And Warren. And all those who would like to use OUR tax dollars that WE pay in to OUR government that is supposed to be of, by and for US, the people, used for things that actually benefit us instead of line the pockets of the wealthy.

Bernie is doing such amazing work. He's showing folks what they'll get by supporting progressives. He's constantly keeping progressive policies and bills in the limelight and not letting them get twisted by republican propaganda.

Bernie is setting us up to win BIG in 2018z he's a true progressive hero.

The public is behind us on this. Not to mention where would we be if progressive senators and congresspeople didn't even try to get what at the time seemed like impossible legislation passed?

Where would we be if we had said:

Women's right to vote? Never gonna happen, let's not even try.

Civil rights legislation? Won't make it to the president's desk. Why even bother?

The ACA? Insane! We'll never have enough votes.

No one thinks this bill is going to make it out of the Senate but if we want progressive legislation to pass in the future we have to be willing to start somewhere.

Kudos to senators Sanders, Warren, Harris, Blumenthal, Murphy, Gillibrand and their progressive colleagues in the house.

I'm not against this idea, but it would cost a lot of money. We can say it's worth it (I believe that), but the idea that it would save the VA money is kind of odd.

Up until now we've seen an uninterrupted stream of poor kids joining the military so they can get their GI Bill. Now a lot of those kids won't have a reason to join, which will hurt recruitment efforts. We make people risk their lives for college education in this country, dammit!

to apply to Trump University. I coulda lost a lot of money.

..and living in New York, except for nominal registration fees both the City University of New York and State University of New York (CUNY and SUNY) there was no tuition.

As it turned out I was awarded a full scholarship (academic) to a private college.

This is not a novel idea, glad to see Governor Cuomo is pressing for this once again.

I remember it wasn't quite as well received when Bernie proposed it back then but I'm thrilled more people are finally coming around.

Yay Bernie!!!

was advocating, it's free up to a certain income level.

I'm glad all those that were poo-pooing it are now on board. I'm thrilled that people have come around to a more practical version. Free community college and free tuition for those making under $125,000.

taking nice ideas and putting them into a bill that is practical and achievable. Free college for all is a nice thing to dream of, and perhaps someday we'll get there, but for now, we have a bill that has an actual chance of doing good now!

I'm so proud of our Democratic Senators, and the 14 Democratic representatives in the House who are working together to get past the visionary phase and propose workable and achievable plans to address the crisis in higher education.

So, thanks Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate, and Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Pramilla Jayapal!

We're so grateful for the competence and intelligence and strength of the Democrats that can take a great idea that Bernie introduced by himself, and add the common sense policy details that would address the real issues facing students, that were so popular on Hillary's platform and bring it all together.

Way to go team! Thanks for all the hard work to ALL of the 20 senators and Representatives who are making the policies the party ran on, into a reality, I'm so glad people realized how to actually implement ideas. See what happens when instead of going it alone, Democrats work together to get things done?

This does indeed look like the plan Bernie and Hillary put together! It's important to acknowledge ALL of the people whose hard work went into this, it would not be in its current form without Hillary and all the other wonderful Democrats that are frequently ignored. It's time we thank them ALL.

"Stronger Together" was more than just a campaign slogan for the GENERAL ELECTION... it's an axiom that I wish everyone understood.

... instead of pretending like other haven't contributed. I wish that was a more common trait. It reminds me that I used to work for someone like that and that attitude caused people to shut down and clam-up. It was the old "every-man-for-himself" philosophy and it caused division within every department. There was no teamwork, just everyone trying to out-do the other.

I really don't see anyone in this story trying to "steal" anything here though. I see a working together. I don't see any one person running up to the mic to claim some kind of first prize for being the grand author. But also I think that isn't even important to me or to them.

Bernie is an enigma, a lone wolf, a free radical... Even though he works with Democrats 99% of the time. I know this irks a few and some just can't seem to get past that. But he will not be changing any time soon. He's an old man set in his ways. So one can either hang on to that resentment or accept his help (which could also include some constructive criticism) and use his personal popularity to help push positive opinion towards the Democrats.

I'd love to see Bernie and Hillary back up on the stage together like that again, fighting side by side.

It's actually Cuomo's proposal...




That's as silly as thinking Bernie can intoduce legislation in Vermont and asking why we don't have free tution there.

?

Why do you find Cuomo's proposal a laughing matter?

around answering directly. Bernie can't introduce legislation in New York, either, but he showed up for the press in New York.

.... and not Governor, yet he's praised for sharing the stage with Cuomo when the NY Governor introduced a plan for free tuition.

