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

marmar

(76,976 posts)
23. What are you talking about? I'm including Congress in this......
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:13 AM
Apr 2016

..... 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?

kay to the are KG Apr 2016 #1
Reading the book, extremely good read nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #2
Frank is wrong: the GOP are the. party. of ineguality: they cut taxes on the rich: lewebley3 Apr 2016 #76
Party realignment nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #86
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
Sanders is an attacker of Obama and the Dem party:He shouldn't have lewebley3 May 2016 #140
Democratic party supports the rightwing Rass Apr 2016 #110
Yes, we know that OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #120
The Democratic party supports sharing and caring politics: The GOP only business lewebley3 May 2016 #139
Kicked and recommended to the Max! This is unacceptable! Enthusiast Apr 2016 #3
No, they are doing quite fine, don't you know. zalinda Apr 2016 #4
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
Thanks for the explanation of the '1941' point. Hartmann says the GOP appalachiablue Apr 2016 #88
+1! Thanks, appalachiablue! Enthusiast Apr 2016 #40
Certainly Enthusiast! It'll be good to see Tommy on Maher tonite, and his brief appalachiablue Apr 2016 #78
Thanks! JDPriestly Apr 2016 #71
Thomas Frank wallyworld2 Apr 2016 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author potisok Apr 2016 #41
Great article! I sure suggest clicking on the link and reading it. Thanks for posting the link!!! Akamai Apr 2016 #5
K 'n Arrggh! Plucketeer Apr 2016 #6
In America, money and greed have won.. mountain grammy Apr 2016 #7
Watch him get HRC type money for his post Presidential speeches! Dustlawyer Apr 2016 #8
And, pray tell, who will pay him that kind of money? rateyes Apr 2016 #11
Why Wall Street of course! Dustlawyer Apr 2016 #16
Sounds like you really don't know Bernie Sanders. rateyes Apr 2016 #33
Yes! For Obama, I predict many lucrative speeches Angel Martin Apr 2016 #43
Kay 'n Ray. Everyone needs to understand this! bbgrunt Apr 2016 #9
More purity crap, same bunch of people who bash Obama reflexively.. would've hated FDR uponit7771 Apr 2016 #10
In other words, the truth hurts? marmar Apr 2016 #12
No, ill perspective is apparent... not the truth uponit7771 Apr 2016 #13
To pretend that the Democratic Party hasn't shifted away from the New Deal..... marmar Apr 2016 #14
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
Umm, okay. I see the discussion has reached an intellectual peak. marmar Apr 2016 #24
Yeap, that's when you started demonizing Clinton... I'm not into HDS uponit7771 Apr 2016 #27
Answer the question Populist_Prole Apr 2016 #38
the answer is no Angel Martin Apr 2016 #45
If you're into HDS it is, otherwise its part of rat fucking right wing tripe spouted by either uponit7771 Apr 2016 #55
Sickening answer. libtodeath Apr 2016 #64
facts... not podium bird fantasy uponit7771 Apr 2016 #65
Sorry,have no interest in anything you have to say on this thread anymore libtodeath Apr 2016 #66
Your posts are all vapid personal attacks with lurid catch phrase verbiage. Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #119
Blind, bitter partisanship. Redwoods Red Apr 2016 #126
She wants fame and fortune for herself and her family OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #123
foolish OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #122
We agree, its foolish to just talk about how people want things instead of getting things done uponit7771 Apr 2016 #133
A Primer on Mid-Term Elections: bvar22 Apr 2016 #131
What was the reasoning of the white house to pick Lincoln? tia uponit7771 Apr 2016 #134
Implicitly comparing Obama and FDR as similar - that's a new one. bjo59 Apr 2016 #44
FDR was to the right of Trump on issues, yes... the purist would've hated FDR but fuck facts... uponit7771 Apr 2016 #59
FDR was to the right of Trump? H'okay then. Scootaloo Apr 2016 #108
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
I recommend reading the book idlisambar Apr 2016 #58
They always trot out the purity argument..... marmar Apr 2016 #73
Whenever we demand that dems act like dems awoke_in_2003 Apr 2016 #93
Accurate CobaltBlue Apr 2016 #102
... without a supporting congress then we look like a bunch of complainers.." that should've uponit7771 Apr 2016 #128
More irony Scootaloo Apr 2016 #107
I see that too. The Democratic party has changed. Baitball Blogger Apr 2016 #15
do not forget lbj with the war on poverty dembotoz Apr 2016 #46
More bullshit talk. Name one Dem who actually said he or she defends mass inequality. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #17
It's not about what they say, it's what they do. marmar Apr 2016 #18
What they do isn't influenced at all by the lack of congressional support?! REALLY?! MY GOD!! uponit7771 Apr 2016 #20
What are you talking about? I'm including Congress in this...... marmar Apr 2016 #23
More right wing tripe, not they did NOT have a CONTROLLING majority due to GOP Senate rules uponit7771 Apr 2016 #26
Ah, more convenient excuses..... marmar Apr 2016 #28
relevant facts aren't excuses uponit7771 Apr 2016 #29
Getting no where? Egnever Apr 2016 #52
more excuses for deliberate inaction Angel Martin Apr 2016 #48
Very brave of you to admit that even WITH a 60 vote Super Majority in the Senate, bvar22 Apr 2016 #79
If they had 100 percent they would find excuses nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #89
You forgot the "for 59 days" part but and so did Franks but no one would leave those little facts uponit7771 Apr 2016 #127
For real forjusticethunders Apr 2016 #118
Yep. All you gotta do is look who's winning the Democratic promary KPN Apr 2016 #25
I have seen FDR and the New Deal attacked here. libtodeath Apr 2016 #30
And the disasters of the Reagan Years are ignored... Raastan Apr 2016 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author marmar Apr 2016 #35
Yep. Many here would have fought FDR on Social Security (ie. "free stuff"). Dawgs Apr 2016 #36
Same here, couldn't believe it, bashing FDR on a Democratic board. appalachiablue Apr 2016 #99
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
K&R Marmar Populist_Prole Apr 2016 #39
Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis all got hammered Yavin4 Apr 2016 #42
The book goes into much more detail on the history idlisambar Apr 2016 #57
The author omits contextual data from his analysis and provides a conclusion that's not accurate Yavin4 Apr 2016 #69
Understood, but there is room for both to be true idlisambar Apr 2016 #72
What other strategy could they have chosen? Yavin4 Apr 2016 #87
Well, they could have done what most left wing parties around the world do idlisambar Apr 2016 #113
You hit the nail on the head. If Clinton had been.... Armstead Apr 2016 #130
They were all terrible candidates Armstead Apr 2016 #129
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #47
KnR nt chknltl Apr 2016 #49
i'd really appreciate it if anyone who has read his books certainot Apr 2016 #50
Listen Liberal does not... Haven't read the others. SujiwanKenobee Apr 2016 #68
thanks, i suspected it , i don't think he factored it much certainot Apr 2016 #75
Many people on this very board never account for RW hate radio and its appalachiablue Apr 2016 #94
considering the time we've lost on global warming i certainot Apr 2016 #95
Well, yes. *BUT* SujiwanKenobee Apr 2016 #98
well, take a protest as an indicator certainot Apr 2016 #104
He just hates Obama. He's officially Nader'd WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2016 #51
Yeah, but as long as we're still called Democrats, everything's OK RufusTFirefly Apr 2016 #54
It is a very good book,and before sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #56
My grandfather told me this years ago, the party isn't the same as when FDR was President davidn3600 Apr 2016 #61
K&R! Phlem Apr 2016 #62
This message was self-deleted by its author mrr303am Apr 2016 #63
K&R - sad to read this. EndElectoral Apr 2016 #67
K & R AzDar Apr 2016 #70
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
K & R N/T w0nderer Apr 2016 #80
Bernie opposes part of the New Deal. pnwmom Apr 2016 #81
And? Hillary seems to oppose most of it. marmar Apr 2016 #84
Nonsense. Hillary strongly supports Social Security, if that's what you're referring to. pnwmom Apr 2016 #85
This is a new position for her for this election. nm rhett o rick Apr 2016 #100
Maybe if you bothered to research? Scootaloo Apr 2016 #111
I know what his excuse is. But it's garbage. He's siding with the tea party on this and pnwmom Apr 2016 #112
Funny, you had just said you didn't know at all. And now it's an "excuse" Scootaloo Apr 2016 #114
President Obama, like every Democratic President since FDR, ended up strongly supporting pnwmom Apr 2016 #115
I'm aware. So, was he being deceitful, too? Scootaloo Apr 2016 #116
Obama did side with the tea party UNTIL improvements were made at the Export-Import bank. pnwmom Apr 2016 #117
Who is Hillary siding with here? Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #121
Marmar, no. 34 was for you. I was rushing earlier, sorry. So glad news of 'Listen Liberal' appalachiablue Apr 2016 #83
All good amigo. marmar Apr 2016 #92
K & R !!! to the Max... Thespian2 Apr 2016 #91
Great analysis. And... zentrum Apr 2016 #96
he's right. We're not pushing for unions all around the country or for increased minimum wage or for craigmatic Apr 2016 #97
kick rec Teamster Jeff Apr 2016 #101
Marmar, thank you for this tremendous OP. seafan Apr 2016 #103
Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate in recent history, a stab in back of working whereisjustice Apr 2016 #124
this is always the danger: Angel Martin Apr 2016 #135
"Metropolitan Opera" liberals who prioritize lifestyle issues affecting 0.001% of the population whereisjustice May 2016 #137
Man you called that right! Populist_Prole May 2016 #138
It's sick. Instead of 60 years of progress, we are now right of where the Republicans were 60 years Vote2016 Apr 2016 #125
K&R SMC22307 Apr 2016 #132
They could change the name. moondust Apr 2016 #136
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thomas Frank: Dems have g...»Reply #23