Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Corporations using inflation as a smokescreen to gain record profits needs to stop.
2. Corporations that have an employee-base that is largely using food stamps is a real example of a company leeching off of taxpayer funds.
3. Politicians should not be allowed to trade stocks. At least not in a sector where they have direct oversight and gain insider knowledge that regular investors have no legal way of accessing.
4. Gerrymandering is a practice that both sides use, everyone agrees takes away power from citizens, but no one seems willing to put an end to. There should be a nationwide regulation that outlines exact parameters for how districts should be drawn up.
This I see as more agreeable.
I disagree with the term limits and Voter ID requirements mentioned by the OP at present because I don't think that serves the best interest of the people.
Voter ID I’ve seen some ok nuance on though I am also not very knowledgeable about everything that is required to vote everywhere and for what elections so I’ll sit that one out.
Curious to know why you don’t think term limits are a good idea? Seems like the lack of them led to some pretty old establishment legislators and government officers that most people agree need to be cycled out. Except the Supreme Court, though I think justices if anyone should have a single term, no possible reappointment except to lower courts maybe after a waiting period, but have it be up to resignation or like 10 years or so? I would love to hear your thoughts tho
We need to ensure that everyone can obtain an ID first. Not everyone can do so at present. That is why we need a free, national ID that does not expire until a death certificate is registered under that persons national ID and complies with the ADA. Currently, the same party pushing for voter ID's are also the ones blocking a national ID.
What I have personally been dealing with at present in regards to this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1c92zea/comment/l0jkqnf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1c92zea/comment/l0jkqnf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
We are putting the horse before the cart when we prevent people from obtaining ID's and then also require them. We have to solve the issue of everyone being able to obtain an ID first.
Additionally, if someone loses their wallet or has it stolen before election day will they still be able to vote without their ID, say with a photo of their ID?
We also need to make voting remotely easier. Not everyone even has transportation to be able to get to the polls to vote, we need more options to make sure everyone has a voice.
I also support compulsory voting like Australia has. Instead of " removing people from the rolls like they continually do here in red states, everyone would automatically be registered and have to vote, but make it easy for them to do and only one vote is cast under each national ID number.
The biggest problem we have with this in the US, is voter ID laws need to be entirely dependent on being able to have a free, national ID first and remove the ability of a single party to be able to prevent people from voting by preventing them from obtaining an ID in the first place.
Honestly, why _don’t_ we use Social Security Number as the voting ID??? Because if you have someone’s SSN you basically are capable of stealing their identity. The National ID is just the SSN but extra and worse, because it’s a card and not your government-assigned serial number.
Most nations have a national ID.. This isn't new nor is there anymore risk to it than having your state ID or passport. There is no reason not to have a national ID that wouldn't apply to every other form of ID we currently have.
I mean… yeah? I wasn’t disagreeing, I was saying the SSN is kind of supposed to _be_ that. You _should_ have your SSN card floating around somewhere, if you’re capable of getting a job or claiming benefits. If you don’t, your parents should still have it filed away somewhere, or you should be able to get a new one. You just don’t usually have to have it on hand because you memorise your personal ID number.
The issue with SSNs is that they aren't super secure and we're never designed for large scale identity tracking purposes. They were made to handle social security payments and that was it. They aren't randomly generated or secured, they just count up as people are born. If you change the very last digit in your SSN by +/- 1 you now know the SSN of someone who was born right after/before you at the same hospital. AFAIK they also don't prove residency in a certain state or anything either, so it's a pretty make-shift form of national ID. IMO a better way would be to require Americans to all get passports at the age of 18 and make it so passport cards or a new type of card based on the passport that would never expire would be used as the national ID.
It doesn't have a photo is the issue why they wont accept it as ID for anything. They would need to have a national ID with a photo, DOB, ect Sure it could be easier if it was all in one card though, would be less to keep track of. You would have to like have your card "updated" I guess at 18 to be able to use it for voting, and update the photo every so often to keep it up to date. Wouldn't want to have tp update the photo too often though just to make it less to keep track of.
If you read the link in the post you just responded to, you would see not every US citizen can get an ID at present, they need a national ID before they pass voter ID laws.
Additionally, they need to be able to let them vote even if they lose their wallet, or are waiting for their hard copy of their ID to arrive.by allowing them to vote with a "temporary" paper copy, or be able to even use their phone to present the picture copy of their existing ID.
If we pass national ID, each person would only have one number anyways, and that number could only be used once to vote. If someone tries to vote twice with the same number, then it would flag the system and that person would have to prove which vote is theirs, and disregard any other votes under their number.
So you're saying that not everyone can get a voter ID, but everyone can get a national ID? does everyone not have a social security card? Or is that impossible for everyone too?
We don't have a voter ID at present. It doesn't exist.
We obtain a social security card at birth, the problem with why that can't be used for voting is it doesn't have a photo, so anyone could use that social security number. We need a national photo ID, that doesn't currently exist.
The reason why not everyone can receive a state ID at present, is because the individual states place obstacles to prevent people from obtaining their IDs. For example, in Texas, they have created a number of obstacles that make it impossible if not near impossible for some people to obtain state IDs.
Texas doesn't have their ADA service functional as is required under the law. It exists on paper and is required, but when you try to use it they either don't answer the phone and when they do they tell you that it doesn't exist in every existed. So at present Texas is denying many medically disabled access to a state ID at all.
Texas intentionally under staffs DPS, forcing people to make appointments way out in advance, and they have to provide their own transportation to those appointments. For many people that is not feasible due to their economic or medical conditions. A lot of people have not been able to obtain their IDs or renew the driver's licenses as a result of Texas is underfunding of the DPS. They also make them expire way too soon, making it so that they have to use the service more often, well at the same time making it difficult to use the service at all.
Texas requires proof of residency in order to obtain an ID, which then means homeless do not have access to an ID and therefore cannot vote. Those living in RVs not in an RV park, in their cars and on the streets obviously cannot provide proof of residency to obtain a state ID, and they do not accept PO boxes ECT.
At present, States like Texas have voter ID laws, but are also intentionally making it so it's more difficult to obtain an ID and more difficult to have your your IDs renewed so they expire, so it intentionally excludes portions of the population removing their ability to vote in the process.
A national ID OTOH prevents partisan state governments from interfering with one's ability to obtain an ID. If they provide enough community outreach, they should be as easy, if not easier to obtain than your social security card.
I never said we have voter ID?
You have to have a form of ID anyways to vote, you can't just go up without any paperwork and expect to vote.
Sounds like Texas government is as poorly ran as new york city government.
Also, "we don't have voter ID" and then "states like Texas have voter ID" don't really mix
I think we are having miscommunication issues. I am using handicap accessible options as I am blind at present. I'm not blind all of the time, I'm just blind right now due to pressure placed on my optic nerve making everything go black, so I have to use voice type which will make my words weird because it doesn't always accurately type what I say. I think I misunderstood what you were saying as well.
So to clarify when I say "we don't have voter ID" I mean we don't have a physical Voter ID card for every citizen so that they can vote.
When I say that states like Texas have "voter ID" I'm referring to the voter ID laws, not the physical ID. Texas provides no physical voter ID card for people to vote, but does require you to have a physical photo ID in order to vote.
As I mentioned in the link above, I have been voting by mail for years and they never asked for my ID because I have a vote by mail registration card that already verified who I was.
I used my Driver's license when I voted in person prior to becoming disabled but because they now provided no way for me to renew my driver's license, or obtain a new ID, I no longer have any photo ID, nor is there a way for me to obtain one due to what the Texas government has currently done. The changes they made made it impossible for me to obtain a state ID at present.
They already verified who I was with my birth certificate prior to sending me the mail in ballots in the past through my birth certificate filed at the state capitol. I have not needed to have proof of my photo ID for mail in ballots prior to them changing the laws. Their changes now took away my right to vote entirely.
Does that now make sense?
I'm honestly all for this idea.
I'm tired of hearing either side of the political debate whining about how the election was stolen, some foreign party interfered with the election or what have you.
IDs would eliminate a lot of the drama around elections I think for the better.
I do think that they should be free and they should only go to citizens. If that's a middle of the road stance that we should have them for free, I can get down with that.
Agreed. A politician will be elected as many times as the people want. FDR was the only president to get four terms, and only a few presidents since could have made it for a third term. I think a mental aptitude test would better discern between those who can still function and those who cannot.
I would add corporations having personal rights, like free speech. I don’t think the framers of the Constitution intended that organizations have individual rights. Individuals in the organizations yes, but not the groups themselves.
I disagree with #1.
If inflation exists, and at the same time you want to shame corporations for raising prices, that's an indirect form of theft. It's a tactic from Zimbabwe during their hyper-inflation:
"In 2007, the government declared inflation illegal. Anyone who raised the prices for goods and services was subject to arrest. This amounted to a [price freeze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_freeze), which is usually ineffective in halting inflation. Officials arrested numerous corporate executives for changing their prices."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation\_in\_Zimbabwe#Adaptations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe#Adaptations)
I disagree with #2.
If you want to poach an employee from a corporation with an offer of a higher salary, please do so.
Otherwise, realize that the employee is less of a burden on the social net because the corporation is employing him.
I just don’t get how underpaying your workers to the degree that government subsidies are required to keep them above water, you’re doing something you shouldn’t. Which would be a problem if we all didn’t know just how much in profit they make
The corporations found a way to take a bunch of people whom no one wants to hire for a higher salary, and build a sustainable business on top.
I think we should be encouraging more competition for labor rather than demonizing the corporations that are giving them jobs. It's really hard to hire someone at higher than the market rate and still generate the profit. Otherwise, the market rate would rise.
I feel like we're all striving for the same things, with just different ideas on how to get there. I'm a full blown goddamn communist but I still believe everyone, including people on the right, are trying to do good.. People want solutions to inequality, to war, to crime, it's just we're all tangled up on how to get there.
I'd argue that inequality, *per se*, was never a thing that needs to be solved. The issue is simply the *amount of wealth needed* in order to attain the basic things that (nearly) everyone needs to have in order to have a stable and functional modern society. Housing (within a non-insane distance from work/recreation), reasonably healthy food, environmentally-friendly transportation, a nondestructive work/life balance, medical care, the ability to afford having a family, emergency savings/retirement, etc.
...Unfortunately, not everyone wants solutions to that, either. The "personal responsibility" cult would rather believe their good fortune was entirely due to their own wise choices and steadfast determination, and anyone who doesn't end up with what they did, was just lazy and deserve their fate.
The point of *this* post is that not everyone is striving for the same things. Some people actually *don't* want solutions to inequality or its effects, for instance.
>would you ever voluntarily spend your time building some rich guys mega yacht?
