In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Pretty lengthy and comprehensive article on Obama team's response to Russia' meddling. My big question is why the Trump team wanted to drop the sanctions, despite the nature and severity of what Russia did. Trump has been observed to make concessions to China since taking office, apparently only receiving family business benefits in return.
Were Trump's voters conned?
Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.
Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.
But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.
...
It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.
Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.
But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.
Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.
...
In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy. It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement. And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.
...
Obama’s approach often seemed reducible to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse. As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.
They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.
They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.
This is reaching, can you intimidate someone into telling the truth?
I don't think intimidation has anything to do with truth or fiction. If you threaten to e.g. break someone's legs if they don't testify for you and say specific things, it's still witness intimidation regardless of how truthful the things are.
This is more likely to be obstructing justice by trying to intimidate Comey into not testifying/talking to Mueller or omitting parts of his story than anything though. It isn't as though Trump was smart enough to realize that the tapes would end up subpeona'd or actually used, that much is clear
White House counsel Don McGahn has largely stepped back from managing Donald Trump’s response to the expanding Russia investigation, but that hasn’t stopped the president from lashing out at him about it anyway.
Trump started the week by giving McGahn, a loyal supporter who was among the first Washington establishment figures to sign on with his presidential campaign, a dressing down in the Oval Office for not doing more to squash the Russia probe early on.
The episode — recounted by four people familiar with the conversation — came as part of a broader discussion on Monday about the president’s frustrations with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which now includes the question of whether Trump himself tried to obstruct the investigation by firing FBI director James Comey.
The Russia portfolio has been handed off to Trump’s longtime personal attorney Marc Kasowitz, leaving McGahn to focus on the standard duties of the top White House lawyer: vetting political appointees, selecting judges for vacancies in lower courts, and giving legal advice on potential legislation and other White House policy decisions.
Trump’s willingness to lay into him for the escalation of the probe — largely the result of Trump’s own decision to dismiss Comey — illustrates McGahn’s falling stock in the West Wing, as well as Trump’s desire to find someone to blame for his legal predicament.
“This is one of the misconceptions about the White House counsel’s office. Don represents the institution. What is going on with Russia and Mueller are matters involving Trump in his personal capacity,” said one informal but frequent adviser to the White House. “I am not sure the president completely understands how these roles are segregated.”
Neither the White House press office nor McGahn responded to a request for comment.
Veterans of Washington scandals said that there is often an adjustment when personal lawyers come in alongside attorneys working in an institutional capacity.
“As far as Don goes, I don’t think his role has significantly changed,” said Randy Evans, partner at the law firm, Dentons, friend to McGahn, and former outside counsel to then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. “There is a natural transition period, where you are figuring out where the turf lines are and there can be a little bit of overlap.”
But the president’s outburst at McGahn speaks to one of the most difficult aspects of working in the Trump White House. No top aide is immune from the president’s anger or being called out in front of colleagues, even long-time loyalists like McGahn who signed on in the early days of the campaign before Trump won the New Hampshire primary.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was publicly dumped from his perch as the head of the Trump transition team just days following the election, after he’d spent months prepping and hiring staff. Attorney General Jeff Sessions infuriated the president when he recused himself from the Russia investigations, after it came to light that he’d met twice with the Russian ambassador during the presidential campaign even though he was an early Trump supporter.
McGahn’s fall from the president’s good graces is particularly noteworthy because he occupies such a crucial role in the White House. He’s one of the few senior members of the administration with Washington chops. As a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, long-time campaign lawyer, and former attorney to House Republicans, he knows how to work the government’s levers of power, even if that involves jamming them up.
Critics of McGahn’s tenure at the FEC — the only other time he’s worked within the federal government — worried at the outset of the administration that McGahn would only enable the president’s worst instincts, based on the way they believe McGahn acted in a partisan manner at the FEC and ground the agency to a halt.
