A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 36 of 725
Quote:There would still be Confederate States if President Jefferson Davis had been content with just controlling the Southern States. But Jeff Davis, overly proud of himself, got persuaded by his Confederate Generals that they could conquer the North. And it looked like Davis's Generals could, at least until Lincoln promoted Grant and Sherman to be his new Generals and fired the incompetent ones.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yeah...
Kind of makes one wonder if the Civil War was about the "good guys" in the North trying to end slavery like we were taught in public school, huh?
There were abolitionists in the North, but the North went to war with the Confederacy to save itself, not for love of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation came later, as an afterthought by Lincoln, and it did not free slaves in slave states that did not join the Confederacy (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri). Northerners, except the few abolitionists, disliked blacks. That didn’t change with winning the Civil War and was on the mind of Martin Luther King Jr. when he was killed for being black.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:There would still be Confederate States if President Jefferson Davis had been content with just controlling the Southern States. But Jeff Davis, overly proud of himself, got persuaded by his Confederate Generals that they could conquer the North. And it looked like Davis's Generals could, at least until Lincoln promoted Grant and Sherman to be his new Generals and fired the incompetent ones.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yeah...
Kind of makes one wonder if the Civil War was about the "good guys" in the North trying to end slavery like we were taught in public school, huh?
There were abolitionists in the North, but the North went to war with the Confederacy to save itself, not for love of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation came later, as an afterthought by Lincoln, and it did not free slaves in slave states that did not join the Confederacy. Northerners, except the few abolitionists, disliked blacks. That didn’t change with winning the Civil War and was on the mind of Martin Luther King Jr. when he was killed for being black.
You do surprise me on occasion Second. I think that might be 3 posts you've made in the last week that we're in agreement on either in large part or in full.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you looked at that MLK article you'd see that MLK correctly identified what is wrong with America today. Martin Luther King’s Radical Anti-Capitalism www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/01/15/remembering-martin-luther-kings
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You do surprise me on occasion Second. I think that might be 3 posts you've made in the last week that we're in agreement on either in large part or in full.
-radical-class-politics/
I'm a big fan of Capitalism because it benefits me, but I receive those benefits only because I understand how it works in America, as did MLK Jr. who was aware of how American-style Capitalism did not benefit the poorer 50% of the population.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:If you looked at that MLK article you'd see that MLK correctly identified what is wrong with America today. Martin Luther King’s Radical Anti-Capitalism www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/01/15/remembering-martin-luther-kings
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You do surprise me on occasion Second. I think that might be 3 posts you've made in the last week that we're in agreement on either in large part or in full.
-radical-class-politics/
I'm a big fan of Capitalism because it benefits me, but I receive those benefits only because I understand how it works in America, as did MLK Jr. who was aware of how American-style Capitalism did not benefit the poorer 50% of the population.
I agree with capitalism on paper, but not in practice... at least how it is done in America.
I'm not anti-Capitalist at all. I'm anti-Predatory-Capitalism, which is what the current structure is. We're allowed to live with an illusion of a Capitalistic society, but only those with true wealth are allowed to thrive and continue to consolidate power.
I don't know what the fix for this is. Communism certainly isn't a viable option.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Capitalism rules until there is a Star Trek economy (replicators instantly manufacture food, clothing etc. & money is not the measure of all value). But until that economy arrives, along with starships, government can keep the wealthy from being too greedy and incompetent if government wants. In a few countries, I believe government does.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I agree with capitalism on paper, but not in practice... at least how it is done in America.
I'm not anti-Capitalist at all. I'm anti-Predatory-Capitalism, which is what the current structure is. We're allowed to live with an illusion of a Capitalistic society, but only those with true wealth are allowed to thrive and continue to consolidate power.
I don't know what the fix for this is. Communism certainly isn't a viable option.
www.socialprogressindex.com/results
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to see three things happen. One we've already talked about.
1. Eliminate the Social Security/Medicaid tax on anybody for the first $100,000 and force all companies to give the half they were paying to the employees. This would be an instant 15.30% pay increase to every single one of the working class that are in poverty all the way up to those making $100,000 per year. Make this $100,000 number tied completely to inflation, so it never decreases in real life.
2. Then, end the top half of this equation and remove the cap completely on income. Everyone making over $100,000 per year will have to pay it on every dime they make over $100,000.
3. Most importantly, make this a constitutional amendment that no person in political power can EVER change this or remove it.
This would not solve all of societies woes, but I think it would be an amazing start.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll take you seriously. I think #2 could not get even one vote from the GOP in Congress, but if it did pass by a miracle I think #3 could not get approval from the state governments controlled by the GOP. That would kill the amendment because the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states need to ratify. It takes only 13 states voting NO! to stop an amendment and the GOP controls 32 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd like to see three things happen. One we've already talked about.