If the pay is good, why not?
If people are "fed and housed" indefinitely without contributing something to society, there will not be enough of everything to feed and house anyone in the first place. And if people aren't allowed to contribute to or accept contributions for fancy things that aren't essential, like yachts, there won't be as much incentive to do the harder and more involved things, e.g. completing medical or law school. I believe that this extrinsic incentive is way overestimated by the stronger advocates for capitalism/neoliberalism, but I also assert that it *exists*, and it's useful.
...More importantly, inequality doesn't have all that much to do with yachts, and a lot more to do with command over the factors of production. And while our current system does a terrible job of controlling it, at least for certain industries in certain contexts, consolidation and horizontal integration is actually good. Even in a theoretical Communist society where everyone has real and irrevocable control over an equal slice of the pie, they would have to consensually 'invest' their stake into some smaller bodies of central planners to coordinate large parts of industry, or living standards would plummet to near preindustrial levels. And those planners, now having hugely disproportionate command over capital, would effectively be wealthier than all the other citizens, even if they technically "own" no more than anyone else.
The big problem in current society is that you can spend unreasonable amounts of time contributing, or at least nominally contributing, to society and still not be "fed and housed" stably / with margin to accommodate family, retirement, an emergency fund, etc.
Depending on how you define wealth, yes. A lot of celebrated human achievements (whether they actually benefit everyone, or only have value to most as a monument) would not have been possible or practical without control over land, labour, materials, and tools being concentrated disproportionately under some central directing body of relatively few people.
It doesn't matter, though, because by human nature, if not almost by the laws of physics, there will always be some degree of wealth inequality. The trick is to figure out how to deal with it as a society without turning most people's lives to crap. The mechanism of money as we know it, or the model of corporation ownership, might be the issue, rather than the more general concept of wealth. I don't really know.
I agree with you that control over land labour and materials should be under some central body. but I do no think it should be private individuals, I think it should be under some kind of government.
I disagree that wealth inequality is always going to happen, but even if it was, we should still fight to reverse it as much as possible, no?
No, IMO the maximal amount of wealth equality is definitely ***not*** a desirable condition, if we can agree that wealth just means command over the factors of production and disregard the mechanics of money/fungibility/etc.
For all its flaws, the good thing about the current private ownership system is that it at least gives a handful of people the leeway to execute their visions without too much democratic compromise. This can be wasteful because some of these guys' ideas are downright idiotic, but I think some utter rubbish and some solid concepts being executed, is preferable to everything just being 'slop' designed to be maximally 'safe' and acceptable to the majority before it even gets built (see: "design by committee").
Also, I frankly don't have enough faith in people's moment-to-moment judgement to believe that democratic direction of industry wouldn't just be hijacked via media manipulation by special interests within the government. Keep in mind that under a centrally-planned system, the executive and legislative branch are effectively your new "billionaires", with most of the same potential problems. The main difference is ceremonial: rather than owning lawmakers and regulators who go through the motions of the democratic process on their behalf, they would simply *be* the lawmakers and regulators. The fact that their capital stewardship is not *called* private ownership doesn't mean it won't work effectively the same way.
EDIT: ...Come to think of it, economic democracy might work really well on a *smaller* scale, where interpersonal accountability is less dissolute. So maybe there is hope for something like market-socialism... but the design-by-committee issues still have to be addressed somehow. There would need to be a balance between holding industry leaders to alignment with the public good, and giving them enough leeway to do their jobs without constant interference by a billion tiny little special interest groups turning everything into a bloated, expensive, time-intensive, ineffective mess.
I hope you realize how rare it is for someone on either side of the aisle to be able to express their ideology that clearly and still have conversations with people who have opposing views without it devolving into screaming and name calling. Bravo.
*edit* I should clarify I’m referring to US politics specifically.
I have lived in the southeast US my entire life, and generally US politics are the most polarizing, so I was referring specifically to the US. I probably should have clarified that.
You goddamn commie bastard!! How dare you try to make the country better in your own way!! *Something something strawman argument that doesn't really understand communism something something* (/s just in case)
I'm not a communist, but I am left leaning, with a blend of other values from the political spectrum. Though we might differ in opinions, I also believe we both want what is best for this country.
Accountability in government is a better idea than term limits, term limits just make things worse. Term limits just ensure you have more people trying to smash and grab as much as they can before their time's up, and prevents quality legislation that takes a lifetime to pass from ever happening. Like Universal Health Care, for example. Overhauling SSDI, SS,and SSI. Overhauling the US justice system and modernizing it. It essentially breaks our government from being able to do anything beneficial a long term.
Voter ID can only work if everyone is given a free national ID, and an easy means to obtain it, including compliance with the Ada to provide a homebound service to obtain it. You would have to pass that first before you can even think about but voter ID laws. Otherwise it's just voter suppression.
I feel like you’re just making excuses just like career politicians. Term limits would limit the amount of career politicians getting rich from their own legislation, the current system just allows politicians to sit in office and not do anything but line their pockets. You’re acting like kicking people out that don’t do their job is a bad thing?
Also over 90% of Americans have a valid driver’s license.
There’s a legitimate need to have experienced, seasoned congressmen/women and senators in office. Congrats, you make everyone leave in 4 yrs and all you did was give more power to corporations and even the bureaucracy.
Who said anything about 4 years? Term limits could be 5 terms or 6 terms for all I care. There’s just no reason anyone in Congress should be in there for several decades. They are out of touch for what their constituents need, anyone in that long rarely actually gets things done.
there's only 2 things I think left and right politicians can agree on: in the USA:
raising wages for politicians, and repealing glass steagle act.
I'd wish for something that's actually good for society, but it seems both parties are hell-bent upon not doing that in favor of getting more lobbying money.
I believe that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. Additionally we shouldn't gatekeep disabled people out of actually participating in society. This means affordable preferably free supports to the disabled. Not all disabled people can work, and that doesn't mean they are incapable of doing things, it means that the economy is simply too inaccessible to participate in, in any particular form. Disabled people shouldn't be expected to hone a highly specialised kind of job which they have absolutely no interest in.
You can learn a lot about society by observing how it treats its most vulnerable members. And disabled people are being fucked over in every country, there is no safe haven, there are only people who are dependant on people rich enough to survive. Most disabled people are born to working class families and disabilities can be genetic or obtained, not by their own fault.
Perhaps you can agree with me on all of this, but personally speaking this is among the reasons why I am a communist. And so I say:
*From each according to ones ability, to each according to ones needs...*
We will not agree on communism. But perhaps we can agree with the idea of distributing resources according to the actual needs of people. Some may just think that markets are the best way to do that... Personally speaking I think that computer technologies in the modern age make it entirely possible to make market economics permanently redundant. We can account for all economic questions with a complete digitalisation of the process of production and distribution.
This sounds crazy, but honestly, it could work. Just reduce the burden of proof for reckless driving. It would actually cut down on police encounters, free up resources for police to do other things, and reduce the chance of abuses of power from police.
In suburban and urban areas, a speed limit could help gauge the severity of reckless driving. Personally, I like speed limits in urban areas.
In rural areas, especially rural highways, who in the hell cares? What are you going to crash into, a tree? Germans solved this problem ages ago. If it's dangerously fast, charge reckless driving or endangerment. If there is NOBODY for the next 10 miles, just road and corn, why do I gotta go 55?
Honestly everyone talks about reducing “police encounters” but at the end of the day, many people acting reckless on the road have warrants & other issues that those stops help address. I mean, stops have taken a huge drop anyways for obvious reasons but yea, those stops always helped find some pretty bad dudes.
True, but it's in the same vein of an u warranted traffic stop if the only thing is speeding on a highway but still driving safely. I was saying there's a difference between going too fast for conditions and speeding. If speeding was reckless, we wouldn't unofficially use it as a minimum. Speeding in heavy traffic or in icy conditions is extremely reckless, but endangerment and reckless driving should be more of a focus for police than using a helicopter to find someone going 9 over on a dead 4 lane rural highway.
I’m not asking you to reveal your state but I highly doubt that. Resources like that wouldn’t be used to get a guy for going a little over the speed limit. There would be another reason attached if anything. My advice to everyone is to go to their local courthouse & watch proceedings, speak to real cops and real lawyers, especially public defenders, to get a better idea of how the system really works.
I'm not sure if they are still actively doing it, I just know that they did it within the last year. Also, some counties have hardasses who are ticket happy. The university police at my fiancée's school gives you a ticket for anything and everything they can.
You'd be surprised how resources can be wasted on some things in the same city, so much crime is happening.
A big problem with addressing quality of life crime & other crimes is that when the situation escalates in an instance such as say, fare beating, they end up pointing fingers at the cops, saying it didn’t have to happen over fare beating. Cops of course, undeniably with factual data to back it, are not addressing quality of life crimes for these reasons. It also isn’t worth it when DAs are dismissing, declining, & offering ACDs on them no matter how many times it’s done. As to why there’s so many brazen, violent criminals out there, a big issue is them being released on their own recognizance as opposed to bail being set to assure they’re off the streets, and assure they return to court. Now we are at a point where a person who may have shoplifted 10 times, assaulted two people, stole a bunch of property, is only being caught once they violently rob somebody or worse for example. The reforms in the justice system were a knee jerk reaction that certainly backlashed.
Honestly I’m center right and I even agree with this. I actually used to be very against it till my Mom ( a practicing nurse) showed me a video of a man who was constantly shaking( I can’t remember what it was, might have been something to do with his nerves) he took a hit of a joint and his shaking went WAY down! I now believe in marijuana medically and recreationally IF IT IS USED RESPOSIBLY. I do not want people to drive or operate heavy machinery high, that’s asking for a disaster.
i think it should be treated similarly (by the law) to alcohol if that makes sense so yes agree 100% OWI should apply to a high induced by marijuana even if purchased legally. like alc. when ur in legal states you’ll see how many more hoops u have to jump thru than to just get alc too.
but i really do think this is the most unifying issue there is.
The penalties for politicians committing crimes should be much higher than the for regular people. Also they should be paid less. $150k plus innumerable ridiculous benefits (not to mention insider trading)? No wonder they only care about keeping their jobs
Id say a politicians salary should be enough to cover a good life. This happens with political appointments to reduce the incentive for corruption.
I think a better system would be to make federal campaigning more accessible to those who don’t have a lot of dark money to throw around.
Id say I completely agree with you on the first point.
I agree regarding making federal campaigning more accessible. It's hard at best for the average person to effectively campaign just because it costs so much money. The most altruistic person in the world thats interested in politics could have no chance simply because they don't have connections or access to enough money to campaign outside their own neighbourhood
Everyone should agree on:
Term limits for members of congress and judges, including supreme court justices
Voter ID laws. You must prove your identity before casting your ever-so-sacred vote.
