding fathers would hate everything about our current government. They would hate everyone involved in this absolute shitshow from the far right all the way to the far left and back around again, not a single one of them is in this for you.
There is no far left amongst current politicians
The founding fathers were also looking out for wealthy white landowners.
If you read Washington's Farewell Address, the section where he warns about the dangers of party politics sounds to a modern ear like he is talking specifically about Trump.
Did he and his founding father co-authors have uncanny foresight? The truth is simpler than that. They lived their lives up to that point under oppressive authoritarian rulers.
They were describing the evils they knew from experience. The reason it sounds like Trump to us is that he's the evil we know from experience.
They read a lot of history, particularly the english civil war, the roman civil wars. They were aware of the limitations of democracy and the vulnerability to demagogues, but they still thought it was superior to monarchy, "if you can keep it".
Maybe, but the Founding Fathers were kind of naive when it came to how the politics of the system they designed would play out. The Constitution is an imperfect document written by imperfect people who didn't understand that political parties would form or what positions the political opposition should take.
That being said, the Founding Fathers thought there would likely be a new constitution within a lifetime.
The founding fathers can't really be spoken about as if they're one person. They disagreed with each other just like you'd expect. Some were probably more naive than others.
At least some of the founding fathers did understand political parties and that they would form. Some of them were against political parties, yes, especially George Washington, but the first American political parties were established during Washington's tenure as president. Everybody knew it would happen, but many of them tried their best to stop political party formation. That's why Washington talked about it in his farewell address that I mentioned.
The idea that the founding fathers believed a new constitution would come within a lifetime is just a misconception as far as I can tell. One founding father, Thomas Jefferson wrote about how a constitution lasts 19 years, and would only last longer due to force. But I don't think any of the founding fathers, even Jefferson, really believed we'd have a new constitution within that time. In fact, when that time limit expired, Jefferson himself was the sitting president. Did he really think he was only president due to his use of force at that time? I suspect not.
And it took over 5 years for all of the states to ratify the constitution that they came up with. I think a person experiencing this would feel in their bones that Constitutions were expected to last a long time.
Isn't the US constitution the first written constitution in the world? (besides the 10 commandments, if that counts) It may look outdated today, but it was a great legal innovation at the time and influenced world history up to today.
It depends on how you look at the Articles of Confederation, another American basic law which was replaced by the Constitution.
Also, it isn't me saying that the Constitution wasn't a big deal. It is just me pushing against the deification of the document.
Yes, I agree that it should not be taken as dogma, but there is some value in having some good faith well though out cross-generational legal inertia that evolves slowly with culture and technological developments over time...which would be the job of SCOTUS.
Today's Republicans say they want to follow the Founders' intent, but it's all a lie. There are only two reasons why they have this Founder fetish:
-
It is always convenient to be able to base rulings on the opinions of people who have been dead for hundreds of years, because you can't ask them what they really think. I think the Founders would have had a lot to say about today's Christian Nationalists, most of it uncharitable.
-
Their endgame has always been to call a Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Poof! Now they are the New Founders, and Precedent says they will be fetishized for another 250+ years. Imagine US History buffs of the future scrutinizing the essential writings of the new Founding Fathers: McConnell, Roberts, MTG, Sean Hannity. Future armchair historians will analyze Trump social media posts like they are the Federalist Papers! Maybe someone will make an epic musical out of them....
the New Founding Fathers
Ever seen The Purge?
2 is right, but the reasons aren't for aggrandizement (at least, not mainly). It's for more power and the legitimacy of that power.
But it seems that they don't need to convene a convention if the Supreme Court and Congress can simply allow Trump to ignore laws with impunity.
I'm already working on a musical about them, but I think I may have to send it out of the country to be both published (under an assumed name) and performed.
Stop looking for father figures, act like you know is right, not like if you wanted to make someone proud.
Once you're an adult, the people you're supposed to be making proud are younger than you now. They're the children looking up to you and their children and their children's children.
