Bernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan

[JCanete]

154. So you are going to get into it. "Divisiveness was a one way street." Fucking a. I'm not in the mood

to rehash that right now, but I'm sure I'll be drawn into it again in the future. You do illustrate your earlier points though, that we both see the world through our own biases.

Issues of how the campaigns were run is a fair discussion. I'm not saying it should not be retreaded, just that I've done it too many times to want to jump into it again, and it could certainly bring out the elements on both sides. I will say this though. It is complicated. I'm not saying there was no boosting of Sanders at any point. But it was a strange ebb and flow. The media was good about keeping him under wraps when states were coming up. It was good at either ignoring or remembering to emphasize that he had already lost, nearly from day one, by calculating in super-delegates, etc. It was good at literally recording an empty trump podium rather than to cut to a Sanders primary victory. When the purpose was to bloody Clinton, oh hell yeah. They wanted to tear her down. They certainly didn't want her to lead a democratic "coup" by bringing a majority into the house and Senate on her coat-tails.

But this is a society where there is little interest, I think you'll agree on this, by the people in power to elect a socialist to the White House. I don't think it would have been particularly keen to have him in the GE. Corporate Media's owners certainly have no interest in that. Clinton would have worked within Washington, rather than making things a complete referendum on corporations. I have no doubt she wanted to do good work and make America better, and provide a better safety net and better justice for all, but I have equally no doubt that her approach is not as distasteful as the Sander's approach to CEOs and big shareholders. There is no incentive to amplify a dramatically anti-corporate message.

In-fact, regardless of it being post election and there being 2 years before another major one, it worries me that all of a sudden it's popular to put him on TV, even with him taking shots at the system as is. I understand doing it post primary, even if Sanders was campaigning for Clinton at that point... I honestly don't know what to make of them doing it now, except that it makes it harder to say that the media doesn't put liberal anti-establishment voices on, and that the expectation is that he's going to fade away and the things he's giving a megaphone to are not going to take hold. That's pretty depressing.

And of course, they are using it to strengthen a narrative, which is a bastardization of what Sanders is saying, that we need to listen to the interests of the white working class. They've already attempted to flip the point of that argument to make it about bathrooms and human rights. That isn't what was being said, and Sanders remains steadfast and usually ahead of his time on civil rights. He's not suggesting we pander or roll them back. It was about not speaking specifically to their financial woes. It was about language that did not foster confidence that there would be change in the right direction that would effect these people's lives. That doesn't excuse a vote for Trump. Clearly we were better on this. Clinton was so much better. How could any issue that Trump espoused rather than his outright lie about bringing coal jobs and auto jobs, etc. back, be a winner if that was what they were voting on? As it gets said here often enough, it isn't what they were voting on. I think the point is, had we made a clearer argument, promoted a more tangible, less complicated set of promises that stimulated the imagination of these people about how legislation, if passed could directly and almost immediately affect their lives for the better, it could have been.


I agree, the lack of adulation is not an attack. It is lost on people on both sides as well. Criticism is not an attack per say either. Getting into the intentions of people is usually where it gets ugly here, again on both sides. Not looking to our own, or seeing our own hypocrisy is another place.

I appreciate that you trust super-pacs to not do any coordinating, since that is so damn easy to track and prove one way or another. I'm certainly not accusing the Clinton camp of coordinating. Its just such a black box, I'm not going to make such assumptions, about anybody, including Sanders. That is one of the problems with Super Pacs. Colbert has done a pretty good job of showing that in the past.

Yes, there are more people starting Bernie adulation threads by far than previously. There have consistently been plenty of posts opened up to criticize something Sanders has said..(this is totally fair for any public figure)...and sometimes that comes with Sanders hate within the OP, but either way, it always inevitably opens the door for impugning motives of him, DNC, each other...etc. Now the Sanders cheerleading is met by other posts that find different leaders to laud, intentionally leaving his name off, etc. Its a silly game both are playing. I've no doubt there is actually celebration of one's favored politician in these threads, but you've shown its not so hard to recognize the other people on the list, who's names are literally adjacent to a persons' favorite. I wish Sanders fans would do this, and it really doesn't matter whether they think he's the reason for something or not, it is impolitic and impolite as well as incorrect, to not be generous about the credit.