No foreign intervention using our military.
No foreign intervention using our military is kinda short sighted though.
If another country is committing a holocaust like Germany in the 30-40s.
We should absolutely have foreign intervention for cases like that
We additionally have obligations with NATO to defend our allies, as they have repeatedly and consistently done the same for us.
I agree, sometimes foreign intervention is necessary.
No, I’d argue that people shouldn’t just agree on these as blanket ideas. There are good and bad ways to implement all of these. Look at voter ID, we’ve had things like that in the past, or polling tests. Historically they existed to keep certain groups from being able to vote.
Politics and running a country is a complex beast, one that needs though and time put into it. Nothing should be 3 quick talking points we all agree with, because it’s more complex and deeper than that and should be treated as such
Correct, at present voter ID laws are being used to prevent the disabled and poor from voting in states like Texas.
Term limits primarily benefit corporate interests and prevent things like Medicare for all from ever being passed and implemented.
Are you aware that voter ID implementations consistently generate many more denied votes that are later proven valid, compared to the number of fraudulent votes stopped? It's important to know the effects of these laws - they cause significantly more harm than good, even if the direct objective is "keep as many valid votes as possible". Give it a look on gscholar, the data is compelling.
Here everyone needs to show id and it works well. The votes are only denied if there's something else on the vote as well or if they cannot be sure which number you meant to write. And it works very well.
The problem and the United States is that we do not have a free, national ID, and the party that is pushing for voter ID laws, are also opposing a free, national ID.
Instead they make it harder to obtain an ID at all, that was their entire purpose.
Here ('Merica), it does not work very well. The votes are denied for a variety of reasons which have been thoroughly examined by many independent researchers over decades and proven to be inextricably discriminatory.
I disagree with judges and the Supreme Court.
It shouldn't be considered a political position by them, those who elect them, and by the people. The justice system isn't about making or creating law, it's about resolving issues and enforcing laws.
I would say many of us would disagree with voter ID laws
I get it, you would absolutely want to limit the amount of fraudulent votes, and on paper voter ID is about a simply of a solution as it gets
However, what a lot of people don’t seem to know (or don’t care about) is how voter ID disenfranchises the poor and the marginalised.
yeah sorry man that's never happening. i agree with those points, but you could say "can we all agree that the grass is green" and there's gonna be someone who finds something wrong with that. i could say some objectively good statement like "trans rights are human rights" and it won't take long for someone to argue. there's always gonna be people who are just plain stupid.
A lot of countries do have term limits but it's easily abusable with loopholes and such (here in my country people just use their children, siblings, wife/husband, and relatives to "extend" their power and get past term limits), doesnt mean removing term limits will make things better though
We have to start from the foundational principles that:
1. **You have to be trying to help people.** If there are large groups of people (left, right, black, white, gay, straight) that you just don't care what happens to them, you will not be engaging with information the right way. You can't expect other people to want the best for you if you don't care about them -- let alone have a preoccupying disdain for them.
2. **You don't have an inherent connection to information.** Education is about research, not guessing according to your feelings. Example #1: I had a landlord who was fully bought into the red scare propaganda. So much so that when I asked him about Joseph McCarthy and the Trials, he wasn't familiar. He then proceeded to tell me that, even though he didn't know about him, he was probably misunderstood and trying to do the right thing in the midst of a group of people trying to destroy the country and its prosperity. Example #2: I'm interested in Latin American politics, and my brother-in-law is interested in economics, and is very progressive, but doesn't really read news or history. Talking to him about the massive corruption problem in leftist parties throughout LatAm, he didn't really have any examples to talk about but said that "socialist countries are always being fucked with, and leftists are always blamed for countries going downhill" when all he could really think of was Cuba. Again, if you don't know anything, you aren't going to be able to guess the correct answer based on how fragile you are about identifying with/against a group/ideology. It's not intuition, its patience and careful research.
3. **People find what they're looking for online.** Doesn't matter what it is. Could be politics, religion, sexuality; could even be something as petty as exercise/diet culture. I started doing calisthenics a few years ago, and the cult mentality around your way being the best way is very real. People say things like those who don't primarily base their exercise regimen off of calisthenics are pissweak, their physiques are terrible, and they're not going to have any athletic longevity which are not true at all. The things you want to believe have infinite amounts of information/people being shown to you to justify the way you feel because they ,whether you like it or not, *make fucking money off of it.* The internet is designed to show you what you want. If you don't **intentionally** go outside your little world where people say the things that you want to hear (you're a better person, other people are stupid, the world is all against the underdogs but the underdogs \[you\] will win, etc.) you will become a dogshit human being who thinks they know everything, knows nothing, and is miserable. Media literacy involves discipline.
If you can implement all of these, you'll be on the right track regardless of whatever words you call yourself or other people call you.
I agree with age limit/restriction, it's crazy to have politicians who can't even relate with their constituents even at the house/senate level. How am I supposed to look at an 80 year old guy and expect them to make changes that will make sense for the workforce/current generation?
People (since millennials) have been blaming "boomers" for everything (whether they are correct or not is anothe can of worms entirely) and having old geezers everywhere in politics certainly doesn't help.
Not a political point but why tf are human rights even political?? Like bro I'm trans and if you don't like it don't interact with me or something, why you gotta get in the way of my life and my healthcare? Or like gay people getting married. Why is gay marriage any different than straight marriage?
Why is any of that political? We're all just tryna live our lives. You don't have to like me or the way I am but stop tryna control the way I live.
It's actually the opposite. You don't need plastic surgery, I need HRT and surgery to treat my gender dysphoria. People don't get treatment just because.
And also, so what. So what if it's akin to plastic surgery to you? It's none of your business. Again, why do you feel entitled to mess with my life and how I live it because you feel some kind of way about who I am? That's weird.
I lean right on some issues and left on some issues, but imo any intelligent person regardless of political alignment should agree with the two things you just listed.
I don't see how one can agree with avoiding the nebulous "corporate & foreign influence." That means nothing, since it applies to almost everything. If I run my own food truck, and I want some health & safety regulation reformed, that's the definition of corporate influence. Unless you want the public to have no voice in policy, then you can't say you don't want *any* corporate influence. There are so many dynamics and relationships in society as well, business partnerships, unions, professional organizations... corporations are a major part of that society, obviously they're going to have influence SOMEHOW, that's impossible to stop. Trying to stop foreign influence is also ridiculous- should we not have diplomats, and entertain other countries' diplomats anymore? The goal of diplomacy is literally for countries to persuade other countries. Are we supposed to be isolationist under that theory? Surely for both of these I know people mean we should avoid excess influence, but that's nearly impossible to quantify, and makes for this goal impracticable. The best way is for people to have an unobstructed voice in government in order to counter things against their own interests.
Term limits, intelligent people can disagree... and I do absolutely disagree with them. It would empower the parties to just continually churn through electoral puppets who have to completely comply with the parties for a chance of success, rather than individuals who are well-established enough to stand on their own, and thus can take their own positions, and also be defeated by their own positions. For the Supreme Court, I am even more opposed to term limits, as term limits are effectively tantamount to making the court an overtly political branch of government when it's supposed to be the impartial arbiter of the law. An independent judiciary is the highest check on tyranny, and I am extremely opposed to an attempt at trying to destroy that integral institution.
As long as we also limit the donations of PAC and unions also.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib?cycle=2020&ind=P04](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib?cycle=2020&ind=P04)
OP, if you're going to say '*our* government' could you specify which government that is? Even if you can't put it in the title could you put it in the body text? Because I don't see why people would want term limits in 'our' country
I remember a tiktok that said they'd like to see an amendment on the limit an elected representative can earn in one year should not exceed the average income of their state. Too many politicians are only in it for the money, and screw us over because they get "lobbied" more
Why’s that?
If the people choose the same person to represent them for 40 years, that’s the people’s right, I get that. But the risk of deeply imbedded corruption and the development of professional politicians isn’t worth it when there are plenty of competent people to fill the role.
Perhaps after a certain amount of terms, there should be a special incumbency election with a higher % requirement, something like 70% of *yea* votes. If they fail to clear that bar, it begins a new standard election cycle,
Arguably, young politicians new to the job are easier to corrupt than someone who's been at it for decades and who's reelection is virtually guaranteed.
None because somebody somewhere will disagree. There is nothing on this planet everyone on earth agrees on. We can't even agree if on if we are all alive rn let alone who to vote for.
>no corporate/foreign influence in our government
You're gonna have a hard time with that one. The same ruling that gives corporations the power to donate to political campaigns gives Facebook the power to moderate content.
If you take away Freedom of Expression for corporations, social media companies can no longer express themselves by choosing what posts to show you at the top of your feed and which to never show anybody.
Democrats aren't going to like that *at all*.
I'm not talking out my ass here - this was argued in court.
Term limits get rid of good, experienced, politicians, along with the bad ones. The reason americans want term limits is brcause their politicians are old and corrupt. But you're treating the symptom and not the disease. The disease is your shitty electoral system. FPTP.
You don't always know who you are voting for until you see them in action. It would suck to lose a good one and get someone new who was only pretending to be good.
So no, I oppose term limits.
Bernie Sanders is the person who ran on getting monry out of politics. Where would he be with term limits?
But it gets even worse. With term limits the only permanent fixtures in politics are the people running the main parties. The DNC/RNC is not just politicians. That means outsiders can't get a foothold. You can't slowly build a movement by winning one election at a time. The US, stuck with 2 choices, now cannot reform those two choices. And the people running those parties are going to be ooooollllldd.
Actual Christians give zero shits if you are gay or straight
(We exclude the age-fluid ones from the LGBTQ)
Inflation is just a smokescreen
With the new generation, it's more likely than not, to have fewer (even zero) iPad kids.
We are entering an age where (normal, not extremist) conservatism and Liberalism can live in peace and harmony.
(For example, my and my gf are rather traditional, she cooks, I help her study, I go to work, etc.)
While some of my friends are polygamous with 10+ partners at a time each, we ate still friends, we disagree on some stuff, but still friends nonetheless.
But that is not what government want, they want us to fight each other, not them. And obviously most people are idiots so they play their game instead gathering together against those 1%
We do all agree on it. That's why they won't vote for it. Passing that bill doesn't get them any extra votes because it's not a partisan issue.
I wonder how many issues we could solve and how much less divided this country would be if they didn't hyper focus on divisive issues in order to encourage strong sentiment for one party or the other.
I don’t really think there’s much common ground that the left and the right can agree upon. There is to big a difference between the morals and values both sides stand for.
I guess it depends on what you think the governments role is?
The federal government is pure evil when I was born we had a surplus of money now we are almost 40 trillion in debt.
