Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thomas Frank: Dems have gone from the party of the New Deal to a party defending mass inequality [View all]marmar
(76,976 posts)23. What are you talking about? I'm including Congress in this......
..... Dems DID have a majority in Obama's first two years but chose to do absolutely nothing progressive. Or would you rather blame the lazy purists who didn't in the following midterm after watching the Dems do nothing for two years?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thomas Frank: Dems have gone from the party of the New Deal to a party defending mass inequality [View all]
marmar
Apr 2016
OP
Frank is wrong: the GOP are the. party. of ineguality: they cut taxes on the rich:
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#76
Long past time. You have to stand for something, or you stand for nothing. nt
silvershadow
Apr 2016
#106
One does not preclude the other. That's why Sanders is going to convention. nt
silvershadow
Apr 2016
#105
The Democratic party supports sharing and caring politics: The GOP only business
lewebley3
May 2016
#139
TONIGHT: THOMAS FRANK 'Listen Liberal' | HBO Real Time with BILL MAHER, Fri April 29 10PM
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#32
K & R. Thanks for posting. Perfect timing for Thomas' appearance on Bill Maher tonite!
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#34
And the economy turned around from a 13% collapse in 1932, to a 13% boom in 1936.
forest444
Apr 2016
#82
Certainly Enthusiast! It'll be good to see Tommy on Maher tonite, and his brief
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#78
Great article! I sure suggest clicking on the link and reading it. Thanks for posting the link!!!
Akamai
Apr 2016
#5
More purity crap, same bunch of people who bash Obama reflexively.. would've hated FDR
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#10
To pretend the purist want to do anything else but complain and not work in mid term elections
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#19
You really think Hillary Rodham Clinton has ANY interest in bringing back the New Deal?
marmar
Apr 2016
#21
No, she wants to fry baby bunny rabbit ears and eat them with seal livers....:rolleyes:@HDS
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#22
If you're into HDS it is, otherwise its part of rat fucking right wing tripe spouted by either
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#55
Your posts are all vapid personal attacks with lurid catch phrase verbiage.
Bluenorthwest
Apr 2016
#119
We agree, its foolish to just talk about how people want things instead of getting things done
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#133
FDR was to the right of Trump on issues, yes... the purist would've hated FDR but fuck facts...
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#59
Perhaps some would have since income inequality increased significantly during FDR's first term.
pampango
Apr 2016
#53
There are many more issues FDR was to the right of Trump on, so no need to stop there...
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#60
... without a supporting congress then we look like a bunch of complainers.." that should've
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#128
More bullshit talk. Name one Dem who actually said he or she defends mass inequality. nt
Jitter65
Apr 2016
#17
What they do isn't influenced at all by the lack of congressional support?! REALLY?! MY GOD!!
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#20
More right wing tripe, not they did NOT have a CONTROLLING majority due to GOP Senate rules
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#26
Very brave of you to admit that even WITH a 60 vote Super Majority in the Senate,
bvar22
Apr 2016
#79
You forgot the "for 59 days" part but and so did Franks but no one would leave those little facts
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#127
It's also regular, predictable, and centered around one particular faction here
Scootaloo
Apr 2016
#109
Historically, income inequality goes down during recessions/depressions and rises coming out of them
pampango
Apr 2016
#37
The author omits contextual data from his analysis and provides a conclusion that's not accurate
Yavin4
Apr 2016
#69
My grandfather told me this years ago, the party isn't the same as when FDR was President
davidn3600
Apr 2016
#61
the result of Democrats being accused of the "too Liberal" label fed via right wing media...
tenderfoot
Apr 2016
#74
And to think that John Bohner just last night said that Bernie is the most honest in DC!
Dont call me Shirley
Apr 2016
#77
Nonsense. Hillary strongly supports Social Security, if that's what you're referring to.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#85
I know what his excuse is. But it's garbage. He's siding with the tea party on this and
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#112
President Obama, like every Democratic President since FDR, ended up strongly supporting
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#115
Obama did side with the tea party UNTIL improvements were made at the Export-Import bank.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#117
Marmar, no. 34 was for you. I was rushing earlier, sorry. So glad news of 'Listen Liberal'
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#83
he's right. We're not pushing for unions all around the country or for increased minimum wage or for
craigmatic
Apr 2016
#97
Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate in recent history, a stab in back of working
whereisjustice
Apr 2016
#124
"Metropolitan Opera" liberals who prioritize lifestyle issues affecting 0.001% of the population
whereisjustice
May 2016
#137