Ironic, isn't it?

and give a little positive energy instead trying to find any minuscule negative angle you can scrape up on a man that is working tirelessly with Democrats, who obviously do not share you and your cohorts relentless contempt?

FYI, I have been "working tirelessly with Democrats" for decades, to the degree that I've been one of my local Democratic leaders and have run for office six times (winning four times), and I've done it as a Democrat. Plus I've been a delegate to our state Democratic Convention the last six times.

I DO, I don't talk!

What I have, as you characterize it, "contempt" for is those who take credit for the work of others and criticize the Democratic Party at every turn.

Thank you George!

It would just be nice to steer all that contempt and anger at the real enemy

...is "contempt and anger"?

Fake news is what got us Trump.

Its Rovian like brilliance, or probably just that its so easy, that they used and continue to use fake news stories to attack Democrats and then scream "fake news!" whenever a bonifide story comes out that is negative to them. It confuses the easily confused...better known as the Republican base.

Reality only matters if it benefits one politician who is never held accountable.

Everyone else is expected to discard reality and live in the sparkle bubble. After all, his own stated method of revolution is to call people and bug them until you get results. Surely he knows all Vermont's politicians and how to reach them.

will bother voting for it. When a bill lacks cosponsors, it's mostly due to something wrong with it. It's a vanity project or some other pointless thing that a politician can point to, which looks like s/he did something, when no one with any clue as to what's going on knows that's its pretty much just theater.

The way the US system works is that senators and Representatives get together and write these bills, they convince others to sign on, co-sponsor and advocate for them so that they make it through committees and onto the floor, then and only then does it have a prayer of becoming law.

Its silly to pretend that a single senator writing a bill by his lonesome and failing to get his colleagues on board is anything but a vanity project or a political calculation. These are not new ideas, but when someone takes stuff that is out there in the ether and doesn't do his due diligence on funding etc. and will not work with his fellow senators, no one can seriously call this attempt a "try" at all. Unless the concept and meaning of the word "try" is changed completely.

is good enough.

This is the bill Hillary ran on, that she worked together with Bernie to produce, and is the culmination of the work of TWENTY (20!!) men and women.

Let's acknowledge that work of all of those whose leadership we've got working for us in congress!

"Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation."

Love HER leadership!

Except I think her income limit was $250k rather than $125k.

Such a coincidence!

Is that within the past week we see a complete turn about on policies Clinton proposed, assailed as corporatist and incrementalist at the time. Yet suddenly those same proposals are met with applause because of the name attached them. One can't help wondering if policy matters at all.

This version has the important parts she was talking about, with the income limits, that the one Bernie ran on and introduced in 2015 by himself, did not.

Her original plan was indeed debt free college, free community college, and help with tuition for those who had incomes under a certain amount. Unfettered free college is not fiscally feasible at the current time.

So, no it's not the same thing as what Bernie was suggesting, due to financial realities. But the bill that everyone worked on together put what Hillary and Bernie put together and built upon it.

We do have reason to cheer, it seems silly and somewhat petty to only pick out one of a crowd doesn't it? We've got 20 wonderful Democrats sponsoring this along with Bernie, no need for divisiveness here. This is actually how bills are supposed to be written, not one person doing their own thing, but everyone working together putting their bits in, and balancing everything out into a cohesive whole.

just as frequently, that's not the order of things either. I say we take the win though, and it should be a kumbaya moment.

We're fact based, and we're fair. It's how you can tell the difference between us and the other side.

The order of things is to support the reality and fact based narratives. I know that the opposing forces really like to repeat things they know to be false, it's almost like it's an article of faith with them, not about facts.

It's why we're STILL pushing back on the various lies, like Benghazi, emails and speeches, Obama's birth certificate, what the ACA actually is, the various fictions pushed by the anti-choice wing etc.

They're intolerant to facts, but how does letting lies and obviously faulty stories to stand help matters? I say the order of things should be to challenge the lies, confront the folks pushing the propaganda and NOT letting these things take root and fester, we see the harm that does, and it ain't pretty.

Let's take the win, work together on pushing it further (like getting these bills to the floor, not just to the committees), and save the kumbaya til we've actually made some progress. This is a great start and an example of what happens when we work together.

We're going to need everyone on board to deal with all the anti-choice crap that's being shoved through congress, the attacks on Planned Parenthood etc. (did you see what they're passing in Iowa and Texas?????), we're going to need to armor up and get ready to push back together. We don't win when we let propaganda, outright lies and total fiction stand without correction. We have facts on our side, we stand together and we win.