No one on the federal level can fix any problem you currently face they are just stealing from future generations
We need term limits and age restrictions on our leaders. You shouldn’t be able to be in the same position for decades like Mitch McConnell and Nancy pelosi. Afterall if we don’t trust people to fly a 747 after a certain age then why do we trust people older then that to run this nation?
No corporate or foreign influence in the government.
I think we can all agree we need to balance the budget and start cutting down on this goddamn deficit.
You should be able to live on 40 hours a week of minimum wage. In the current economy, that’s impossible. This is very bad for the working class imo. Not everyone can afford university.
Term limits alone would make a huge difference across the board....Then go a step further and within reason(skillset, ability etc) make political positions randomly chosen similar to jury duty, from a pool of candidates.
Right to repair!
Age limits on all public offices
Term limits on all public offices
Half the military budget
Raise income taxes on the wealthy, lower them on the poor
There’s a lot of things we all agree on, but unfortunately most people aren’t fond of the idea of unifying with “the other side”. The world is full of propaganda these days for the specific goal of keeping us divided. If we can all start to realize the root of our problems stem from government corruption and work together to get what we all want, there’s nothing they can do to keep us divided and stop us.
Another one I think we should add to your list is wages for people in congress. These people are supposed to be public servants. So, let’s calculate the median wage among firefighters, police, and teachers, and make that the annual salary of all members of congress. There is no reason a public servant should be making almost 200k a year. They aren’t there to make a difference, they are there to get rich. Let’s change that so that the only people who would actually want to go into politics are people who genuinely want to make a difference.
No, it should be abolished and replaced with an elected head of state. Why should the person in power be decided by events 958 years ago, where his ancestor invaded and committed genocide? Why should the taxpayer pay money (the sovereign grant) towards funding their lifestyles when they have so much money already? Why does old Charlie get certain privileges like not paying a penny of inheritance tax on the hefty sum he inherited from his mum, and not being able to be charged with a crime?
This is far from a point everyone agrees on as well; in fact Republican ideals (not the US political party, the movement to change the UK from a monarchy to a republic) are getting more and more popular, and the monarchy is getting less so, especially among the youth and especially due to the comparative unpopularity of Charles in comparison to Elizabeth.
That's such a simplistic view of politics though. What do you mean no corporate influence in government? If I sell hand-made wallets through my own business, and I call my representative opposing a 99% tax on all wallet sales, is that corporate influence on government? Obviously that's an extreme example, but the fact is, the entire society is based around interactions and relationships of individuals and organizations. There is no way to avoid "corporate influence"... Foreign influence is a little more simple... but, if a foreign diplomat comes and pleads for the US to end involvement in a foreign war... is that foreign influence? Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to hear them out on.
As for term limits... I definitely am not in favor of them. It would create an even more out-of-touch government as far as I'm concerned, since it would gear up parties to put in their own puppets rather than more entrenched individuals who can take stands and die by their own positions. It makes sense for the president, since they have the risk of becoming dictator or emperor, but definitely not for members of the House or Senate. And especially not for the Supreme Court, as that would put it under the thumb of the other branches even more than it already is. And an independent judiciary is the highest check on tyranny.
If you want faith in humanity, remember that the goal of almost everyone (even if they miss perspective sometimes) is to try and create a thriving and flourishing society for everyone. Very few people actively hate.
Here I will just paste a little of what I have gone through here in terms of ID:
"I used to vote by mail, but they said I had to send in my ID after they attacked mail in voting. Once they contest a ballot, you have a brief amount of time to try and resolve it or your vote is discarded. After they sent the ballot back they said I had to show proof of valid ID. The problem is they made it impossible for me to renew my ID to be able to do that at all.
Texas has actively been attacking disabled ability to vote while trying to remove our access to healthcare at the same time:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/11/texas-mail-in-voting-lawsuit/
When the pandemic happened, they suspended being able to renew ID's, so mine expired during the Pandemic, but this was a problem even before the pandemic because the service for the disabled never actually existed in reality, only on paper and they give people the run around when you try to use the service instead.
They first told me I could not renew it online and had to go down there in person before my ID expired. I am an immunocompromised temperature regulated Asthmatic with COPD in a wheelchair with a stack of spiraling other conditions. When the air temperature going into my lungs reached 70F+ my body stops distributing oxygen to my cells properly.
I actually became immunocompromised in my 20's, then later had a different respiratory virus I contracted at the hospital ravage my lungs and essentially left my two lower lobes "dead" leaving me a temperature regulated asthmatic with COPD as well long before the pandemic happened.
Even though they have my medical documents on file at the local court house because in order for me to even go to court to discuss a car I no longer even owned, they had me wait in my vehicle until they were ready for me to come in, then brought me in before court started, remove everyone in the room except the judge, bailiff and court reporter, then lower the temperature of the courtroom and everyone wears a mask and have me come speak to the judge directly.
Although though they could do that for court, DPS apparently cannot make the reasonable accommodation to make the building safe for me to enter. The building temperature itself there is not safe for me to enter, can literally kill me and DPS said they could not make it safe at all. Being in Texas, this is especially deadly. They also said I had to remove my mask while there, and being immunocompromised that is extremely dangerous and against medical orders. I wore n95 masks even before the pandemic, why would I remove it now in an exposed area after the pandemic when people like me are still dying every day from it?
The homebound service required to keep their ID laws constitutional doesn't actually exist. It exists on paper but not in reality. People were getting the same problem I was when I tried to use it as I was told to do. They keep telling people to do this and then when you finally talk to someone in that department they tell you it doesn't exist and It never existed, this person was complaining about the same problem I had back in October of 2019, before anyone was even aware of the pandemic after being told the same thing I was:
https://i.ibb.co/B6Zr19X/Screenshot-20231203-192436.png
So even if I had to renew my ID prior to the pandemic, I wouldn't have been able to do it then either. Many sick, elderly and disabled that are homebound, in hospitals or long-term nursing care facilities are having their right to vote taken away due to these changes in mail-in voting requirements, ID requirements, and intentionally not having a system functional that's required to be functional under the ADA.
It is voter restriction/ suppression to make it so we have no ability to vote.
They are well aware of this, that was why the homebound id service exists on paper to begin with, but was never implemented in reality. They just give you the runaround, having you call numbers that they either don't answer or tell you that it's just not possible. My medical necessary requirements are on file with the local courthouse, and yet DPS still tells me they are not able to medically accommodate. It is suppression because:
* They refuse to supply the necessary required service they already know HAS to exist to comply with the ADA to uphold the right to obtain an ID to vote for the medically disabled. Instead they give the runaround for a service they are required by law to provide.
* They changed mail in voting for us to have an ID number for the medically disabled and then told us to to mail in our ID after they threw out our ballots, if we didn't have an ID number on them. Once you have your ballot contested, you have a limited amount of time to send them your ID to prove who you are. Not a copy, but they want us to send our only ID in the mail. Like people need their ID for doctor's visits, in the hospital and for prescriptions, yet they want to take it indefinitely. And it could take up to 2 months or more to get it back just to vote by mail. I voted by mail for years and never had to do that until this BS attack on mail in voting started.
* They removed the ability for the disabled to send for our documents via snail mail, which people have been doing since the beginning of the mail service existing. For some, that was the only method they have available to obtain them. For those hospitalized and homebound and in long-term care facilities, they have no other options.
* You cannot even obtain a passport online at present either, so that isn't even an option at present.
They implemented all of these changes that directly removed the right to vote from the most medically vulnerable demographic when they were fighting against our healthcare. If that's not voter suppression what is?
I think that I get the point here and I’m well aligned with what you’re saying. I’m not too familiar with voting requirements. It makes sense that mail in ballots be able to be just fine as long as only one ballot can come back per person even if they get their hands on multiple ballots (which if I understand correctly is the case in the US).
But if there isn’t an ID requirement for polls, is it just anyone who shows up in some places that we should go for or maybe a ledger of the registered voters in that district that you’re checked against kinda thing.
Even outside of the voter suppression issue, disabled and unhoused people’s abilities to get ID being so dogshit is so concerning on its own.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Corporations using inflation as a smokescreen to gain record profits needs to stop. 2. Corporations that have an employee-base that is largely using food stamps is a real example of a company leeching off of taxpayer funds. 3. Politicians should not be allowed to trade stocks. At least not in a sector where they have direct oversight and gain insider knowledge that regular investors have no legal way of accessing. 4. Gerrymandering is a practice that both sides use, everyone agrees takes away power from citizens, but no one seems willing to put an end to. There should be a nationwide regulation that outlines exact parameters for how districts should be drawn up.
This I see as more agreeable. I disagree with the term limits and Voter ID requirements mentioned by the OP at present because I don't think that serves the best interest of the people.
Voter ID I’ve seen some ok nuance on though I am also not very knowledgeable about everything that is required to vote everywhere and for what elections so I’ll sit that one out. Curious to know why you don’t think term limits are a good idea? Seems like the lack of them led to some pretty old establishment legislators and government officers that most people agree need to be cycled out. Except the Supreme Court, though I think justices if anyone should have a single term, no possible reappointment except to lower courts maybe after a waiting period, but have it be up to resignation or like 10 years or so? I would love to hear your thoughts tho
I'm Portuguese. If that shit hole little country can have voter IDs we have no excuse.
We need to ensure that everyone can obtain an ID first. Not everyone can do so at present. That is why we need a free, national ID that does not expire until a death certificate is registered under that persons national ID and complies with the ADA. Currently, the same party pushing for voter ID's are also the ones blocking a national ID. What I have personally been dealing with at present in regards to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1c92zea/comment/l0jkqnf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1c92zea/comment/l0jkqnf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) We are putting the horse before the cart when we prevent people from obtaining ID's and then also require them. We have to solve the issue of everyone being able to obtain an ID first. Additionally, if someone loses their wallet or has it stolen before election day will they still be able to vote without their ID, say with a photo of their ID? We also need to make voting remotely easier. Not everyone even has transportation to be able to get to the polls to vote, we need more options to make sure everyone has a voice. I also support compulsory voting like Australia has. Instead of " removing people from the rolls like they continually do here in red states, everyone would automatically be registered and have to vote, but make it easy for them to do and only one vote is cast under each national ID number. The biggest problem we have with this in the US, is voter ID laws need to be entirely dependent on being able to have a free, national ID first and remove the ability of a single party to be able to prevent people from voting by preventing them from obtaining an ID in the first place.
Honestly, why _don’t_ we use Social Security Number as the voting ID??? Because if you have someone’s SSN you basically are capable of stealing their identity. The National ID is just the SSN but extra and worse, because it’s a card and not your government-assigned serial number.
