We are heading towards an Idiocracy!

[walkertexasdruid]

Thus far in the United States' current election cycle, Donald Trump looks to become the the Republican Party's nominee for President. This has me worried considering how in your face and unapologetic he has been so far. I can only imagine what he would be like on the international stage. Leaders who have much of their support from really angry people do not always make good decisions once they get into power.

On the other side we have a close race between the extremely untrustworthy Hillary Clinton, who does not even seem to be aware that she is lying, and Bernie Sanders, whose socialistic ideas make President Barack Obama seem like a light-weight.

Are we doomed for the next several years, or is there a glimmer of hope that I am missing?

[Marc v4.0]

Well, you already mentioned Sanders so...

[Solid Snake]

What we have right now, as Sanders is apt to point out, is already socialism. It's just corporatist socialism -- socialist principles of government intervention applied exclusively for the benefit of the rich and prosperous.

What we need is a good dose of Bernie's democratic socialism -- socialist principles applied instead to benefit those in need so that everyone can be coequal and communal participants in society.

[Bard The 5th LW]

I fucking hated that movie.

In short though, no we probably aren't heading towards idiocracy; we're just in the middle of a spat of bad, emotional decision-making and the nation will probably get its head together in 4 years and maybe we'll learn a valuable lesson from it.

[Aerozord]

I'm honestly curious about what would happen if Trump was elected because alot of the things he says he will do is simply impossible. He has a fourth graders understanding of what the president actually does but to be fair so does most of America. Our "checks and balances" system is certainly broken but even in its current state it would still prevent such extremist ideas.

While on the subject Sanders is in a similar spot just on the opposite end. though his attempts won't make the international community look at our nation like a child throwing a tantrum most of his goals are far too drastic to ever get put into law. I'd say the only ones that are possible would be free college and healthcare mostly due to America becoming increasingly dissatisfied by it. Other things could be nudged like increased taxes on the wealthy and tighter FDA regulations. More major things like a massive cut into corporate revenue or decentralizing banks doesn't stand a chance.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

While on the subject Sanders is in a similar spot just on the opposite end. though his attempts won't make the international community look at our nation like a child throwing a tantrum most of his goals are far too drastic to ever get put into law. I'd say the only ones that are possible would be free college and healthcare mostly due to America becoming increasingly dissatisfied by it. Other things could be nudged like increased taxes on the wealthy and tighter FDA regulations. More major things like a massive cut into corporate revenue or decentralizing banks doesn't stand a chance.

I dislike this argument, because, while true, it misses the point.

One does not elect someone like Sanders in the current political landscape and expect him to succeed on driving every promise to completion.

One elects someone like Sanders because doing so sends a very clear message to the body politick about what is needed, and what is wanted.

Electing Sanders to the presidency, if, indeed, he earns the nomination, isn't likely to see huge changes immediately, but it will alter the political landscape for years to come and make those changes possible in the future. Electing Hilary, (or most of the republican nominees) on the other hand, will have the opposite effect of solidifying politics into corporate welfare and war hawkishness (i.e. Business as Usual) for at least another 4-8 years.

Electing Trump. . . well I can't say what that would do. He's corrupt, and stupid, and vile but running on the idea of anti-co--hold on I'll just post an article that'll make the point for me.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/23/its_...p_understands/

[Bard The 5th LW]

I'd say the worst part about the Primaries of this year is that Trump isn't even the worst person the Republicans have put forward, considering that Ted Cruz wants to be our Ayatollah Khomeini and Ben Carson has seemingly lobotomized himself.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Krylo

I dislike this argument, because, while true, it misses the point.

its not an argument, its a statement. I'm not passing judgement on his validity as a president I'm just pointing out what would happen. This is directed towards supporters of both because the vast majority of them believe the candidate will actually implement these things.

Its a comment not on the politicians but on voters not understanding the role and powers the president is granted. If you want real change you should focus more on state elections. Your governor and congressmen have far more power than the president, or perhaps I should say have a far greater impact on the lives of your average citizen.

[Tev]

Last I checked, Sanders and Clinton both crush Trump in hypothetical national polls. At this point it makes more sense to muse about what their presidency would look like instead of toying with the idea that Trump would win a general election.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Tev

Last I checked, Sanders and Clinton both crush Trump in hypothetical national polls.

Only if by 'crush' you mean roughly a 3% lead and a dropping favorability rating as time goes on.

Clinton vs Trump is looking like it might actually be a close race.

Bernie, does, however, crush Trump, but with the democratic party doing everything it can to shore up Hillary and Bernie's issues with black voters up to now, Trump losing isn't really something you can be comfortable with yet.