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
So you’d rather allow Trump a 3rd term then, is that what I hear you saying?
Term limits might not be great for very long term, but you need to start with a great candidate in the first place, which America’s not had on a long while either.
Again, there an issue with the 2 party system, and that’s that they’re bought and paid for by billionaires and mega corps. America didn’t make all this progress from the 1700s into now by flip flopping parties all the time. The idea is to have the people’s best interest at heart, and part affiliation was a representation of some ideals. Anymore, everything has gone to one extreme or the other-(by design of media) to force you on one side or the other… Now with tug of war, nothing really changes.
A NEW 3rd party -independent of the 2 others -could break the cycle more than we know. If a candidate actually represented the people’s best interest, they could be aliens from outer space for all I care. If our government actually had trustworthy members, we’d steadily progress regardless of affiliation. Term limits IMO help keep those greedy with power, out, out maybe at least theoretically…
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.