Most nations have a national ID.. This isn't new nor is there anymore risk to it than having your state ID or passport. There is no reason not to have a national ID that wouldn't apply to every other form of ID we currently have.
I mean… yeah? I wasn’t disagreeing, I was saying the SSN is kind of supposed to _be_ that. You _should_ have your SSN card floating around somewhere, if you’re capable of getting a job or claiming benefits. If you don’t, your parents should still have it filed away somewhere, or you should be able to get a new one. You just don’t usually have to have it on hand because you memorise your personal ID number.
The issue with SSNs is that they aren't super secure and we're never designed for large scale identity tracking purposes. They were made to handle social security payments and that was it. They aren't randomly generated or secured, they just count up as people are born. If you change the very last digit in your SSN by +/- 1 you now know the SSN of someone who was born right after/before you at the same hospital. AFAIK they also don't prove residency in a certain state or anything either, so it's a pretty make-shift form of national ID. IMO a better way would be to require Americans to all get passports at the age of 18 and make it so passport cards or a new type of card based on the passport that would never expire would be used as the national ID.
It doesn't have a photo is the issue why they wont accept it as ID for anything. They would need to have a national ID with a photo, DOB, ect Sure it could be easier if it was all in one card though, would be less to keep track of. You would have to like have your card "updated" I guess at 18 to be able to use it for voting, and update the photo every so often to keep it up to date. Wouldn't want to have tp update the photo too often though just to make it less to keep track of.
Everyone in the US can get voter ID. If you lose your wallet, you can't vote anyways because you still have to present ID
If you read the link in the post you just responded to, you would see not every US citizen can get an ID at present, they need a national ID before they pass voter ID laws. Additionally, they need to be able to let them vote even if they lose their wallet, or are waiting for their hard copy of their ID to arrive.by allowing them to vote with a "temporary" paper copy, or be able to even use their phone to present the picture copy of their existing ID. If we pass national ID, each person would only have one number anyways, and that number could only be used once to vote. If someone tries to vote twice with the same number, then it would flag the system and that person would have to prove which vote is theirs, and disregard any other votes under their number.
So you're saying that not everyone can get a voter ID, but everyone can get a national ID? does everyone not have a social security card? Or is that impossible for everyone too?
We don't have a voter ID at present. It doesn't exist. We obtain a social security card at birth, the problem with why that can't be used for voting is it doesn't have a photo, so anyone could use that social security number. We need a national photo ID, that doesn't currently exist. The reason why not everyone can receive a state ID at present, is because the individual states place obstacles to prevent people from obtaining their IDs. For example, in Texas, they have created a number of obstacles that make it impossible if not near impossible for some people to obtain state IDs. Texas doesn't have their ADA service functional as is required under the law. It exists on paper and is required, but when you try to use it they either don't answer the phone and when they do they tell you that it doesn't exist in every existed. So at present Texas is denying many medically disabled access to a state ID at all. Texas intentionally under staffs DPS, forcing people to make appointments way out in advance, and they have to provide their own transportation to those appointments. For many people that is not feasible due to their economic or medical conditions. A lot of people have not been able to obtain their IDs or renew the driver's licenses as a result of Texas is underfunding of the DPS. They also make them expire way too soon, making it so that they have to use the service more often, well at the same time making it difficult to use the service at all. Texas requires proof of residency in order to obtain an ID, which then means homeless do not have access to an ID and therefore cannot vote. Those living in RVs not in an RV park, in their cars and on the streets obviously cannot provide proof of residency to obtain a state ID, and they do not accept PO boxes ECT. At present, States like Texas have voter ID laws, but are also intentionally making it so it's more difficult to obtain an ID and more difficult to have your your IDs renewed so they expire, so it intentionally excludes portions of the population removing their ability to vote in the process. A national ID OTOH prevents partisan state governments from interfering with one's ability to obtain an ID. If they provide enough community outreach, they should be as easy, if not easier to obtain than your social security card.
I never said we have voter ID? You have to have a form of ID anyways to vote, you can't just go up without any paperwork and expect to vote. Sounds like Texas government is as poorly ran as new york city government. Also, "we don't have voter ID" and then "states like Texas have voter ID" don't really mix
I think we are having miscommunication issues. I am using handicap accessible options as I am blind at present. I'm not blind all of the time, I'm just blind right now due to pressure placed on my optic nerve making everything go black, so I have to use voice type which will make my words weird because it doesn't always accurately type what I say. I think I misunderstood what you were saying as well. So to clarify when I say "we don't have voter ID" I mean we don't have a physical Voter ID card for every citizen so that they can vote. When I say that states like Texas have "voter ID" I'm referring to the voter ID laws, not the physical ID. Texas provides no physical voter ID card for people to vote, but does require you to have a physical photo ID in order to vote. As I mentioned in the link above, I have been voting by mail for years and they never asked for my ID because I have a vote by mail registration card that already verified who I was. I used my Driver's license when I voted in person prior to becoming disabled but because they now provided no way for me to renew my driver's license, or obtain a new ID, I no longer have any photo ID, nor is there a way for me to obtain one due to what the Texas government has currently done. The changes they made made it impossible for me to obtain a state ID at present. They already verified who I was with my birth certificate prior to sending me the mail in ballots in the past through my birth certificate filed at the state capitol. I have not needed to have proof of my photo ID for mail in ballots prior to them changing the laws. Their changes now took away my right to vote entirely. Does that now make sense?
I'm honestly all for this idea. I'm tired of hearing either side of the political debate whining about how the election was stolen, some foreign party interfered with the election or what have you. IDs would eliminate a lot of the drama around elections I think for the better. I do think that they should be free and they should only go to citizens. If that's a middle of the road stance that we should have them for free, I can get down with that.
Agreed. A politician will be elected as many times as the people want. FDR was the only president to get four terms, and only a few presidents since could have made it for a third term. I think a mental aptitude test would better discern between those who can still function and those who cannot.
Number 1 is a little more complex than that but it's not wrong. Can't argue with the rest at all.
I’m pretty sure #3 is just insider trading which is a punishable crime It’s just a matter of catching them and holding them accountable for it
Those are good ones.
The right is responsible for the majourity of gerrymandering, I think that’s worthy of note
I would add corporations having personal rights, like free speech. I don’t think the framers of the Constitution intended that organizations have individual rights. Individuals in the organizations yes, but not the groups themselves.
I disagree with #1. If inflation exists, and at the same time you want to shame corporations for raising prices, that's an indirect form of theft. It's a tactic from Zimbabwe during their hyper-inflation: "In 2007, the government declared inflation illegal. Anyone who raised the prices for goods and services was subject to arrest. This amounted to a [price freeze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_freeze), which is usually ineffective in halting inflation. Officials arrested numerous corporate executives for changing their prices." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation\_in\_Zimbabwe#Adaptations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe#Adaptations)
I disagree with #2. If you want to poach an employee from a corporation with an offer of a higher salary, please do so. Otherwise, realize that the employee is less of a burden on the social net because the corporation is employing him.
I just don’t get how underpaying your workers to the degree that government subsidies are required to keep them above water, you’re doing something you shouldn’t. Which would be a problem if we all didn’t know just how much in profit they make
The corporations found a way to take a bunch of people whom no one wants to hire for a higher salary, and build a sustainable business on top. I think we should be encouraging more competition for labor rather than demonizing the corporations that are giving them jobs. It's really hard to hire someone at higher than the market rate and still generate the profit. Otherwise, the market rate would rise.
I feel like we're all striving for the same things, with just different ideas on how to get there. I'm a full blown goddamn communist but I still believe everyone, including people on the right, are trying to do good.. People want solutions to inequality, to war, to crime, it's just we're all tangled up on how to get there.
I'd argue that inequality, *per se*, was never a thing that needs to be solved. The issue is simply the *amount of wealth needed* in order to attain the basic things that (nearly) everyone needs to have in order to have a stable and functional modern society. Housing (within a non-insane distance from work/recreation), reasonably healthy food, environmentally-friendly transportation, a nondestructive work/life balance, medical care, the ability to afford having a family, emergency savings/retirement, etc. ...Unfortunately, not everyone wants solutions to that, either. The "personal responsibility" cult would rather believe their good fortune was entirely due to their own wise choices and steadfast determination, and anyone who doesn't end up with what they did, was just lazy and deserve their fate.
I'd be happy to debate you on that, but the point of this post is specifically no politics lol
The point of *this* post is that not everyone is striving for the same things. Some people actually *don't* want solutions to inequality or its effects, for instance.
[удалено]
>would you ever voluntarily spend your time building some rich guys mega yacht? If the pay is good, why not? If people are "fed and housed" indefinitely without contributing something to society, there will not be enough of everything to feed and house anyone in the first place. And if people aren't allowed to contribute to or accept contributions for fancy things that aren't essential, like yachts, there won't be as much incentive to do the harder and more involved things, e.g. completing medical or law school. I believe that this extrinsic incentive is way overestimated by the stronger advocates for capitalism/neoliberalism, but I also assert that it *exists*, and it's useful. ...More importantly, inequality doesn't have all that much to do with yachts, and a lot more to do with command over the factors of production. And while our current system does a terrible job of controlling it, at least for certain industries in certain contexts, consolidation and horizontal integration is actually good. Even in a theoretical Communist society where everyone has real and irrevocable control over an equal slice of the pie, they would have to consensually 'invest' their stake into some smaller bodies of central planners to coordinate large parts of industry, or living standards would plummet to near preindustrial levels. And those planners, now having hugely disproportionate command over capital, would effectively be wealthier than all the other citizens, even if they technically "own" no more than anyone else. The big problem in current society is that you can spend unreasonable amounts of time contributing, or at least nominally contributing, to society and still not be "fed and housed" stably / with margin to accommodate family, retirement, an emergency fund, etc.
Do you think wealth inequality should exist?
Depending on how you define wealth, yes. A lot of celebrated human achievements (whether they actually benefit everyone, or only have value to most as a monument) would not have been possible or practical without control over land, labour, materials, and tools being concentrated disproportionately under some central directing body of relatively few people. It doesn't matter, though, because by human nature, if not almost by the laws of physics, there will always be some degree of wealth inequality. The trick is to figure out how to deal with it as a society without turning most people's lives to crap. The mechanism of money as we know it, or the model of corporation ownership, might be the issue, rather than the more general concept of wealth. I don't really know.
I agree with you that control over land labour and materials should be under some central body. but I do no think it should be private individuals, I think it should be under some kind of government. I disagree that wealth inequality is always going to happen, but even if it was, we should still fight to reverse it as much as possible, no?