Trump first became irritated with McGahn after courts struck down the first executive order on the immigration and travel ban. Chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser for policy Stephen Miller took the lead in writing the order, yet it still went through the White House counsel’s office for a legal review. McGahn later issued a guidance that clarified parts of the first order to exempt legal permanent residents of the U.S. but that back-pedaling could still not save the policy. The White House had to put out a second order, which has also been challenged by a host of courts.
One Trump adviser said the president has repeatedly complained in private about McGahn's handling of the travel ban appeal. In several calls, Trump said he couldn't believe it was overturned over and over and then began reading a part of a federal statute he said gave him the right to ban immigration, after an aide showed it to him. “Then he started reading that in public,” this adviser said.
Trump was similarly displeased when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigations in early March and, in a closed-door meeting, let McGahn know how unhappy he was.
One person who keeps in touch with the president said that while Trump gets angry at almost everyone on his staff, his outbursts at McGahn have been more frequent.
Unlike other staffers, this person said, McGahn doesn’t feel the need to always be near the president and often avoids the staff meetings where aides hover around “for no good reason.” He has sometimes shown impatience with Trump's tendency to have senior aides in the Oval Office for meetings whether or not they need to be there.
McGahn contributed significantly to the president’s most striking successes. He handpicked Neil Gorsuch to be Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, personally shepherding him through meetings on the Hill and a smooth confirmation process. He also heavily advised the administration on the legal strategy to roll back several Obama-era regulations during Trump’s few months. Now, he is busy selecting judges for lower court appointments, efforts that could tilt the court system in conservatives’ favor for years to come.
Two other people who have spoken to Trump said the president’s displeasure with his counsel speaks to his concern about whether was getting good advice on the Russia investigation before Kasowitz came on board.
NC Law: Once Women Start Having Sex, They’re Not Allowed To Stop In case you thought that North Carolina’s repulsive laws about sex only centered around intolerance for the LGBTQ community, there’s more. And this time, it’s even worse. North Carolina thinks it’s perfectly cool for a man to commit violent rape, as long it happens after some good foreplay. Sounds like I’m being hyperbolic, right? Yeah, I wish I were. Check out this insanity:
Nineteen-year-old Aaliyah Palmer had begun having sex with a man who pulled her into a bathroom at a party. Midway through, the encounter allegedly turned from impromptu tryst to felony rape when the man became violent, Aaliyah told him to stop, and he refused. When Aaliyah reported the crime to authorities, she learned the harsh truth that the rulings of a backward appellate court can have devastating consequences for crime victims.
According to a 1979 precedent, as long as sex starts consensually, it can’t be rape. In State v. Way, Justice Copeland and the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned a rape conviction because the trial court had instructed the jury as follows:
“consent initially given could be withdrawn and if the intercourse continued through use of force or threat of force and that the act at that point was no longer consensual this would constitute the crime of rape.”
In other words, the trial court judge had both gone to law school and had some common sense. Any first-year law student knows that consent (regardless of whether we’re talking about sexual intercourse, any other kind of touching, the lending of money, the trespass on property, or literally anything else for which a person could give consent) is revocable at any time. Justice Copeland and the other justices took it upon themselves to change the very concept of consent, though, writing:
“If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused is not guilty of rape.”
It’s unclear whether Justice Copeland knew less about law or less about sex. Like any ongoing activity, sex should (and in most states, does) require consent from its beginning to its end. For consent to be valid in any circumstance, it must be knowing and voluntary; the very definition of consent requires that it last through the duration of the event. Imagine if a person couldn’t revoke consent midway through a medical checkup, a massage, or a haircut – the very concept of consent would quickly become meaningless.
While 1979 was many years ago, State v. Way is not simply a legal relic. It is revitalized every time prosecutors are denied the power to charge a rapist with his crime. Aaliyah Palmer is in the headlines today – but there are many Aaliyah Palmers in North Carolina. Rapes are hard enough to prosecute in states where laws aren’t ridiculous. The last thing we need is for North Carolina to keep its black-letter law from protecting victims who need it most.
