• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

71% Of Americans Believe The Founding Fathers Would Be Disappointed At The USA

Do you think the Founding Fathers would be disapointed in the US.

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 65.3%
  • No

    Votes: 14 18.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 16.0%

  • Total voters
    75
Fine. Since I left my feet sticking out from the safety of the blankets you can whack them off and make gumbo out of them and we can call it even :)

Society is fine. There is an ebb and flow to all this, and people have been dooming and glooming for as long as recorded history.

Fully agree.So far,not a single person's prediction of the world ending has come true.

And those feet of you had better be of the finest quality.My customers deserve no less.
 
The question is sort of a platitude really, and people will answer based on their current level of national pride. Most of the founding fathers were aristocrats, womanizers, and slave owners. Back then it was normal.

I think the truth is that they wouldn't recognize America due to all the radical changes in the past few hundred years. Muskets and gunpower... and now we have weapons that could wipe out this whole planet several times over.
 
As an outsider looking in, I have no idea what the 71% can possibly be thinking. The Founding Fathers would find a country that has advanced far beyond anything they may have believed possible while at the same time holding true to the principles upon which the country was built.

The Founding Fathers may be disappointed in some of the citizens of your great country who don't appreciate the wonder they helped create and the way in which your government has veered off course into areas best left to the people, but all in all I believe they'd be very proud.

Oh they would no doubt be quite proud at most of our technological achievements and may even be proud of some of the cultural changes. But all in all they would be very disappointed at our government and probably be disappointed in some other cultural aspects. In fact I would surmise that if one were able to travel back in time to just before they made our Constitution, bring them to our time, educated them on how our society is right now and how our government is currently acting that when you brought them back they would definitely be making some very big changes in the Constitution.

No offense CJ but as an outsider I don't think that you would be able to fully grasp how our Founding Fathers were thinking at the time. Your culture in Canada is quite a bit different than ours in the US. Similar in certain aspects sure, but different none the less. I say this as an outsider looking at your own country and my understanding of it compared to my understanding of my own culture and bailiwick.
 
Oh they would no doubt be quite proud at most of our technological achievements and may even be proud of some of the cultural changes. But all in all they would be very disappointed at our government and probably be disappointed in some other cultural aspects. In fact I would surmise that if one were able to travel back in time to just before they made our Constitution, bring them to our time, educated them on how our society is right now and how our government is currently acting that when you brought them back they would definitely be making some very big changes in the Constitution.

No offense CJ but as an outsider I don't think that you would be able to fully grasp how our Founding Fathers were thinking at the time. Your culture in Canada is quite a bit different than ours in the US. Similar in certain aspects sure, but different none the less. I say this as an outsider looking at your own country and my understanding of it compared to my understanding of my own culture and bailiwick.

All fair points and no offense taken. Perhaps it's just one of those "the grass is always greener on the other side" things, or "you don't know what you've got til it's gone" things. Same thing happens here in Canada - we've got it so good that sometimes we forget.
 
This suggests to me that very few people actually know much about what any of the individual founders thought, and that many people think they were a homogeneous group that didn't fight bitterly, often about the same subjects we argue about now. Most people just declare that the founders would agree with whatever position they espouse.

Some would be all about the guns, while others would think it insane that so many people carry weapons. Some would think that social support systems were wastes of energy, while others would think them necessary. Some would think that religious morality is outdated and should be discarded, while others would support castrating homosexuals. Some would think that ensuring that every American can vote is paramount, while others would be upset that women can vote.

Invoking the hypothetical approval or disproval of people who died two centuries ago is a fruitless pursuit.

Pretty sad that such a high percentage of those responding to the poll know so little about our Founders. In fact, they'd be blown away to see what a global powerhouse their experiment in self-governance has become, not to mention how many countries now emulate what they created.

They'd be giddy.

I agree. Amazed is probably the only thing we can accurately guess that they would be.
 
Of course the founders would be disappointed. Minorities, women, the poor and homosexuals have equal rights as white land owning males. The founders would have hated that!

Thank God we are disappointing to the founders!

Sometimes I can't believe we're from the same planet.
 
everyone of you are going to be judged by future generations, and those future generations will find faults with you, as you find faults with the founders.
 
They created the two party system. When we moved down to a one party government after the War of 1812, it created more problems. The nation purely voted on a regional basis, no one had a national message or wide national support. After that decade, we had the two-party system from then on.

I don't know why people keep pulling out this idea.