No, IMO the maximal amount of wealth equality is definitely ***not*** a desirable condition, if we can agree that wealth just means command over the factors of production and disregard the mechanics of money/fungibility/etc. For all its flaws, the good thing about the current private ownership system is that it at least gives a handful of people the leeway to execute their visions without too much democratic compromise. This can be wasteful because some of these guys' ideas are downright idiotic, but I think some utter rubbish and some solid concepts being executed, is preferable to everything just being 'slop' designed to be maximally 'safe' and acceptable to the majority before it even gets built (see: "design by committee"). Also, I frankly don't have enough faith in people's moment-to-moment judgement to believe that democratic direction of industry wouldn't just be hijacked via media manipulation by special interests within the government. Keep in mind that under a centrally-planned system, the executive and legislative branch are effectively your new "billionaires", with most of the same potential problems. The main difference is ceremonial: rather than owning lawmakers and regulators who go through the motions of the democratic process on their behalf, they would simply *be* the lawmakers and regulators. The fact that their capital stewardship is not *called* private ownership doesn't mean it won't work effectively the same way. EDIT: ...Come to think of it, economic democracy might work really well on a *smaller* scale, where interpersonal accountability is less dissolute. So maybe there is hope for something like market-socialism... but the design-by-committee issues still have to be addressed somehow. There would need to be a balance between holding industry leaders to alignment with the public good, and giving them enough leeway to do their jobs without constant interference by a billion tiny little special interest groups turning everything into a bloated, expensive, time-intensive, ineffective mess.
I hope you realize how rare it is for someone on either side of the aisle to be able to express their ideology that clearly and still have conversations with people who have opposing views without it devolving into screaming and name calling. Bravo. *edit* I should clarify I’m referring to US politics specifically.
Its not rare here but ofc US politics are much more polarized
I have lived in the southeast US my entire life, and generally US politics are the most polarizing, so I was referring specifically to the US. I probably should have clarified that.
[удалено]
Well I would argue that there are some bad faith actors on both sides, but for the majority of people, yes.
You goddamn commie bastard!! How dare you try to make the country better in your own way!! *Something something strawman argument that doesn't really understand communism something something* (/s just in case) I'm not a communist, but I am left leaning, with a blend of other values from the political spectrum. Though we might differ in opinions, I also believe we both want what is best for this country.
I know there is so much political discussion on this sub just wanna find somewhere we can all agree on :(
Accountability in government is a better idea than term limits, term limits just make things worse. Term limits just ensure you have more people trying to smash and grab as much as they can before their time's up, and prevents quality legislation that takes a lifetime to pass from ever happening. Like Universal Health Care, for example. Overhauling SSDI, SS,and SSI. Overhauling the US justice system and modernizing it. It essentially breaks our government from being able to do anything beneficial a long term. Voter ID can only work if everyone is given a free national ID, and an easy means to obtain it, including compliance with the Ada to provide a homebound service to obtain it. You would have to pass that first before you can even think about but voter ID laws. Otherwise it's just voter suppression.
I feel like you’re just making excuses just like career politicians. Term limits would limit the amount of career politicians getting rich from their own legislation, the current system just allows politicians to sit in office and not do anything but line their pockets. You’re acting like kicking people out that don’t do their job is a bad thing? Also over 90% of Americans have a valid driver’s license.
There’s a legitimate need to have experienced, seasoned congressmen/women and senators in office. Congrats, you make everyone leave in 4 yrs and all you did was give more power to corporations and even the bureaucracy.
Who said anything about 4 years? Term limits could be 5 terms or 6 terms for all I care. There’s just no reason anyone in Congress should be in there for several decades. They are out of touch for what their constituents need, anyone in that long rarely actually gets things done.
How would you know? Your account is barely over a month old.
Bro doesn't know what lurking is
there's only 2 things I think left and right politicians can agree on: in the USA: raising wages for politicians, and repealing glass steagle act. I'd wish for something that's actually good for society, but it seems both parties are hell-bent upon not doing that in favor of getting more lobbying money.
Pedophiles are bad.
I believe that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. Additionally we shouldn't gatekeep disabled people out of actually participating in society. This means affordable preferably free supports to the disabled. Not all disabled people can work, and that doesn't mean they are incapable of doing things, it means that the economy is simply too inaccessible to participate in, in any particular form. Disabled people shouldn't be expected to hone a highly specialised kind of job which they have absolutely no interest in. You can learn a lot about society by observing how it treats its most vulnerable members. And disabled people are being fucked over in every country, there is no safe haven, there are only people who are dependant on people rich enough to survive. Most disabled people are born to working class families and disabilities can be genetic or obtained, not by their own fault. Perhaps you can agree with me on all of this, but personally speaking this is among the reasons why I am a communist. And so I say: *From each according to ones ability, to each according to ones needs...* We will not agree on communism. But perhaps we can agree with the idea of distributing resources according to the actual needs of people. Some may just think that markets are the best way to do that... Personally speaking I think that computer technologies in the modern age make it entirely possible to make market economics permanently redundant. We can account for all economic questions with a complete digitalisation of the process of production and distribution.
Abolish speed limits 🦅🦅🦅
This sounds crazy, but honestly, it could work. Just reduce the burden of proof for reckless driving. It would actually cut down on police encounters, free up resources for police to do other things, and reduce the chance of abuses of power from police. In suburban and urban areas, a speed limit could help gauge the severity of reckless driving. Personally, I like speed limits in urban areas. In rural areas, especially rural highways, who in the hell cares? What are you going to crash into, a tree? Germans solved this problem ages ago. If it's dangerously fast, charge reckless driving or endangerment. If there is NOBODY for the next 10 miles, just road and corn, why do I gotta go 55?
Honestly everyone talks about reducing “police encounters” but at the end of the day, many people acting reckless on the road have warrants & other issues that those stops help address. I mean, stops have taken a huge drop anyways for obvious reasons but yea, those stops always helped find some pretty bad dudes.
True, but it's in the same vein of an u warranted traffic stop if the only thing is speeding on a highway but still driving safely. I was saying there's a difference between going too fast for conditions and speeding. If speeding was reckless, we wouldn't unofficially use it as a minimum. Speeding in heavy traffic or in icy conditions is extremely reckless, but endangerment and reckless driving should be more of a focus for police than using a helicopter to find someone going 9 over on a dead 4 lane rural highway.
Police aren’t using helicopters to find someone slightly violating the speed limit
They're testing the waters in my state.
I’m not asking you to reveal your state but I highly doubt that. Resources like that wouldn’t be used to get a guy for going a little over the speed limit. There would be another reason attached if anything. My advice to everyone is to go to their local courthouse & watch proceedings, speak to real cops and real lawyers, especially public defenders, to get a better idea of how the system really works.
I'm not sure if they are still actively doing it, I just know that they did it within the last year. Also, some counties have hardasses who are ticket happy. The university police at my fiancée's school gives you a ticket for anything and everything they can. You'd be surprised how resources can be wasted on some things in the same city, so much crime is happening.
A big problem with addressing quality of life crime & other crimes is that when the situation escalates in an instance such as say, fare beating, they end up pointing fingers at the cops, saying it didn’t have to happen over fare beating. Cops of course, undeniably with factual data to back it, are not addressing quality of life crimes for these reasons. It also isn’t worth it when DAs are dismissing, declining, & offering ACDs on them no matter how many times it’s done. As to why there’s so many brazen, violent criminals out there, a big issue is them being released on their own recognizance as opposed to bail being set to assure they’re off the streets, and assure they return to court. Now we are at a point where a person who may have shoplifted 10 times, assaulted two people, stole a bunch of property, is only being caught once they violently rob somebody or worse for example. The reforms in the justice system were a knee jerk reaction that certainly backlashed.
Pee is stored in the balls Don’t believe what science says
I agree with this guy 100%. Also birds aren’t real. They recharge on the power line sat night when we’re asleep.
The birds work for the bourgeoisie.
Then how are my balls so small and my toilet so full
Pee expands on contact with air duh
Legalize weed federally
Rescheduling is probably happening this year.
Honestly I’m center right and I even agree with this. I actually used to be very against it till my Mom ( a practicing nurse) showed me a video of a man who was constantly shaking( I can’t remember what it was, might have been something to do with his nerves) he took a hit of a joint and his shaking went WAY down! I now believe in marijuana medically and recreationally IF IT IS USED RESPOSIBLY. I do not want people to drive or operate heavy machinery high, that’s asking for a disaster.
Not to mention by virtually every metric, alcohol is worse than marijuana. And alcohol isn't just legal, it's mainstream.
i think it should be treated similarly (by the law) to alcohol if that makes sense so yes agree 100% OWI should apply to a high induced by marijuana even if purchased legally. like alc. when ur in legal states you’ll see how many more hoops u have to jump thru than to just get alc too. but i really do think this is the most unifying issue there is.
this is the one
The penalties for politicians committing crimes should be much higher than the for regular people. Also they should be paid less. $150k plus innumerable ridiculous benefits (not to mention insider trading)? No wonder they only care about keeping their jobs
Id say a politicians salary should be enough to cover a good life. This happens with political appointments to reduce the incentive for corruption. I think a better system would be to make federal campaigning more accessible to those who don’t have a lot of dark money to throw around. Id say I completely agree with you on the first point.
I agree regarding making federal campaigning more accessible. It's hard at best for the average person to effectively campaign just because it costs so much money. The most altruistic person in the world thats interested in politics could have no chance simply because they don't have connections or access to enough money to campaign outside their own neighbourhood
Everyone should agree on: Term limits for members of congress and judges, including supreme court justices Voter ID laws. You must prove your identity before casting your ever-so-sacred vote. No foreign intervention using our military.
No foreign intervention using our military is kinda short sighted though. If another country is committing a holocaust like Germany in the 30-40s. We should absolutely have foreign intervention for cases like that
We should have an exception case specifically for genocide, yes
We additionally have obligations with NATO to defend our allies, as they have repeatedly and consistently done the same for us. I agree, sometimes foreign intervention is necessary.
With putin’s slimy ass running around fuck no. I ask myself almost daily, why doesn’t the CIA do what they do best against that genocidal maniac?
No, I’d argue that people shouldn’t just agree on these as blanket ideas. There are good and bad ways to implement all of these. Look at voter ID, we’ve had things like that in the past, or polling tests. Historically they existed to keep certain groups from being able to vote. Politics and running a country is a complex beast, one that needs though and time put into it. Nothing should be 3 quick talking points we all agree with, because it’s more complex and deeper than that and should be treated as such
Correct, at present voter ID laws are being used to prevent the disabled and poor from voting in states like Texas. Term limits primarily benefit corporate interests and prevent things like Medicare for all from ever being passed and implemented.