We're going to have to elect a lot more Democrats to Congress before any such plan is made law.

in favor of the same thing, being entirely aligned? I get that it isn't going anywhere if the GOP can help it(and currently they can), but we can keep preaching this and the people will start to believe its doable and that it should be done...the way it took time for us to attempt health-care again after the campaigns and documentaries, etc. that started making people aware that there was a problem. That we are on this, and pushing progressively forward is good. We can build momentum on promises that help people in tangible ways, to the point of them becoming not just feasible, but politically politically possible.

The assholes who refused to vote for Democrats in the last election made this bill and anything like it impossible for now.

Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters have been working together without friction or issues or nastiness since July. The field organizers in my state were Bernie supporters, who put their heart and soul into Hillary.

This not a religion, and preaching to people isn't really a good way to win anyone over. Ask anyone subjected to missionaries. We already know it's doable, and we already now it needs to be done, these are issues that the Democrats have been working on for years. Literally everyone knew that healthcare access was a problem, anyone alive in the 90's saw Hillary working on it and getting even more attention due to the butthurt of the Republicans and the media that she would DARE do something other than host tea parties.

We've been on this, and have been progressively pushing forward, that's how progress is made, one step after the other. The sloganeering of the past election where people who clearly had never paid attention and didn't know words were spitting "incrementalism" as if it were some epithet was just silly.

We need to build momentum by working together not tearing each other down, we've never been the party engages in the cult of personality, that's the other side. It's time to put all that stuff behind us, and realize how actual progressives work, and stop inserting all this divisive garbage. Bernie wasn't doing this before he ran, he wasn't doing it when he ran, he did little to stop the vocal folks on the internet and the impetuous guys on the college campuses, (mostly, I think because he wasn't paying attention and didn't know what was going on). Even his own campaign for the most part wasn't engaging in this. The divisive forces on the internet, taking advantage of people's ignorance, their personal prejudices and the mob mentality of echo chambers on the internet were responsible.

We're fine. Bernie is fine, the Democrats are fine. And we've never been about anything other than helping people in tangible ways. All that "corporate shill" and "DINO" crap is coming from outside forces, not Democrats, progressives and liberals. Real ones that is. Stop buying into the media narratives and the letting the online trolls seeking to sow discord gain traction.

Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

philosophies over this proposal, here at DU. We all seemed to like the result, so taking it as something we could all be proud of seemed like something that should be galvanizing here.

I'm not sure what your referring to regarding preaching. I'm not promoting preaching, I'm promoting making good ideas part of the public discourse...breaking down the initial reactionary, "common sense", rejections of things, often because of dogmatic, unexplored assumptions. Those can change.

I'm perfectly willing to show dissatisfaction for Democrats who don't seem to be working towards the right goals though. There is no loyalty oath to our candidates. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire, as it is to hold our elected officials of all parties to the fire. We do need to be circumspect about our criticism, and not immediately jump to the worst conclusions, but I'm not going to be proud of the Joe Lieberman's any time soon.

Corporate shill or not--agreed that the term is unfair when applied to Democrats in general--money in politics is a problem. It can't just be a problem when it infuses Republicans. It either has power or it doesn't, and how that influences, or who that rises up because of alignment on certain ideas, matters. We can't simply ignore that issue when it comes to our own.

We could get into the divisiveness in the campaigns..though maybe we shouldn't. From my perspective though(so that we don't get into a war of facts, I'll leave this only as my own interpretation), divisiveness was a two-way street, and I think it would be helpful to acknowledge it on all sides.

one path to achieving X goal, usually by pushing the stance of a single person, for example. Coverage for all Americans is a goal and reducing the costs of healthcare. Anything other than the trademarked "Medicare for all" is seen as heresy, and anyone who does not follow this dogma is attacked.

This is just an example, I'm not going to debate the topic, just an illustration

Medicare for all is one way to achieve that goal, it's not Single payer, but the dogma doesn't recognize this. Also, there are many different ways that single payer can be and is implemented and they each have their pros and cons. But we can't ever have that discussion, because Bernie says Medicare for all, and anyone who detracts from that must be silenced and called names, as people call them shills, paid off by big pharma etc.

Reactionaries won't allow debate to happen and they won't educate themselves on the issues, they resort to punishing what they see as heresy.

There shouldn't be a problem with showing dissatisfaction with Democrats or the two Independents who caucus with us. But literally anything less than adulation of a single man is not tolerated by some elements. Our job should be to hold EVERYONE's feet to the fire, when they say and do things that justly should be criticized. I'm not going to be proud of anyone who thinks we should not "be so rigid about women's basic rights". That's a deal breaker and it's not liberal, Democratic, progressive or anything that we on the left stand for.
But if I should criticize that, I'm attacked, on a Democratic site, when the person who said it isn't officially a member of the party.