If North Carolina can hold its act together, though, there is some legislative relief on the way. On April 3, 2017, state Senator Senator Jeff Jackson introduced Senate Bill S553, entitled, “AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO CONTINUES TO ENGAGE IN INTERCOURSE AFTER CONSENT IS WITHDRAWN IS DEEMED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE ACT OF INTERCOURSE BY FORCE AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER PERSON.” S553 is short and sweet and does nothing but say what North Carolinans have known all along – that a rapist is not absolved by the fact that sex may have begun consensually.
Senator Jackson, a former prosecutor, encountered this loophole when his office was forced to dismiss a rape charge on the basis of revoked consent. I spoke with Senator Jackson today, and he told me the following:
“North Carolina is the only state in the country where no doesn’t really mean no. Right now, if a woman tells a man to stop having sex he is under no legal obligation to do so, as long as she initially consented. If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop.
This really shouldn’t be a controversial matter. I believe this bill will inevitably pass, and when it does, my bet is it passes unanimously. No one can seriously defend this loophole in our rape law.” [...]
OMAHA, Ne (FOX42KPTM) - A Nebraska Democratic Party official is now in hot water. An audio recording was posted on YouTube Thursday with Phil Montag, a technology chairman, voicing how glad he was Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise got shot last week at a baseball practice. Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kleeb confirmed to FOX 42 News Thursday it was really his voice.
"His whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to (expletive) kick people off (expletive) health care. I'm glad he got shot," said Montag in the audio recording.
Montag is now looking for a new job. Kleeb let him go after the recording became public.
"I wish he was (expletive) dead," said Montag in the recording.
"We obviously condemn any kind of violence, whether it's comments on Facebook or comments in a meeting," said Kleeb when reached by phone Thursday.
FOX 42 News tried several times to reach out to Montag Thursday. We e-mailed, sent text messages and called. We also tried to see him in person, but we could not reach him.
"Our country is better than the political rhetoric that is out there from both the far right and the far left," said Kleeb.
The audio that was released Thursday comes about one week after a Nebraska state Democratic leader was asked to resign. Chelsey Gentry-Tipton was involved in a controversy over a Facebook post about Congressman Scalise
NC Law: Once Women Start Having Sex, They’re Not Allowed To Stop In case you thought that North Carolina’s repulsive laws about sex only centered around intolerance for the LGBTQ community, there’s more. And this time, it’s even worse. North Carolina thinks it’s perfectly cool for a man to commit violent rape, as long it happens after some good foreplay. Sounds like I’m being hyperbolic, right? Yeah, I wish I were. Check out this insanity:
Nineteen-year-old Aaliyah Palmer had begun having sex with a man who pulled her into a bathroom at a party. Midway through, the encounter allegedly turned from impromptu tryst to felony rape when the man became violent, Aaliyah told him to stop, and he refused. When Aaliyah reported the crime to authorities, she learned the harsh truth that the rulings of a backward appellate court can have devastating consequences for crime victims.
According to a 1979 precedent, as long as sex starts consensually, it can’t be rape. In State v. Way, Justice Copeland and the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned a rape conviction because the trial court had instructed the jury as follows:
“consent initially given could be withdrawn and if the intercourse continued through use of force or threat of force and that the act at that point was no longer consensual this would constitute the crime of rape.”
In other words, the trial court judge had both gone to law school and had some common sense. Any first-year law student knows that consent (regardless of whether we’re talking about sexual intercourse, any other kind of touching, the lending of money, the trespass on property, or literally anything else for which a person could give consent) is revocable at any time. Justice Copeland and the other justices took it upon themselves to change the very concept of consent, though, writing:
“If the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused is not guilty of rape.”
It’s unclear whether Justice Copeland knew less about law or less about sex. Like any ongoing activity, sex should (and in most states, does) require consent from its beginning to its end. For consent to be valid in any circumstance, it must be knowing and voluntary; the very definition of consent requires that it last through the duration of the event. Imagine if a person couldn’t revoke consent midway through a medical checkup, a massage, or a haircut – the very concept of consent would quickly become meaningless.