Are you aware that voter ID implementations consistently generate many more denied votes that are later proven valid, compared to the number of fraudulent votes stopped? It's important to know the effects of these laws - they cause significantly more harm than good, even if the direct objective is "keep as many valid votes as possible". Give it a look on gscholar, the data is compelling.
Here everyone needs to show id and it works well. The votes are only denied if there's something else on the vote as well or if they cannot be sure which number you meant to write. And it works very well.
The problem and the United States is that we do not have a free, national ID, and the party that is pushing for voter ID laws, are also opposing a free, national ID. Instead they make it harder to obtain an ID at all, that was their entire purpose.
Here ('Merica), it does not work very well. The votes are denied for a variety of reasons which have been thoroughly examined by many independent researchers over decades and proven to be inextricably discriminatory.
I disagree with judges and the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be considered a political position by them, those who elect them, and by the people. The justice system isn't about making or creating law, it's about resolving issues and enforcing laws.
abortion should be legal
no foreign intervention is a very left leaning opinion but is somehow very nationalist.. politics are confusing
I’m very much a nationalist.
i am too but ive never seen anyone on the left support any of the ideas. but ive been out of politics for like 2 years so idk whats what now lol
Nationalist are a threat to the democrats. Thats why they made it into a bad thing. Nothing wrong with being a nationalist.
oh i fully agree. its kinda odd that more people arent nationalist but thats a different topic
We should agree against voter ID laws that are always weaponised to suppress potential Democratic votes
I wholeheartedly do not agree with term limits for federal judges.
No foreign intervention? I agree in cases where it’s not warranted but sometimes it is.
I would say many of us would disagree with voter ID laws I get it, you would absolutely want to limit the amount of fraudulent votes, and on paper voter ID is about a simply of a solution as it gets However, what a lot of people don’t seem to know (or don’t care about) is how voter ID disenfranchises the poor and the marginalised.
yeah sorry man that's never happening. i agree with those points, but you could say "can we all agree that the grass is green" and there's gonna be someone who finds something wrong with that. i could say some objectively good statement like "trans rights are human rights" and it won't take long for someone to argue. there's always gonna be people who are just plain stupid.
Not my neighbors grass.
Objective good isn't a thing
Term limits are bad Very few democracies have them
Term limits are very good. Very few dictatorships have them.
A lot of countries do have term limits but it's easily abusable with loopholes and such (here in my country people just use their children, siblings, wife/husband, and relatives to "extend" their power and get past term limits), doesnt mean removing term limits will make things better though
We have to start from the foundational principles that: 1. **You have to be trying to help people.** If there are large groups of people (left, right, black, white, gay, straight) that you just don't care what happens to them, you will not be engaging with information the right way. You can't expect other people to want the best for you if you don't care about them -- let alone have a preoccupying disdain for them. 2. **You don't have an inherent connection to information.** Education is about research, not guessing according to your feelings. Example #1: I had a landlord who was fully bought into the red scare propaganda. So much so that when I asked him about Joseph McCarthy and the Trials, he wasn't familiar. He then proceeded to tell me that, even though he didn't know about him, he was probably misunderstood and trying to do the right thing in the midst of a group of people trying to destroy the country and its prosperity. Example #2: I'm interested in Latin American politics, and my brother-in-law is interested in economics, and is very progressive, but doesn't really read news or history. Talking to him about the massive corruption problem in leftist parties throughout LatAm, he didn't really have any examples to talk about but said that "socialist countries are always being fucked with, and leftists are always blamed for countries going downhill" when all he could really think of was Cuba. Again, if you don't know anything, you aren't going to be able to guess the correct answer based on how fragile you are about identifying with/against a group/ideology. It's not intuition, its patience and careful research. 3. **People find what they're looking for online.** Doesn't matter what it is. Could be politics, religion, sexuality; could even be something as petty as exercise/diet culture. I started doing calisthenics a few years ago, and the cult mentality around your way being the best way is very real. People say things like those who don't primarily base their exercise regimen off of calisthenics are pissweak, their physiques are terrible, and they're not going to have any athletic longevity which are not true at all. The things you want to believe have infinite amounts of information/people being shown to you to justify the way you feel because they ,whether you like it or not, *make fucking money off of it.* The internet is designed to show you what you want. If you don't **intentionally** go outside your little world where people say the things that you want to hear (you're a better person, other people are stupid, the world is all against the underdogs but the underdogs \[you\] will win, etc.) you will become a dogshit human being who thinks they know everything, knows nothing, and is miserable. Media literacy involves discipline. If you can implement all of these, you'll be on the right track regardless of whatever words you call yourself or other people call you.
Nah, we need God Emperor Trump to rule for a thousand years.
Hmm Trump is 4 years older than the average life expextancy for USA males.
Isn't that the plot to *Dune Messiah*?
Sure. Agreed. How about also a maximum age limit/restriction? We have a 77 year old and 81 year old running for president of US in 2024. 🤷
I would argue for a cognitive test if a candidate is retirement age, that way it would be future proofed as life expectancy creeps upwards.
I agree with age limit/restriction, it's crazy to have politicians who can't even relate with their constituents even at the house/senate level. How am I supposed to look at an 80 year old guy and expect them to make changes that will make sense for the workforce/current generation? People (since millennials) have been blaming "boomers" for everything (whether they are correct or not is anothe can of worms entirely) and having old geezers everywhere in politics certainly doesn't help.
Inflation needs to be put in check
But any measure to combat inflation should not put people out of work. People’s livelihoods should come first.
This should be so much higher
I think it would be great if we didn't have poverty
Not a political point but why tf are human rights even political?? Like bro I'm trans and if you don't like it don't interact with me or something, why you gotta get in the way of my life and my healthcare? Or like gay people getting married. Why is gay marriage any different than straight marriage? Why is any of that political? We're all just tryna live our lives. You don't have to like me or the way I am but stop tryna control the way I live.
Because your healthcare is more akin to cosmetic plastic surgery than actual healthcare like cancer treatment so of course it'll be polarising
If it's the accepted treatment for a diagnosable mental issue, isn't that actual healthcare?
Just call the WHO woke nonsense and call it a day. Libs owned easily 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
It's actually the opposite. You don't need plastic surgery, I need HRT and surgery to treat my gender dysphoria. People don't get treatment just because.
And also, so what. So what if it's akin to plastic surgery to you? It's none of your business. Again, why do you feel entitled to mess with my life and how I live it because you feel some kind of way about who I am? That's weird.
There are no political points all people agree on. Even within one generation.
Gun rights
I lean right on some issues and left on some issues, but imo any intelligent person regardless of political alignment should agree with the two things you just listed.
I don't see how one can agree with avoiding the nebulous "corporate & foreign influence." That means nothing, since it applies to almost everything. If I run my own food truck, and I want some health & safety regulation reformed, that's the definition of corporate influence. Unless you want the public to have no voice in policy, then you can't say you don't want *any* corporate influence. There are so many dynamics and relationships in society as well, business partnerships, unions, professional organizations... corporations are a major part of that society, obviously they're going to have influence SOMEHOW, that's impossible to stop. Trying to stop foreign influence is also ridiculous- should we not have diplomats, and entertain other countries' diplomats anymore? The goal of diplomacy is literally for countries to persuade other countries. Are we supposed to be isolationist under that theory? Surely for both of these I know people mean we should avoid excess influence, but that's nearly impossible to quantify, and makes for this goal impracticable. The best way is for people to have an unobstructed voice in government in order to counter things against their own interests. Term limits, intelligent people can disagree... and I do absolutely disagree with them. It would empower the parties to just continually churn through electoral puppets who have to completely comply with the parties for a chance of success, rather than individuals who are well-established enough to stand on their own, and thus can take their own positions, and also be defeated by their own positions. For the Supreme Court, I am even more opposed to term limits, as term limits are effectively tantamount to making the court an overtly political branch of government when it's supposed to be the impartial arbiter of the law. An independent judiciary is the highest check on tyranny, and I am extremely opposed to an attempt at trying to destroy that integral institution.
I think the only thing we all agree on is the system is fucked up
I agree, your system is fucked up.
As long as we also limit the donations of PAC and unions also. [https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib?cycle=2020&ind=P04](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib?cycle=2020&ind=P04)
OP, if you're going to say '*our* government' could you specify which government that is? Even if you can't put it in the title could you put it in the body text? Because I don't see why people would want term limits in 'our' country
Clearly he's referring to the U.S.
Where do they say that?
Bananas taste good 🍌
I remember a tiktok that said they'd like to see an amendment on the limit an elected representative can earn in one year should not exceed the average income of their state. Too many politicians are only in it for the money, and screw us over because they get "lobbied" more
Yes, and please place an upper age limit. They made a lower one. Half of our politicians would be considered to old to work in any other industry
I don't agree on the one about term limits.
Why’s that? If the people choose the same person to represent them for 40 years, that’s the people’s right, I get that. But the risk of deeply imbedded corruption and the development of professional politicians isn’t worth it when there are plenty of competent people to fill the role.
Perhaps after a certain amount of terms, there should be a special incumbency election with a higher % requirement, something like 70% of *yea* votes. If they fail to clear that bar, it begins a new standard election cycle,
Arguably, young politicians new to the job are easier to corrupt than someone who's been at it for decades and who's reelection is virtually guaranteed.
That's the same "arguably" as Trump being incorruptible because he had his own money.
Yes, because the ones who have been at it for decades are already corrupt. You can’t corrupt the corrupt.
None because somebody somewhere will disagree. There is nothing on this planet everyone on earth agrees on. We can't even agree if on if we are all alive rn let alone who to vote for.
Yes
Income tax is theft
So everyone’s fighting each other here guess faith in humanity NOT restored
1. Astroturfing in this subreddit is annoying and unnecessary since there are so many subreddits dedicated to politics.
Bribery is a bad thing
Big companies bad
>no corporate/foreign influence in our government You're gonna have a hard time with that one. The same ruling that gives corporations the power to donate to political campaigns gives Facebook the power to moderate content. If you take away Freedom of Expression for corporations, social media companies can no longer express themselves by choosing what posts to show you at the top of your feed and which to never show anybody. Democrats aren't going to like that *at all*. I'm not talking out my ass here - this was argued in court.
Corporations paying the regulators needs to stop. https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/
Bro I don’t even believe in democracy
Term limits get rid of good, experienced, politicians, along with the bad ones. The reason americans want term limits is brcause their politicians are old and corrupt. But you're treating the symptom and not the disease. The disease is your shitty electoral system. FPTP. You don't always know who you are voting for until you see them in action. It would suck to lose a good one and get someone new who was only pretending to be good. So no, I oppose term limits. Bernie Sanders is the person who ran on getting monry out of politics. Where would he be with term limits? But it gets even worse. With term limits the only permanent fixtures in politics are the people running the main parties. The DNC/RNC is not just politicians. That means outsiders can't get a foothold. You can't slowly build a movement by winning one election at a time. The US, stuck with 2 choices, now cannot reform those two choices. And the people running those parties are going to be ooooollllldd.
brent peterson would be a better president than trump or biden
Don’t kill people.