They didn't intentionally create it, they just polarized on issues and it became the two party system. As for the one party system, if you think that's what I am advocating then you are mistaken. We need MORE options not less. Put a third party in the white house and I promise you we don't have any IRS or NSA scandals.
 
They didn't intentionally create it, they just polarized on issues and it became the two party system. As for the one party system, if you think that's what I am advocating then you are mistaken. We need MORE options not less. Put a third party in the white house and I promise you we don't have any IRS or NSA scandals.

Which doesn't indict the premise of the party system.

You think that with another political party or a parliamentary system, political targeting, scandals, or government monitoring would cease to exist? Come on, you're not that naive, are you?
 
everyone of you are going to be judged by future generations, and those future generations will find faults with you, as you find faults with the founders.

So true... which is why I find healthy arguments/debates to be constructive. Some people argue for arguments sake... which can be fun and perhaps sometimes productive; but I really get excited when I start to see people view things differently due to keeping an open mind and realizing that one never knows everything.

Argument lets us see the problems in our thinking, if you are open to it.
 
They didn't intentionally create it, they just polarized on issues and it became the two party system. As for the one party system, if you think that's what I am advocating then you are mistaken. We need MORE options not less. Put a third party in the white house and I promise you we don't have any IRS or NSA scandals.

We'll just have a different set of scandals.
Might be minor,might be catastrophic.

But hey I agree,we need a third party,if anything just to shake things up a bit.
 
I think we need to turn the system upside down, shake out all the dirt, and reform laws and regulations at the federal level as well as throw all of the many corrupt asshats down the steps of the Capitol building.

Shaking things up a bit in Congress will only result in the NSA, DoD, and DoJ classifying more and more of their actions and literally getting away with treason... in secret. If you don't consider what the NSA has already done treasonous, anyway.
 
Which doesn't indict the premise of the party system.

You think that with another political party or a parliamentary system, political targeting, scandals, or government monitoring would cease to exist? Come on, you're not that naive, are you?

Obviously there would be troubles, but there is no fear of not being able to get re-elected right now. Obama could rip up the Constitution and not have to worry because within the next 8 to 12 years there is assured to be another Democrat with almost identical views to be able to influence politics to his liking. If a 3rd party were to be elected into office there wouldn't be room for scandals, it is the party's one shot in maybe 50 to 75 years to influence American politics to their views. I'm not saying it will be perfect, but it is needed.
 
Disappointing ? More like disgusted. Minorities have had some of their rights protected since then but in general our rights have been destroyed and every day we lose more.
 
George Washington warned about a two party government when he stepped down after his second term, he believed that it would be the downfall of a successful governing body to have polarized politics. Looks like he was about spot on.

I find the 2 party system divisive too however what's really come to my realization due to my own study of understanding "the whys" behind the news headlines; the reactions to the OJ Simpson verdict, 9/11 and more troubling its celebration in Islamic countries, the election of Barrack Obama to the White House and the utter outrage it triggered even before he won, etc. etc. etc., is human beings seem to have an innate tendency toward tribalism. People tend to identify with and see themselves as members of groups or tribes. These groups can be political, ethnic, cultural, religious, sports team supporters, whatever. Then once they've identified with their group, the definitions or right and wrong take on type of mob mentality. Objectivity goes out the window and good, right or even better, entitled and superior become defined on the basis on membership (in good standing) with the group as well as being marked as a foe by being perceived as a member of an opposition group.

The short version is people will gravitate to tribalism. The 2 party system is in many ways a joke such as The Republican Heritage Foundation coming up with the idea of an individual mandate for healthcare coverage but a Democrat implements a Republican idea and he's a socialist. There are all kinds of other examples. I am of the view that the 2 party system pacifies the need for tribalism in the human psyche politically in America. If the parties were done away with I fear a vacuum would be created and would be filled with a political tribalism based upon geographic region and would threaten to literally break apart the country.
 
I find the 2 party system divisive too however what's really come to my realization due to my own study of understanding "the whys" behind the news headlines; the reactions to the OJ Simpson verdict, 9/11 and more troubling its celebration in Islamic countries, the election of Barrack Obama to the White House and the utter outrage it triggered even before he won, etc. etc. etc., is human beings seem to have an innate tendency toward tribalism. People tend to identify with and see themselves as members of groups or tribes. These groups can be political, ethnic, cultural, religious, sports team supporters, whatever. Then once they've identified with their group, the definitions or right and wrong take on type of mob mentality. Objectivity goes out the window and good, right or even better, entitled and superior become defined on the basis on membership (in good standing) with the group as well as being marked as a foe by being perceived as a member of an opposition group.