While 1979 was many years ago, State v. Way is not simply a legal relic. It is revitalized every time prosecutors are denied the power to charge a rapist with his crime. Aaliyah Palmer is in the headlines today – but there are many Aaliyah Palmers in North Carolina. Rapes are hard enough to prosecute in states where laws aren’t ridiculous. The last thing we need is for North Carolina to keep its black-letter law from protecting victims who need it most.
If North Carolina can hold its act together, though, there is some legislative relief on the way. On April 3, 2017, state Senator Senator Jeff Jackson introduced Senate Bill S553, entitled, “AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO CONTINUES TO ENGAGE IN INTERCOURSE AFTER CONSENT IS WITHDRAWN IS DEEMED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE ACT OF INTERCOURSE BY FORCE AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OTHER PERSON.” S553 is short and sweet and does nothing but say what North Carolinans have known all along – that a rapist is not absolved by the fact that sex may have begun consensually.
Senator Jackson, a former prosecutor, encountered this loophole when his office was forced to dismiss a rape charge on the basis of revoked consent. I spoke with Senator Jackson today, and he told me the following:
“North Carolina is the only state in the country where no doesn’t really mean no. Right now, if a woman tells a man to stop having sex he is under no legal obligation to do so, as long as she initially consented. If sex turns violent, the woman has no right to tell the man he must stop.
This really shouldn’t be a controversial matter. I believe this bill will inevitably pass, and when it does, my bet is it passes unanimously. No one can seriously defend this loophole in our rape law.” [...]
Sigh. If you're a public figure then you think these things, you don't say them. As much as I empathize with "if a guy is trying to take away the healthcare that millions of people depend on then maybe it's not such a tragedy if something happens to them" you don't actually say it out loud. You just write their name in every notebook you see in the hope that one of them will be the Death Note one.
On June 24 2017 01:43 KwarK wrote: Sigh. If you're a public figure then you think these things, you don't say them. As much as I empathize with "if a guy is trying to take away the healthcare that millions of people depend on then maybe it's not such a tragedy if something happens to them" you don't actually say it out loud. You just write their name in every notebook you see in the hope that one of them will be the Death Note one.
He should have taken the examples of others and just body slammed Scalise instead of saying something nasty.
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about).
What he said is terrible and he is an idiot for saying it. I don't want to live in a world where politicians are overjoyed when the the opposition takes a bullet. And I don't want to live in a world where that dude's words are going to be played endlessly on B-roll to prove the "left is all violent". Any more than I want people to think Richard Spencer to represents all Trump supporters.
On June 24 2017 01:54 Buckyman wrote: @Nevuk
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about).
Do we need to explain that foreplay can also include acts that would count a rape under the law?
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about).
Do we need to explain that foreplay can also include acts that would count a rape under the law?
Well, that would depend on what the law defines explicitly as "sex". Which would be even more backwards if the law says sex is when a penis goes in a vagina, but point stands.
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about).
Sex is an ongoing activity, not a single act. It's a process that doesn't end at the moment of first penetration. If you're five minutes into a thirty minute fuck session then the "actual sex" hasn't already happened. Five minutes of sex has happened, twenty five minutes of sex has still to happen. Assuming no consent is withdrawn then consent is being implicitly given to each thrust. If at any time consent is withdrawn then there was consent for all the "actual sex" that happened up to that point and no consent for all the "actual sex" happening after that point.
You seem to think that prior to sex there is a block grant made in which the two parties consent to one complete unit of "actual sex" which is indivisible and therefore cannot be broken down into "the part I consented to" and "the part after I stopped consenting". That's pretty absurd. How would that even work? If you changed position would that be a new act of sex, which must be independently consented to, or part of the original consent block? What if you change position while keeping inside her? Does the "actual sex" continue until one party reaches climax? Or both? What if completion of the "actual sex" becomes impossible due to impotence? Do they just both continue in a legal state of intercourse while not fucking until such a time as they can finish?