1. Eliminate the Social Security/Medicaid tax on anybody for the first $100,000 and force all companies to give the half they were paying to the employees. This would be an instant 15.30% pay increase to every single one of the working class that are in poverty all the way up to those making $100,000 per year. Make this $100,000 number tied completely to inflation, so it never decreases in real life.
2. Then, end the top half of this equation and remove the cap completely on income. Everyone making over $100,000 per year will have to pay it on every dime they make over $100,000.
3. Most importantly, make this a constitutional amendment that no person in political power can EVER change this or remove it.
This would not solve all of societies woes, but I think it would be an amazing start.
But it's always a game won by numbers. For an unexpected example from today:
Democrats just picked up a Wisconsin state Senate seat. Though Donald Trump had won the rural district by about 17 points in the 2016 presidential election, Democratic nominee Patty Schachtner defeated her Republican opponent for the open seat by a comfortable margin of about 10 points.
www.jsonline.com/story/news/2018/01/16/wisconsin-voters-chose-legislat
ors-tuesdays-special-elections/1038687001/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Democrat won a reliably GOP seat in Wisconsin, causing angst among some Republicans.
Democrats on Tuesday won a surprising victory in Wisconsin's Senate District 10, part of what's become a wave of wins nationwide in state legislative and federal races, stoking concerns among Republicans ahead of the midterm elections this fall.
"Senate District 10 special election win by a Democrat is a wake up call for Republicans in Wisconsin," tweeted Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who later Wednesday sent out several tweets that began with "WAKE UP CALL" and touted his party's achievements in the state.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-17/democrat-wins-seat-
in-traditionally-red-wisconsin-district
http://beta.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-wisconsin-senate-seat-2018011
7-story.html
Patty Schachtner's victory Tuesday over state Rep. Adam Jarchow marks the 34th legislative seat that has flipped from Republican to Democrat nationwide since President Donald Trump took office last year, according to the national Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, signaling backlash against Trump could fuel a Democratic wave in November.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AP FACT CHECK: Trump presidency creates an alternate reality
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-trumps-alternat
e-reality-marks-presidency-52412541
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I'll take you seriously. I think #2 could not get even one vote from the GOP in Congress, but if it did pass by a miracle I think #3 could not get approval from the state governments controlled by the GOP. That would kill the amendment because the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states need to ratify. It takes only 13 states voting NO! to stop an amendment and the GOP controls 32 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd like to see three things happen. One we've already talked about.
1. Eliminate the Social Security/Medicaid tax on anybody for the first $100,000 and force all companies to give the half they were paying to the employees. This would be an instant 15.30% pay increase to every single one of the working class that are in poverty all the way up to those making $100,000 per year. Make this $100,000 number tied completely to inflation, so it never decreases in real life.
2. Then, end the top half of this equation and remove the cap completely on income. Everyone making over $100,000 per year will have to pay it on every dime they make over $100,000.
3. Most importantly, make this a constitutional amendment that no person in political power can EVER change this or remove it.
This would not solve all of societies woes, but I think it would be an amazing start.
But it's always a game won by numbers. For an unexpected example from today:
Democrats just picked up a Wisconsin state Senate seat. Though Donald Trump had won the rural district by about 17 points in the 2016 presidential election, Democratic nominee Patty Schachtner defeated her Republican opponent for the open seat by a comfortable margin of about 10 points.
www.jsonline.com/story/news/2018/01/16/wisconsin-voters-chose-legislat
ors-tuesdays-special-elections/1038687001/
As you say, it's a game won by numbers. The People that would be positively effected by this outnumber those that don't by a very large margin. The problem is, nobody ever talks about it.
Sure, they bitch about Social Security for many different reasons, but never talk about what I'm talking about specifically. I never got this idea from anyone, because nobody ever talks about it. I just thought of it.
Most people are too stupid to realize that they're paying 15.3% of every penny they make to the Government because of this tax. Their paycheck says that it's only %7.65.
I like that you're not disagreeing with me about the merits of this idea anymore, only the probability that it could ever happen. I don't think that having the correct amount of Democratic seats would do it, because they never talk about it either. I think the first step in getting this to happen would be to raise awareness of it.
Just so nobody forgets, an additional benefit to this would be that this 15.3% pay increase for all workers making under $100,000 a year would not impact companies providing goods and services that minimum wage employees work. This would be a huge way of boosting the quality of life for the lowest earners while also not raising the burden of companies by forcing them to raise their minimum workers pay rates.
Although, I would like to add a 4th thing to my list right now. Immediately tie the minimum wage to inflation going forward as well. It's absolutely crazy that it isn't already.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME