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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
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
(77,066 posts)84. And? Hillary seems to oppose most of it.
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