Literally, who isn't saying that money in politics isn't a problem, even Republicans are on board with that. Who is ignoring that issue with anyone? I see a lot of people who don't understand how FEC reporting works and who choose apply different standards. For instance when people who work for a company give money to Cory Booker or HRC, they're derided as corporate shills, when the same reports show that the same individuals who work for the same companies give to Bernie, it's somehow a totally different thing. Double standards and a lack of basic understanding. There were people here who were accusing Hillary Clinton of being pro Citizens United. The group that literally was created to attack her, and whose name was a misogynistic insult directed at her. We simply cannot ignore the issues when the people using these attacks claim to be on our side.

I'm not even going to get into the all the craziness about David Brock who wasn't a part of the campaign and who was literally, as a superpac which can't coordinate with the campaign, running around correcting the sheer propaganda that was being dished out on all sides here. No one was trying to discredit Bernie, literally, he faced zero attacks from his Democratic opponents and the Republicans were doing their best to boost him. He wasn't vetted, he wasn't touched, he wasn't ever attacked.

Nope, the divisiveness was very much a one way street, with all the wars that were happening here, twitter and various liberal sites, that was evident. I think it would be helpful to acknowledge facts and not brush things away by dismissing them with patently baseless bothsiderism. The silencing worked one way, and it was malicious. If someone is being rude, calling names, being disrespectful they should be given time to cool off, or invited to post elsewhere, but as we've seen the standards were on a hair trigger with one, while the vilest and most nasty things were allowed for the other. That's not a two way street at all.

The lack of adulation is not an attack, repeating RW lies actually is, but that seems lost on those determined to deny what's going on even now. Think of it, just a week or so ago, it wasn't like this, and all of a sudden the bad old days are back.

We literally have no time for this. Bashing Obama, Hillary and Democrats really doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't belong here. There are plenty here doing that, while reacting with outrage at anyone who suggests that Bernie is not the end all and be all. These are not equivalent.

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.

You obviously never paid attention to what she said or read her site. Her plan was Always means tested, and Community college was always free, just like the bill discussed in the OP.

I'll be happy if Bernie can convince Paul Ryan to bring it up for a vote. Absent that, what does it matter if liberals agree or not? Though it is interesting to see people support policies they once maligned or, like you, never bothered to informed themselves on.

and said something else entirely on her website? She was not for free college tuition. Her public zinger reasoning was that she didn't want Donald Trump's kids to get that benefit.

This is a plan rolled out that is providing free college tuition. That sounds like something she arrived at after the primaries to me. I have no idea how this could be solely built on her original plan given that it did not do this.

Read about the bill above. It does not provide Rich people free tuition since it is capped at $125k incomes. CC tuition is publicly-funded (free is an absurd term). I'm not aware of her changing the plan after the primaries, and you conclusion makes no sense since the GE electorate is more conservative than the primary electorate. Perhaps you heard it differently? Your entire focus appears to be on the word free rather than the substance of the plans.

I don't suppose it occurred to you than serious plans can't be entirely conveyed in 2 min. Segments? That is why politicians post policy proposals on their websites. I went to both candidates' sites repeatedly to try to learn more about their proposals.

You can still go to issues section of her website and read them now. Access a cached copy of the higher ed policy to see for yourself. Or if you can't do that, find a third party analysis (preferably not Kremlin-generated) of differences between the two plans.

I am not skirting around the issue. Did you access a cache from last spring? I attended events during the primary, one with Chelsea, where she talked about how the difference between the plans was that her mom's wouldn't cover people making over $250k. That was before our caucus on March 1. How do you imagine low to middle-income students come out of college debt free without having tuition paid? I remember arguing with people here at the time that Clinton's plan required students to work 10 hours a week. Some more privileged Democrats considered it an outrage that they should have to work at all. As someone who has worked from age 10 and had w-2 income from age 13, I found their complaints stunning.

I thought you said it didn't matter anyway? Yet suddenly you insist it does, even though your entire knowledge of it comes from soundbites at debates. You never took time to inform yourself, yet now claim absolute knowledge of it.

I remember at the platform committee there was much noise about Sanders getting a "win" on education, when it turned out it was the same, or pretty damn close, to what she had been talking about for most of that year.

The other thing she proposed was dealing with the rampant inequality in K-12, which cements generations of poverty. She understands that without addressing school quality in low-income communities, they can't be in a position to take care of publicly funded college tuition benefits. I grew up in such a neighborhood and was the one I knew who went to college.

