State of Political Debate

The other day, my sister and I had small silly discussion over various stuffs, and at one point, she said something like, "I wonder why Obama does not destroy the stock market." She went on and said that the market was only "played" by rich, white men, so it was extremely racist, and it nourished the already rich population, while left many many black (colored, I guess), poor people in poverty. As such, it should be destroyed, and Obama, as a black president, was most suited to destroy it.
I was, frankly, stunned. Not that it was a bold stuffs (believe me, my sister is always a bold, smart, and passionate person, and I have heard much more interesting stuffs), nor was it that bad of an idea either, but it was just totally out of the line. To destroy the stock market (totally, and not allowing it to pop up again) means to shift away from capitalist mode of production, and requires, literally, bloody revolution to get there. Okay, don't want to get to the dirty details here, but to destroy the stock market right now is unrealistic. Plus, there was no promise either. It's kind of like moving to a different city: you may get better, but you can also get worse, but you surely will have to pay for the price to move. In short, there is no reasons (except if you are a hard core Marxist) to "destroy the stock market."
It seems to me that my sister, much like myself when I had been at her age, was utterly under-informed about what role the stock market plays in an economy, as well as why only white, rich men benefited from it (mostly because of inequality in wealth and education). The market only seemed to her bad, racist, and bad in general. Thus, she wanted to destroy it. An utterly understandable and reasonable idea, if one knows not what a stock market is.
Worse, I also see this kind of things going on in the political debate everyday. For example, "government spending is bad during recession" (WTF?), or "gold standard will solve everything." How about this: "the government oppresses us, so we should curb it down to nothing but military"? Or, "Intelligence Creation is a science, and the 'scientific community' is stupid and rejecting anything unpopular." The list keeps going on and on and on. No, these things are not even controversial, they are flat out unrealistic, contradicting within themselves, or provenly wrong multiple times. Still, people keep on arguing for these propositions, getting passionate to the point of bigotry, pissed at anyone disagreeing with them, and refusing to even consider any contradicting evidence.
To make the matter worse, there is a weird kind of philosophy in Western world that if you hold a deeply unpopular idea, you are being Copernicus or Galileo, fighting for truth against the mindless, stupid, uninformed mob, struggling for the betterment of your world. This, of course, is bullshit. Remember, popular ideas get popular for a reason. Remember, also, that Copernicus and Galileo's works were accompanied with concrete evidences, observations, and proofs, and these proofs are irrefutable. Lastly, remember that these works were not formed in days or even months: they were accumulations of worries and questions spanning centuries (Ptolemy model was formed in 2nd century, only rejected by Copernicus in 16th century, that's 15 centuries!), and took decades to finalize, prove, and perfect; they also usually require advancement in multiple other aspects of the society (steering away from the Church, invention of telescope, etc.) to appear. Thinking up an idea from nowhere, supported by a small group of people, with no concrete evidences, you are not holding truth, but just get in the way of other people.
Yet, the political sphere seems to be filled with such people: eager, passionate, intelligent, but under-informed, under-educated, and misled; sometimes, brainwashed and conditioned. They then join political parties that take advantages of their weaknesses for different, sometimes utterly contradicting, purposes. It breaks my heart every time to see how freedom lovers get fooled into shams like Tea Party (which does not resemble the original one at all), or weird churches, or paying for incompetent people who cannot even manage their own lives (yes, I am talking about Sarah Palin and the likes).