Since four of the first five answers I’ve seen are so mild, let me give you what my list would include and tell me if I’m wrong or if I’m missing something:
- Imprisonment and possessions seized for all those known to have committed child sexual abuse from the Epstein files
- Imprisonment and possessions seized for all those related to Trump’s corruption schemes which are:
- Stealing oil from Venezuela
- Insider trading during the current aggressive unprovoked full-scale genocide against Iran, Lebanon and possibly all nations in the Middle East, including US all allied nations in the Middle East except for Israel.
- Cryptocoin frauds
- Imprisonment and possessions seized for all those involved in war crimes
- Designate all detractors of these demands as rape, murder, thievery, and pedophile protectors
- Establishment of an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of ICE brutality
- Retraction of any designation for this protest made as anything other than peaceful
- Release of every political arrest made during this protest and any protest prior that are still in prison with exception of the Jan 6th Capitol storming
- Reimprisonment of every pardoned criminal during Trump’s presidency
- An amendment that abolishes the first past the post winner-takes-all system.
- Instead it should have indirect elections to prevent campaign fraud (so you only elect local leaders, who elect those above them) and an approval voting system, but if that is deemed to radical here, then at least have initial proportional representation, with a majority amount of seats shuffled towards the winning coalition in order to prevent lame duck governance.
- If indirect elections with approval voting is considered acceptable, I suggest that each for political position one must complete a civil exam created by an independent institution. Failing to pass will result into disqualification for that term’s elections.
- An amendment that guarantees all citizens, including prisoners universal basic income
- An amendment that guarantees all citizens ownership of basic housing
- An amendment that guarantees all citizens ownership a basic amount of land that can prove themselves to be Indigenous First Nations US-soil Native American
- Rewrite the 13th amendment to abolish of slavery in prisons
- An amendment that secures roaming rights by making any vagrancy and loitering law illegal
- Have the amendment above include making it illegal to restrict access to gated communities. So no walking or driving around 10-meter-high, kilometer-wide walls.
- Amendment that guarantees continuous slower traffic paths through faster traffic paths, so walkways > bike lanes > roads.
- Repeal the Patriot Act
- Universal Health Care
- Nationalize all casinos except those owned by native Americans
- End all sanctions and embargoes on other countries
- Close down the Board of Peace
- Close down all ICE death camps
deleted by creator
Term limits are antidemocratic and largely unhelpful as they disincentivise long term thinking. There’s a reason Amerikkka only put them in place in 1951 after FDR.
You’ve told us you think all the ideas others had aren’t good. What ideas do you think are good?
I’m not against stopgaps in themselves. If you do not have the power to force real change, then immediate achievable demands make sense. Working people need relief, and there is nothing wrong with fighting for rent caps, wage rises, debt relief, public housing, or stronger labour rights.
What I object to is pretending those things are the solution. They are not. They are stopgaps. They can ease the pressure for a time, but they do not remove the system that produces the crisis in the first place. They do not end landlordism, finance capital, monopoly power, imperialism, or production for profit. They manage the symptoms.
Fight for reforms where they are all you can win. But understand them for what they are. Temporary measures, not emancipation. The crisis of capitalism does not have a reformist solution. Its only solution is the overthrow of the system itself.
When the system is so awful and corrupt as it is, I’m not sure it matters if you call something a solution or not (which in any case I don’t think many people think “the solution” is any one given mediocre change). What’s important is improving lives, not criticizing anything short of perfection
Improving lives is generally good. The question is whether people are clear about what they are winning.
I was replying in this very thread to someone calling higher minimum wages and taxes on the rich the solution. That is the problem. Measures like that can be worth fighting for, but they are not a solution. They are stopgaps within the same system that created the crisis.
That matters because without that understanding people mistake temporary concessions for lasting change. They win reforms, are told the problem is solved, pressure drops, and then those reforms are rolled back as soon as capital regains the initiative. We have seen that repeatedly, including in Europe where social protections were swept back once the political balance shifted.
That is not criticizing anything short of perfection. It is insisting on political clarity. Fight for every immediate gain you can win, yes. But understand that unless the system itself is broken, those gains remain limited, fragile, and easily reversible.
Money out of politics. We need a constitutional amendment that money is not speech, and that it’s in the interest of the people to control how much influence money can buy.
Having a domain name and access to some kind of basic text and video hosting should be considered speech. (But that doesn’t need to be in an amendment.)
Corporations should be required to serve the public interest, even if that public interest is just providing a useful good or service. It should be made clear that persuing profit in a way that’s counter to the public interest (see Fallout) is illegal. (Note that prohibition under this would become an interesting discussion.)
I’m fine with disallowing people over X age to run for office. Term limits outside of the very highest office are generally a bad idea.
Clearly we need to patch some of our biggest vulnerabilities, the pardon process, the independence of the judicial branch, and the ability of the President to wage war without congressional approval.
Gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps proportional representation should be encouraged here.
deleted by creator
I didn’t say anything about age limits. My point was about term limits: they reduce voter choice based on an arbitrary claim that they function as some kind of harm-reduction mechanism, which is hard to take seriously given how obviously dysfunctional the American system is. Term limits do not solve elite capture, corruption, or institutional failure; they just act as another inertial mechanism that constrains democratic choice and blocks the kind of massive structural change the U.S. clearly needs. Most of your reply was a rant about broader problems I never said anything about, but none of it actually answered the point I made.
deleted by creator
Your opening is the standard lazy shitlib straw man. Saying term limits are anti-democratic does not mean “give Trump a third term,” it means voters should decide rather than having the state pre-emptively remove options from the ballot. That is what a term limit is. It’s not some magical anti-corruption device, but an arbitrary legal restriction on who people are allowed to vote for, imposed on the theory that limiting democracy somehow protects democracy. In practice it does nothing to fix donor capture, party corruption, media manipulation, or institutional decay; it just narrows voter choice while the same unelected interests keep their power completely untouched. The rest of your reply is you wandering off into a generic rant about the two-party system and independents, which has nothing to do with the actual point I made.
deleted by creator
Term limits are anti-democratic as you are removing popular choices from government.
Imagine a politician who is competent and serves the public, the public keeps re-electing them, so you … block them from serving again? To replace them with an untested politician?
Term limits also limit long-term thinking as a politician in their last term has no real accountability or incentives.
deleted by creator
Term limits also limit positive change. They are meant to prevent change in general.