No. I need some authority figure to tell me what is moral and just. I am incapable of rational thought.
It would be moral and just to give me all your money
I think the presidents during World Wars 1 and 2 would absolutely hate Trump knowing that he has turned into the very enemy they fought against twice over. And turned the country that they fought so hard to preserve and progress, just to see it turn into a dictatorship. All of those presidents would seriously be rolling in their graves twice over now.
Wilson would be cheering Trump on, for finishing what Wilson started. FDR would beat both of them with his wheelchair while Teddy holds them still.
Teddy would ask them how they dare kill a man with words when they haven't bothered to do it with a gun first.
Its hilarious to me that people think that the founding fathers, who ostensibly designed this entire country specifically for the benefit of the land-owning gentry, would hate maga politics.
Im like 99% sure that the founding fathers would probably hate legitimately democratic politics. They were never interested in actual democracy in the first place. They were interested in entrenching their position as the ruling class of this country. Thats it.
“They stood against monarchy!1!1!” Yeah, they did, they stood against one guy having the power because they wanted that power for themselves. Not because they wanted that power vested widely amongst common individuals. “No taxation without representation” wasnt really about representation. The colonies could have easily argued for representation, people like Benjamin Franklin were vocal in trying to push that as the best choice for their future, and Britain was not an absolute monarchy by any means. They simply didnt give territorial/colonial subjects the same rights as citizens, which is exactly what the United States has done the entire time it has had colonies itself. US territories have no say in the government that unilaterally controls them.
The majority of the founding fathers were basically a bunch of libertarians who just wanted to not pay taxes. British colonists in North America were the richest and least taxed people in the entire world at the time, and they were severely spoiled by it.
People seriously need to get over their views of historical actors as these benevolent and infallible characters in some fairy tale story of them envisioning a country built for the good of everyone. These were the same guys that relied on indentured servitude and slavery to make their money. They believed quite strongly in themselves having superiority over the commoner, let alone their opinions of peoples who werent white.
I would bet every dollar I have that if the founding fathers snapped back to life right now that they would be no different than the maga morons or libertarians that want to run this country into the ground
This is an .ml take. There are many, many writings where they opposed specific policies now undertaken by the Trump regime. You can start with the Declaration of Independence if you'd like.
Regardless, they're dead and we're not. Governments are for the living. (That's something they thought too, by the way.)
Its hilarious to me that people think that the founding fathers, who ostensibly designed this entire country specifically for the benefit of the land-owning gentry, would hate maga politics.
I think they would. Land-owning gentry culture had one visible advantage over most of modern political culture - if you make a rule, then you follow it, and if you say a word, you mean it. It was important, people would fight on duels for these things about them being put in doubt. Not that they all would really act this way, of course.
Differences between MAGA and Democrats for this purpose are not important.
I would bet every dollar I have that if the founding fathers snapped back to life right now that they would be no different than the maga morons or libertarians that want to run this country into the ground
I think they would find some similarities with libertarians for the reason stated above. Some.
But in general I think they'd disown whatever in the modern world is ascribed to them.
Yeah, the federalist papers go a little "we need a monarch but let's not call it that." Hamilton openly called for a president for life, was terrified of immigrants, great at saying one thing and doing another, and getting triggered enough to straight up lie about his political opponents. He also designed a system to give himself unfettered access to America's finances.
Dude would have loved Trump.
I think it's important to note that America's permissive immigration policy during the 18th and 19th centuries was accompanied by the lack of a government-provided "safety net" for those immigrants.
It was because they needed borderline slave labor. Nothing more.
We don’t know what they would think. We can make a guess, but we don’t know. The only thing this kind of shit does is create a division point. We need to stop fighting each other and tear down this shit hole of a “democracy”.
i don't care what any slaver thinks ever
I don’t know how you could possibly exist in the current world with that mindset. The majority of the current modern world is built atop things slavers said and did. It’s an unfortunate truth, but one you can’t deny.