Simple Answers to Complex Problems -Political Solutions for a divided world

[TMK9973]

Have you ever noticed that when online - Any debate on Politics sooner or later end up just repeating the same talking points of elected leaders from both major parites?

 

However - When talking 1 on 1 with a friend IN PERSON who is on "The other side" very often you all find common ground and then move on?

My take - there are 330 million Americans - but Ideas for solutions seem to only come from a few hundred, maybe thousands (If you include think tanks).  But Many great, compromisable ideas, are out there. But they are NOT making it up to the right people.

 

What are you simple, but good ideas that can move us forward again?

 

I'll start with my 2. 1 simple, 1 not so simple.

 

1 -Filibuster.  There is not doubt that the Filibuster is now being abused and is now being used to require 60 votes for ANYTHING.  IT was never suppose to be that. IT was a quirk in the rules that in theory - the minority party could use on the most extreme laws and positions of the majority party.  Today- because its easier (you don't need to do a talking filibuster anymore) its used for everything. At some point, I'll go over all my ideas to fix congress (I got lots!  ) but for now - I think we could fix just this one.

I don't want to vote to remove the filibuster because the result would be a consistent battle to pass and repeal laws every time the majority changed.  So I think the filibuster is a good tool, just abused.

So here is my simple change.

Require 40 votes to continue the filibuster.  

You may be thinking, that's the rule now. But its not.  The rule todays is you need 60 votes to END a filibuster. But that is reverse.  I think the last big bill to die in the filibuster with a vote was the bipartisan bill to investigate Jan 6th.  died with it was 54 to 35 to end the filibuster.  5 votes short of the 40 you would need if my idea passed.  Would there have been another 5 senators that would have shown up to vote against the investigation? We will never know.  Change the "burdon" and lets see what happens.

 

Next one -Will be a little more controversy.

2- Voting rights and Gun rights - look.  I support gun bills and voting rights. HOWEVER the other side has a point.  Gun rights are in the constitutional and we have to be careful about how we limit constitutional rights.  I also support easy voting for more voting - but try as I might, somethings like Voter ID laws, dont really bother me (Except in places that pass voter ID then limit the type of ID). Here is my simple bill.  Tie voting and gun rights together.

Same day registration for voting? Then Same day registration for a gun.

No pre registration needed for gun? Then no pre registration needed for Voting.

3 day limit to be approved to purchase a gun or you are able to purchase it? Then 3 day limit on how long it must take to be approved to vote.

I could go on and on. But BOTH are constitutional rights.   BOTH have limits (Felons, non citizens have their rights limited).  So tie them together. This will make places like Texas and GA rethink what voting limitations they are willing to do, while it will also limit some states on what gun laws they pass.

 

 

Ok -your turn. What are some simple answers for complex problems??

Edited September 27, 2021 by TMK9973

[TheGreatBuzz]

I’m not sure how this thread is going to go because it seems like any topic will be game but I’ll play for now.

 

Tie abortion and gun control together.  Give a little on each one and get a big win for your side.  Then make part of the law that no changes can be made to either for 10 years.  That gives time for both sides to find other causes to focus on.  

[88Comrade2000]

Term limits. You have it for the presidency. Many states have it for their governships.

 

Majority of politicians are only in it to get reelected; so they will only do what will get them reelected. Until you get rid of career politicians; no real legislation that benefits the people and really solves the country’s problems will occur.

 

12 years - 6, 2 year terms for the House.

12 years - 2, 6 year terms for the Senate.

5 years- 1, 5 year term for the Presidency.

 

8 years is to long for one person to be president. 5 years is enough time for them to do what they want.

 

 

Also, we need to get rid of lifetime appointments for the courts, especially Supreme Court.  
 

I would suggest a 10 year term, with the provision they can be reconfirmed for a second 10 year term and then a 3rd 10 year term.

[Destino]

Qualification exams for all powerful government jobs, with continuing education requirements.  The more power the office holds the harder the exam.  Judges, cops, senators, reps, mayor, city council, etc. 

[Renegade7]

If federal government can't agree to new budget, previous budget numbers stay in effect.  This shutdown nonsense has to stop, its pathetic, we look weak.

[Fergasun]

I wish a billionaire would bankroll a third party.  Not their own third party for governor or President or Senator.  An actual third party with an attempt to get 5 House Members and 2 Senators at least and then build from there.  Do it from a transparent non-political moderate position.  Don't bootlick Pelosi or Trump. 

 

How powerful would it be to say, "I'm not here to kiss Trump or Pelosi's keisters". 

[Bang]

Mitch McConnell falls down the steps and dies. 

 

~Bang

[LD0506]

5 minutes ago, Bang said:

Mitch McConnell falls down the steps and dies. 

 

~Bang

 

Some posts deserve more than a single reaction

[LD0506]

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I wish a billionaire would bankroll a third party.  Not their own third party for governor or President or Senator.  An actual third party with an attempt to get 5 House Members and 2 Senators at least and then build from there.  Do it from a transparent non-political moderate position.  Don't bootlick Pelosi or Trump. 

 

How powerful would it be to say, "I'm not here to kiss Trump or Pelosi's keisters". 

 

Pragmatists, not looking to run candidates themselves but a core group of voters than would support whoever was willing to run as responsible adults. Local orgs for civic discussions that could reach across party lines to bring together sane people, who exist across the political spectrum. Most places/ most races are relatively close, enough so that 10% firmly committed to supporting (or NOT supporting) anyone's moonbat rhetoric slinger could make a difference and begin dragging us back towards the middle ground where most live.

 

But no, private space programs, that's where it's at........

