https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvofDENTwDQ

among a dumb ass, who has actually no clue about the foreign politics and a psychopath, that would rather escalate a dangerous situation than searching for diplomatic conversation, trump looks unfortunately like the only choice, even though his only contribution where hollow phrases build on hilarious premises.

*sees thread title*

Oh, where to begin?

The video made me laugh. There are even more stupid right politicians than i know from switzerland :D Awesome how those guys still get votes somehow

The Republican Party is propped up by a few extremely rich donors who want to insinuate their own policies at the expense of everyone else. Crazy people who are willing to sell their souls to the rich become republican politicians.

The only reason the Republican Party even exists now is because of money and gerrymandering. Its policies are often a) catering to the rich, b) culturally outdated by twenty years or c) delusional.

Democrats and republicans are the same assholes that still work for large companies.

Putin probably rolling on the floor laughing. The dude is ex KGB, anybody holding onto the old Communist ways is automatically anti-American lol.

But seriously if Trump or Hillary get the nominations I'm moving to Canada. Hell, all of our running options suck.

First off, you shouldn't judge Republicans based on Trump. He's an anomaly.

Secondly, while the Republicans are often greedy, the Democrats are not better. Their top supporters are rich, Hollywood, celebrities. Both parties are sustained by the rich.

Sanders' only financial support has come from unions and small donations. So there's at least one democrat doing it right.

First off, you shouldn't judge Republicans based on Trump.

so should I better ask: what the fuck is wrong with american politics? to be honest that was the first thing that came into my mind.^^ Anyways, I didnt even judged the republicans on the base of trump - Im not sure on which base you are actually judging me and my statement ...

Well you titled the thread "what's wrong with republicans?" but only talked about Trump.

Donald Trump doesn't represent Republicans, that's all I'm saying. Don't take it personally.

actually I talked about all three candidates, that showed up in the debate...

13 Year old Politician has proposal:

Limitation of Funding Act (LFA)

The LFA will limit a candidates ability to recieve funding from the billionaires. This law, if passed, will place a barrier of five hundred thousand dollars from any source. All candidates for any position in The United States Government will be subject to this law.

Edited 9/20/2015 21:54:31

Good all they have to do is use their corporation and it's subsidiary's to donate.

^ from any source

All of the subsidiaries can donate seperetly.

maybe fifty thousand dollars would be a better limit.

I think 5 dollars would be best, actually. They need to do some Wikimedia-style funding.

Edited 9/21/2015 00:22:35

Maybe just get rid of the rigged popularity contest entirely and replace it with a merit-based system in which the skilled, not the popular, manage our nation's economy. Amazing thought, isn't it? I'd also separate the jobs of commander of the armed forces/master of economics/ambassador; as it stands, the job of President has too many skillsets needed for any one person to be great at it.

According to scholarly consensus, the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to Ancient China.[24][25][26][27]a[›] The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests."[28]

As the Qin and Han dynasties developed a meritocratic system in order to maintain power over a large, sprawling empire, it became necessary for the government to maintain a complex network of officials.[29] Prospective officials could come from a rural background and government positions were not restricted to the nobility. Rank was determined by merit, through the civil service examinations, and education became the key for social mobility.[29] After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the nine-rank system was established during the Three Kingdoms period.

According to the Princeton Encyclopedia on American History:[9]

One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han Dynasty adopted Confucianism as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run East India Company... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.

Both Plato and Aristotle advocated meritocracy, Plato in his The Republic, arguing that the most wise should rule, and hence the rulers should be philosopher kings. See Estlund (2003) for a summary and discussion.