The short version is people will gravitate to tribalism. The 2 party system is in many ways a joke such as The Republican Heritage Foundation coming up with the idea of an individual mandate for healthcare coverage but a Democrat implements a Republican idea and he's a socialist. There are all kinds of other examples. I am of the view that the 2 party system pacifies the need for tribalism in the human psyche politically in America. If the parties were done away with I fear a vacuum would be created and would be filled with a political tribalism based upon geographic region and would threaten to literally break apart the country.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there needs to be a two party system (dems and GOP) PLUS relevant and threatening third parties. This would diversify the choice and only better american politics.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there needs to be a two party system (dems and GOP) PLUS relevant and threatening third parties. This would diversify the choice and only better american politics.

Agree. I also would love to start seeing a Third-Party Candidates nationally televised debate on one or more of the cable news channels where the Libertarian debates the Green Party nominee and maybe add any Independent candidate.
 
Yes, they would be disappointed if they got read-in on all of our dirty secrets and history that has transpired since their collective deaths. I imagine they wouldn't be fond of women's and black's positions in society today. Nor all the fuss about homosexuals. All of the clandestine agencies that on a daily basis rape the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they'd likely push for a revolution from that tyranny. I'm sure they would not be fond of the Federal Reserve. The size of our government would displease them. The power certain corporations wield over the government would anger them. Some of the science we do would be called out as an abomination. They would likely find faults with our media, entertainment, education, sexual activities, parenting, farming, criminal justice and legal system.

There would be an abundance of criticism coming from them.
 
Last edited:
Agree. I also would love to start seeing a Third-Party Candidates nationally televised debate on one or more of the cable news channels where the Libertarian debates the Green Party nominee and maybe add any Independent candidate.
I think it's ridiculous that 3rd parties can't participate in the main debates unless they receive a certain amount of votes the year before. The people deserve to hear all their options, I would LOVE to see Green Party or Libertarians in the debates. It would only make it that much better.
 
I think it's ridiculous that 3rd parties can't participate in the main debates unless they receive a certain amount of votes the year before. The people deserve to hear all their options, I would LOVE to see Green Party or Libertarians in the debates. It would only make it that much better.

In the meantime, if theres no agreement from the GOP and DNC candidates, let them debate each other. I bet once the ratings prove to be a big draw and then get some vote, it probably wouldn't be long before we'd break the monopoly of the 2 parties. ...And we'd need to start talking about a runoff system and probably doing away with the Electoral College.
 
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what I am saying is that there needs to be a two party system (dems and GOP) PLUS relevant and threatening third parties. This would diversify the choice and only better american politics.

Too bad were down to a one party system with two wings. Those who want big government (the GOP) and those who want even bigger government the democratic socialists.
 
In the meantime, if theres no agreement from the GOP and DNC candidates, let them debate each other. I bet once the ratings prove to be a big draw and then get some vote, it probably wouldn't be long before we'd break the monopoly of the 2 parties. ...And we'd need to start talking about a runoff system and probably doing away with the Electoral College.

Unfortunately there were several 3rd party debates last election, but none got coverage minus a streaming online. It would take a large news group to sack up in order for this break through to occur.
 
Too bad were down to a one party system with two wings. Those who want big government (the GOP) and those who want even bigger government the democratic socialists.

I couldn't agree more. I honestly was expecting Gary Johnson to carry a lot more of the vote than he did.
 
Unfortunately there were several 3rd party debates last election, but none got coverage minus a streaming online. It would take a large news group to sack up in order for this break through to occur.

Really? I had no idea. Were they like primary debates where members of the same party debated each other or more like a general election debate where the Libertarian debated the Green party in October?
 
Really? I had no idea. Were they like primary debates where members of the same party debated each other or more like a general election debate where the Libertarian debated the Green party in October?

Like primary ones. Formatted quite differently than the ones between Dems and Republicans simply because there were four speakers, Virgil Goode, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, and Gary Johnson from the Constitution Party, Green Party, Justice Party, and Libertarian Party respectively. They were all posed a question and it went right down the line, each had a rough 3 minutes (possibly more?) to respond. Very small and the only reason I found it was because I followed Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on twitter.

2012 Third Party Presidential Debate | 2012 Third Party Presidential Debate | Ora TV - YouTube

Link to the video of it :D
 
Back
Top Bottom