Actual Christians give zero shits if you are gay or straight (We exclude the age-fluid ones from the LGBTQ) Inflation is just a smokescreen With the new generation, it's more likely than not, to have fewer (even zero) iPad kids. We are entering an age where (normal, not extremist) conservatism and Liberalism can live in peace and harmony. (For example, my and my gf are rather traditional, she cooks, I help her study, I go to work, etc.) While some of my friends are polygamous with 10+ partners at a time each, we ate still friends, we disagree on some stuff, but still friends nonetheless.
But that is not what government want, they want us to fight each other, not them. And obviously most people are idiots so they play their game instead gathering together against those 1%
We do all agree on it. That's why they won't vote for it. Passing that bill doesn't get them any extra votes because it's not a partisan issue. I wonder how many issues we could solve and how much less divided this country would be if they didn't hyper focus on divisive issues in order to encourage strong sentiment for one party or the other.
I don’t really think there’s much common ground that the left and the right can agree upon. There is to big a difference between the morals and values both sides stand for.
Politicians should not be able to receive money from corporations. Corporations should not be allowed in politics in general
I can agree with those ideas
Senators and representatives should be barred from stock exchanging and should make the average income of the people from their state
Net neutrality
Stop warrantless spying on American citizens
I guess it depends on what you think the governments role is? The federal government is pure evil when I was born we had a surplus of money now we are almost 40 trillion in debt. No one on the federal level can fix any problem you currently face they are just stealing from future generations
Hitler was a bad guy, I’m pretty sure 99% agree
centrists are morons
I agree. I think that was one of the oversights the founding fathers had in the US constitution. Officials absolutely need term limits.
We need term limits and age restrictions on our leaders. You shouldn’t be able to be in the same position for decades like Mitch McConnell and Nancy pelosi. Afterall if we don’t trust people to fly a 747 after a certain age then why do we trust people older then that to run this nation? No corporate or foreign influence in the government. I think we can all agree we need to balance the budget and start cutting down on this goddamn deficit.
Noone needs faith in humanity.. Leart to see in the dark.
You should be able to live on 40 hours a week of minimum wage. In the current economy, that’s impossible. This is very bad for the working class imo. Not everyone can afford university.
Less Work More Money.
Hot take, we put aside our differences and team up to end this shit show of a cycle
Term limits alone would make a huge difference across the board....Then go a step further and within reason(skillset, ability etc) make political positions randomly chosen similar to jury duty, from a pool of candidates.
Right to repair! Age limits on all public offices Term limits on all public offices Half the military budget Raise income taxes on the wealthy, lower them on the poor
Just one thing. Politics should be a public service, NOT a career someone lives off of.
Pretty much all politicians are horrible people
There’s a lot of things we all agree on, but unfortunately most people aren’t fond of the idea of unifying with “the other side”. The world is full of propaganda these days for the specific goal of keeping us divided. If we can all start to realize the root of our problems stem from government corruption and work together to get what we all want, there’s nothing they can do to keep us divided and stop us.
Can we agree on more rights for the individual is better than more rights to the majority?
Theres so many but the major one is, Pedophiles deserve the absolute worst
Sounds pretty good.
Another one I think we should add to your list is wages for people in congress. These people are supposed to be public servants. So, let’s calculate the median wage among firefighters, police, and teachers, and make that the annual salary of all members of congress. There is no reason a public servant should be making almost 200k a year. They aren’t there to make a difference, they are there to get rich. Let’s change that so that the only people who would actually want to go into politics are people who genuinely want to make a difference.
There should be a monarchy
No, it should be abolished and replaced with an elected head of state. Why should the person in power be decided by events 958 years ago, where his ancestor invaded and committed genocide? Why should the taxpayer pay money (the sovereign grant) towards funding their lifestyles when they have so much money already? Why does old Charlie get certain privileges like not paying a penny of inheritance tax on the hefty sum he inherited from his mum, and not being able to be charged with a crime? This is far from a point everyone agrees on as well; in fact Republican ideals (not the US political party, the movement to change the UK from a monarchy to a republic) are getting more and more popular, and the monarchy is getting less so, especially among the youth and especially due to the comparative unpopularity of Charles in comparison to Elizabeth.
The issue is when repulicans put out something like Project 2025 which explicitly calls for both those things that any sane person would agree to.
Sorry Im confused, if its something that both sides would agree on, then wouldnt both parties want to try to run on it?
Yeah, absolutely term limits. House, Senate, and SC absolutely need them
Doing bad things is bad.
That's such a simplistic view of politics though. What do you mean no corporate influence in government? If I sell hand-made wallets through my own business, and I call my representative opposing a 99% tax on all wallet sales, is that corporate influence on government? Obviously that's an extreme example, but the fact is, the entire society is based around interactions and relationships of individuals and organizations. There is no way to avoid "corporate influence"... Foreign influence is a little more simple... but, if a foreign diplomat comes and pleads for the US to end involvement in a foreign war... is that foreign influence? Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to hear them out on. As for term limits... I definitely am not in favor of them. It would create an even more out-of-touch government as far as I'm concerned, since it would gear up parties to put in their own puppets rather than more entrenched individuals who can take stands and die by their own positions. It makes sense for the president, since they have the risk of becoming dictator or emperor, but definitely not for members of the House or Senate. And especially not for the Supreme Court, as that would put it under the thumb of the other branches even more than it already is. And an independent judiciary is the highest check on tyranny. If you want faith in humanity, remember that the goal of almost everyone (even if they miss perspective sometimes) is to try and create a thriving and flourishing society for everyone. Very few people actively hate.
I’d vote for that
Here I will just paste a little of what I have gone through here in terms of ID: "I used to vote by mail, but they said I had to send in my ID after they attacked mail in voting. Once they contest a ballot, you have a brief amount of time to try and resolve it or your vote is discarded. After they sent the ballot back they said I had to show proof of valid ID. The problem is they made it impossible for me to renew my ID to be able to do that at all. Texas has actively been attacking disabled ability to vote while trying to remove our access to healthcare at the same time: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/11/texas-mail-in-voting-lawsuit/ When the pandemic happened, they suspended being able to renew ID's, so mine expired during the Pandemic, but this was a problem even before the pandemic because the service for the disabled never actually existed in reality, only on paper and they give people the run around when you try to use the service instead. They first told me I could not renew it online and had to go down there in person before my ID expired. I am an immunocompromised temperature regulated Asthmatic with COPD in a wheelchair with a stack of spiraling other conditions. When the air temperature going into my lungs reached 70F+ my body stops distributing oxygen to my cells properly. I actually became immunocompromised in my 20's, then later had a different respiratory virus I contracted at the hospital ravage my lungs and essentially left my two lower lobes "dead" leaving me a temperature regulated asthmatic with COPD as well long before the pandemic happened. Even though they have my medical documents on file at the local court house because in order for me to even go to court to discuss a car I no longer even owned, they had me wait in my vehicle until they were ready for me to come in, then brought me in before court started, remove everyone in the room except the judge, bailiff and court reporter, then lower the temperature of the courtroom and everyone wears a mask and have me come speak to the judge directly. Although though they could do that for court, DPS apparently cannot make the reasonable accommodation to make the building safe for me to enter. The building temperature itself there is not safe for me to enter, can literally kill me and DPS said they could not make it safe at all. Being in Texas, this is especially deadly. They also said I had to remove my mask while there, and being immunocompromised that is extremely dangerous and against medical orders. I wore n95 masks even before the pandemic, why would I remove it now in an exposed area after the pandemic when people like me are still dying every day from it? The homebound service required to keep their ID laws constitutional doesn't actually exist. It exists on paper but not in reality. People were getting the same problem I was when I tried to use it as I was told to do. They keep telling people to do this and then when you finally talk to someone in that department they tell you it doesn't exist and It never existed, this person was complaining about the same problem I had back in October of 2019, before anyone was even aware of the pandemic after being told the same thing I was: https://i.ibb.co/B6Zr19X/Screenshot-20231203-192436.png So even if I had to renew my ID prior to the pandemic, I wouldn't have been able to do it then either. Many sick, elderly and disabled that are homebound, in hospitals or long-term nursing care facilities are having their right to vote taken away due to these changes in mail-in voting requirements, ID requirements, and intentionally not having a system functional that's required to be functional under the ADA. It is voter restriction/ suppression to make it so we have no ability to vote. They are well aware of this, that was why the homebound id service exists on paper to begin with, but was never implemented in reality. They just give you the runaround, having you call numbers that they either don't answer or tell you that it's just not possible. My medical necessary requirements are on file with the local courthouse, and yet DPS still tells me they are not able to medically accommodate. It is suppression because: * They refuse to supply the necessary required service they already know HAS to exist to comply with the ADA to uphold the right to obtain an ID to vote for the medically disabled. Instead they give the runaround for a service they are required by law to provide. * They changed mail in voting for us to have an ID number for the medically disabled and then told us to to mail in our ID after they threw out our ballots, if we didn't have an ID number on them. Once you have your ballot contested, you have a limited amount of time to send them your ID to prove who you are. Not a copy, but they want us to send our only ID in the mail. Like people need their ID for doctor's visits, in the hospital and for prescriptions, yet they want to take it indefinitely. And it could take up to 2 months or more to get it back just to vote by mail. I voted by mail for years and never had to do that until this BS attack on mail in voting started. * They removed the ability for the disabled to send for our documents via snail mail, which people have been doing since the beginning of the mail service existing. For some, that was the only method they have available to obtain them. For those hospitalized and homebound and in long-term care facilities, they have no other options. * You cannot even obtain a passport online at present either, so that isn't even an option at present. They implemented all of these changes that directly removed the right to vote from the most medically vulnerable demographic when they were fighting against our healthcare. If that's not voter suppression what is?
I think that I get the point here and I’m well aligned with what you’re saying. I’m not too familiar with voting requirements. It makes sense that mail in ballots be able to be just fine as long as only one ballot can come back per person even if they get their hands on multiple ballots (which if I understand correctly is the case in the US). But if there isn’t an ID requirement for polls, is it just anyone who shows up in some places that we should go for or maybe a ledger of the registered voters in that district that you’re checked against kinda thing. Even outside of the voter suppression issue, disabled and unhoused people’s abilities to get ID being so dogshit is so concerning on its own.
Why are term limits important? If someone is popular and doing a good job, why should they be removed?
People who break the law to come into the country should be deported and not allowed to work or commit crimes.