[Momma There Goes That Man]

6 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I wish a billionaire would bankroll a third party.  Not their own third party for governor or President or Senator.  An actual third party with an attempt to get 5 House Members and 2 Senators at least and then build from there.  Do it from a transparent non-political moderate position.  Don't bootlick Pelosi or Trump. 

 

How powerful would it be to say, "I'm not here to kiss Trump or Pelosi's keisters". 

All this does is benefit the party that is most different from this third party candidate’s platform. I think a better way to get third party growth is to implement ranked choice voting as people can vote their conscience and heart which will give additional parties a lot more votes and recognition which will allow them to grow but also, is not throwing your vote away since you get a second fallback option. 

[Riggo-toni]

Reverse desertification and afforestation. Odds are you may never have heard of it, but...was listening to a TED talk a few weeks ago and the presenter pointed out that if we did this, it would reduce atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels. Even for thise who believe climate change is not real, the benefits for feeding millions more makes it a no-brainer.  Rather than fighting over extremes like complete denial or the Green New Deal, here is something that won't cost jobs, is relatively cheap, would reduce immigration and the need for US aid by reducing poverty and famine, and does major carbon capture.

[Dan T.]

Regarding the filibuster, I agree with those who say to revert it back to its original format.  Put the burden of time and effort back on those employing it so that it is used more judiciously.

[TMK9973]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

If federal government can't agree to new budget, previous budget numbers stay in effect.  This shutdown nonsense has to stop, its pathetic, we look weak.

This is exactly the kind of Idea I was thinking with this thread.

Easy solution that would prob pass if introduced.

No more political standoffs EVERY year. 

As for 3rd party -A 3rd party cold def work these days.  My issues it is seems all those interested and capable of a 3rd party always want to start with the presidency.  

That aint gonna happen.

 

Start with a purple state.  Run a few state legislators under a new party platform and refuse to alway vote with 1 party or the other.  Introduce a few "3rd way" bills and pass or not, run on them.

Move from state legislators to congressional districts and after a few elections, then Governor and senator, and  12-20 years after you can run someone for President.

President should be the LAST step, not the 1st.  

[tshile]

9 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Do it from a transparent non-political moderate position

Make the party less about anyone’s personal opinions on anything, and more about understanding the science/data/facts behind issues and trying to figure out what’s best for the country as a whole. 
 

make the party about functional governance. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

So make a second Dem party?

[Renegade7]

No matter how pragmatic a party tries to be, it still has to reconcile with historical battle between small and large government to solve problems in this country.  Trying to make it case by case will still be subject to opinion of someone. 

[TMK9973]

33 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No matter how pragmatic a party tries to be, it still has to reconcile with historical battle between small and large government to solve problems in this country.  Trying to make it case by case will still be subject to opinion of someone. 

I do think there is room for a 3rd way political party. If you start small.

There are many Republicans out there that are not the party of Trump, still believe less regulation and lower taxes is the way to go, esp for investment and corporate but are uneasy with the social extremes Republicans have fought for and do not agree on ALWAYS lowering taxes for everything.

 

Meanwhile Many people vote dem for social and because they feel there is a major role for Government to take, but are uneasy about the  extremes of the dem party and the far left wing.

 

But really, there are HUGE number of Americans that just want to tweak a few things and don't want a massive overhaul of the US system.  Many who don't think the country needs a sharp change to the left or right.

[Dan T.]

How about we just blow up political parties.

[PeterMP]

Filibuster to me is the easy one.  Go back to what it actually was.

 

You want to Filibuster.  Great get up there and talk and keep talking.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Changing the filibuster back to its original state and earmarks sound good to me. 1 year term limits for president sounds good to me, but it should be 6-10 years. 4 years isn’t enough Time, especially if Congress is in office for 6 years.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[No Excuses]

There’s a major local issue in America, and that is a housing shortage in every major metro region. Most economic problems in this country trace themselves to the spiraling affordability crisis in places where jobs exist. 
 

It has a very simple solution: build more housing, primarily condos and apartments along transit routes. It doesn’t get that much attention because it’s a very local government related issue and the media is typically busy jerking off to the federal government. I wish they would shine a light on the insufferable NIMBYs who block every development project that aims to solve this problem.

 

We literally don’t build housing to keep up with metro region growth because a small coalition of really loud voices find it in their financial interest to keep the prices of their ****ty single family houses artificially inflated.

Edited September 29, 2021 by No Excuses

[LD0506]

10 hours ago, No Excuses said:

There’s a major local issue in America, and that is a housing shortage in every major metro region. Most economic problems in this country trace themselves to the spiraling affordability crisis in places where jobs exist. 
 

It has a very simple solution: build more housing, primarily condos and apartments along transit routes. It doesn’t get that much attention because it’s a very local government related issue and the media is typically busy jerking off to the federal government. I wish they would shine a light on the insufferable NIMBYs who block every development project that aims to solve this problem.

 

We literally don’t build housing to keep up with metro region growth because a small coalition of really loud voices find it in their financial interest to keep the prices of their ****ty single family houses artificially inflated.

 

Part of the problem is that those places with job growth do so because companies relocated to avoid taxes, hence there isn't the tax base to build the attendant infrastructure to support the companies that moved there. They foist all those related costs off onto the workers or the feds and declare what savvy businessmen they are.

 

We need to to stop focusing on the cost of taxes and instead get back to the value of them, ie. getting our money's worth.

[skinsmarydu]

^^^It's why the Danes are some of the happiest people on Earth, despite being taxed at (iirc) something like 60%...they actually get what they pay for. 

What a novel idea. 

[PleaseBlitz]

No elected judges.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

No elected judges.

What would be a better way?  Elected politicians appointing them doesn’t seem to be working out too great.