1. A tendency - meaning an inclination. You have to look no further than the Cooper interview I referenced. Cooper called him out on how much things would cost. He acted as if that was "nickle and diming" to ask about trillions of dollars.
2. The two situations are not perfectly similar of course, but there are definite comparisons. Ultimately, what Trump was doing (or at least this is where supporters took it) was equivocating that racists are not that bad because they do some not bad things, just like non-racists do. I mean, that's literally the comparison he made - good people on both sides, implying racists and non-racists are more than just their views on this one issue. He said this in order to make racists look not as bad. Castro was holding up a government that is very bad, saying, look, some not bad things are happening in this country. There's no point in doing that other than to make a country whose government is evil look better. That's the similarity. I'm not trying to defend our policies on Cuba or China as a government in terms of not dealing with them at all or dealing with them in a limited fashion or whatever. I'm saying that there is zero point in holding up a government that is evil - crushing of personal freedoms, political prison camps, executing political prisoners, doing it all to hold power and then pointing out some things that are going right in the country just because you want to make those policies happen in your own country. That's manipulative and equivocating of the evil of a country to further your own political narrative.
1. Or maybe the questions about "how to pay for it" are old and these journalists should start reading his website and plans instead of pretending that he has no plan.
2. No you're still not getting this.
Trump was equivocating in order to underplay the evil of the white nationalists. Political expediency to satisfy the racists that back him.
Sanders is saying that you can have a nuanced discussion about policies from another country while still calling them out as overall an evil country. He says in a followup CNN interview that we have nuanced discussions all the time about China, have economic partnerships with them, etc. And they commit the same human atrocities. (On a much bigger scale even). Somehow saying that China does something good (such as lifting millions out of poverty) doesn't get criticized as equivocating, but when you say that Cuba did something good, suddenly everyone thinks you're trying to cover for their crimes. Sanders has been quite consistent in how he views all authoritarian regimes, he is an adult and can see when one does something good in comparison to let's say North Korea that has done absolutely nothing good for its people. Sanders can have an adult conversation and is trying to elevate the conversation around foreign policy.
1. Did you watch the interview? The question that he kept pressing him on wasn't how to pay for it. It was how much does it cost. Good grief Charlie Brown, if you can't come up with literally just a ballpark figure of costs for your top 5 major governmental expansions off of the top of your head, then you probably don't need to be president or at least don't need to be proposing them. It can be argued that how to pay for it is a complex issue. Coming up with like 5 numbers should not be treated as a means for offense in an interview.
2. It is political expediency to gloss over bad things to use them in the pursuit of your policies, which is what I believe Sanders did.
Let's take a step back, though. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He was just trying to have a nuanced discussion as you say (it's funny how it can be nuanced on certain issues but full condemnation of people on others and that's all well and good, but again, let's just roll with it).
It's very simple. Sanders made a video that as best as I can tell from what I watched seem to not just say, for instance, let's do universal healthcare, all kinds of countries have this like Cuba. Instead, the videos appeared to me to be like, oh, Cuba had some bad parts, but look at what all good came out of their government. That's equivocating on evil plain and simple. And it's not just me that feels this way or it wouldn't be an issue.
So he's called out on it. It's very simple. You screwed up forming an argument like that. It was awhile ago, but you are responsible. Easy response time. Some people may not buy it because you're going against something they have you on video, but you can at least try. You can say, look, I shouldn't have (or even I didn't mean to but some people took it as) I was saying Cuba government had good parts because of healthcare. I meant to say, universal healthcare is good. It's in all sorts of countries, including Cuba. In fact, the fact that it's in Cuba with all of the other abhorrent things that happen with this authoritarian regime is a testament to the fact that universal healthcare is good. Nothing about the Cuban government is good. Their universal healthcare is completely divorced from their government. Tons of non authoritarian regimes have universal healthcare, and because of that I should have used them as examples, because there's absolutely no reason to link an authoritarian regime with something positive when it could just as easily have been done and has been done in countries that aren't.
But no. He doubles down, saying, oh I condemn the bad parts of the government, but of course I'm going to say that Cuba does good things. That's not the point. It's not tied to Cuba's authoritarian regime that some good things happen in the country. They should be totally divorced. The fact that you can't come right out and say that shows that you are putting your own policy interests and making them look good ahead of condemning authoritarianism. He had his chance. By linking Cuban government to good things that had no need of Cuba's authoritarian regime to come to pass and by then not retracting that, Sanders equivocated on the evil of the government, and it is completely fair to call him to the carpet for it.