Issues and budget cuts endangering people's lives. Timing is everything and this is not he time.

Info he wants to make a symbolic move - getting money out of politics would be good, as would requiring nominees to show full tax returns.

Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:39 PM - Edit history (2)

public. Sander's is uniquely visible now, in contrast to any other point in his storied career, and these ideas are in my opinion, the kind of thing that we need to infuse the public with, while the GOP will continue to show their contempt for the people in their willingness to take and to deprive.

It is doing the work of making the "fantasy" possible to people. That helps it to become a political reality, if not now, perhaps in 4 years. This is hardly a distraction from the other fights we are taking up. That you actually take issue with it is strange to me.

Priorities should be Nat Security and Russian interference, economic corruption and dark money, stripping reproductive rights from women and saftey and healthcare fro m all citizens

Is more of what we need now. Honestly the erosion of basic human rights were seeing should be a bigger priority.

Bernie's original had no income limit, it was just free tuition for all. Her point was that it didn't make sense that in cases like Chelsea and the Trump kids, that they too should be included. Money is a finite resource after all.

She thought that a contribution on the part of the family (paying some percentage) and/or the student (work study) was important. Sort of like sweat equity. Which makes sense an there is an excellent argument for students doing better when they're making some contribution themselves to their own education.

It was so well received by young voters Hillary even came up with her own modified version.

From another article:

It's prohibited for Senators and representatives to accept money for speeches.

Aren't you thrilled others are finally on board with Bernie's plan? It was originally met with quite a bit of resistance and it still might not stand a chance.

But together they're trying to make it happen!

How does Sanders get this through the GOP controlled Congress and get Trump to sign it into law?

I'm thankful suffragettes didn't give up, and civil rights proponents in the 60s.

Not to mention that doesn't sound like a good way to convince voters that we're the party fighting for them and that they should support us in 2018 and 2020.

Yep, this exactly like Suffragette and Civil Rights movement. 😒

You might suggest to Sanders that he acually join the party he seems to want to run from absentia.

Because No We Can't!!! is such a powerful slogan.

Face it, nothing we propose is going to pass but that shouldn't stop us from reminding voters that we're still the party of the people - and that Trump doesn't give a shit about them. The point is that even when it looked like civil rights didn't stand a chance legislators kept fighting for them anyway.

And why on earth would I want to tell Bernie to change his affiliation? You really think I care that Bernie is an independent? That this is news to me?

ZOMGWTFBBQ???? Bernie's not a Dem??? Say it ain't so! That does it, he's DEAD to me!

Eventually the rest of the crowd will stop digging in their heels and catch up.

Two years ago this legislation was called a pony and very few people supported it, now Bernie has plenty of cosponsors and colleagues in the house who are willing to sign their names to this bill.

That's Progress. And it all started with one senator.





And I'll repeat what I've posted several times already in this thread:

Thank you Elizabeth, Keith and every other progressive who is trying to make this happen! These bills are the work of many, not just one. We are fortunate to have them working for us.

It seems like we have to deal with little children in here every day. Yes mommy gave one of the lollypops she bought at the supermarket to that nice older neighbor boy. Who cares if he is going to help you with your homework, he's NOT ONE OF YOU!

...back in 2015.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/09/obama-unveils-new-push-national-free-community-college

Some folks here said it sucked because it had an income cap and Bernie's didn't. Night and day they said; Bernie's plan was free college for all, so the two weren't even comparable.

But look who now proposes an income cap college plan!

Nice to have him on board.

I'm so thankful people finally realized Bernie's plan is a winner.

We're all grateful to Bernie for coming up with the original bill and his continued leadership in this and other important issues.

Nice to have all of you onboard the Bernie train!

Toot toot!

We're all thankful everyone finally realized Hillary's income cap plan was a winner.

Nice to have all of you onboard the Hillary train!

Even with the caps it's still a great idea.

It's truly wonderful to see you're appreciative that Bernie is still out there fighting for tuition free college two years later!

Thank you for supporting Bernie's second free college tuition bill!

Note how they're both called the ‘College For All’ Act"?

That's a good indication that this bill is similar to Bernie's original legislation.

So again - thank you for supporting Senator Bernie Sanders continued efforts to provide tuition free college, you're a sport!

It's better late than never I always say, and now that we're all onboard with Bernie's idea we can move forward.

Hillary never sponsored a free college tuition bill, did she?

And the fact that Bernie sponsored both is a clear indication that they're both Bernie's bills, right?