The above is, of course, nonsense. Sex is an activity for which consent is actively granted. Consent being revoked in the middle of the act is entirely possible without issue because the activity is divisible into subunits by time. If you are inside someone you are after the sex you did a minute previously, during the sex you're doing right now and before the sex you're going to do in a minute. As you are before the sex you're going to do it is perfectly possible for the other party to withdraw consent to that sex.
I think the article's comment about foreplay is more saying "if you can provide good enough foreplay to get consent to initiate sex, anything you do afterwards in that sexual encounter is not legally rape." Not "you can't legally rape someone if you provide good foreplay and they consent to the foreplay but not intercourse."
Both of which are obviously abhorrent, but NC law codifies the former as true at the moment.
That article's introduction appears to conflate consent being given but revoked before the actual sex (what they're arguing about) with consent being revoked in mid-act (what the law's about).
Do we need to explain that foreplay can also include acts that would count a rape under the law?
Well, that would depend on what the law defines explicitly as "sex". Which would be even more backwards if the law says sex is when a penis goes in a vagina, but point stands.
Of course. In the NC law, they split the two into difference offenses, rape and sexual assault.
Damn it, now I care enough to read the ruling and charges.
Edit: Ok the ruling is specifically for rape(proper intercourse) and does not address sexual assault(other sexual acts). The basic ruling is that anything goes, including violence, once the proper fucking starts.
responding to nebuchad: putting my responses after ** Zlefin: «You can poll a lot of things that get 50%+ it changes if you actually start getting into the details of paying for it (and other necessary things).» - I’d imagine that’s true of any policy, so I don’t think that really impacts where the US stands in terms of their politics. If you frame the policy with a republican talking point, it’s going to be less popular, republican talking points have a lot of weight in your country. That makes sense.
« that trump used some leftwing talking points doesn't really help your case, given that trump mostly peddles bs, so it would tend to mean some of the talking points were therefore bs. » - No it doesn’t, it just means he was lying about doing them. Draining the swamp is a good example (it’s kind of amazing that this policy position has a political etiquette in the US btw). ** fair enough; but it still means trump peddling the points isn't really a positive for your case, mostly a neutral i'd say.
« having a popular politician is easy when you don't try to govern, and have avoided being a target. » - The question isn’t how hard it was to obtain. It’s there now. So if you were an actual coalition, you would benefit from it, cause you know, it’s pretty good to have the most popular politician on your side as long as it lasts. In reality, the party will do all it can to benefit from it, but only as long as it doesn’t enable him or his ideas, cause it doesn’t perceive Sanders as really being on their side. ** the point is that it wouldn't last. things that were obtained can be lost quite readily as well. It's easy to look good when you have'nt been attacked yet, his numbers would go down fast once attacks started. Sanders isn't really on their side; and sanders joins them whne it benefits him and leaves them when it benefits him, so why wouldn't the party treat him the same way he treats them? A party is a long term alliance, and unreliable allies tend to not be given as much support back as reliable ones, for obvious reasons.
« Bernie has avoided being targetted by republicans so far. If he was actually targetted, his numbers would go down quite a bit. » […] « also, if he'd actually been the nominee, he'd have been subject to a lot of attack ads » - I mean, consider the logic of your argument. Because Sanders wasn’t attacked and attacks are bad for popularity, we should instead choose the people from the side of the party who has already been under fire from these attacks for many years. That doesn’t make any sense. ** I did consider the logic of my argument; the point is that relying on someone's high numbers isn't so good when those numbers are only high because they haven't been attacked, you need to assess how their numbers would be once they start getting attacked. It doesn't mean oyu have to choose the people who've already been under fire, but it DOES mean you should'nt automatically choose the one with higher numbers. it's a subtle but significant distinction, that is about countering your argument, but not about asserting a favorability for the other choice on its own. i.e. your argument is support X because of A; I'm NOT saying support Y because of B, I'm saying A is not sufficient reason to support X because of C
« the party polls low because it's a party; the parties in general poll lower than individual members or individuals in general. just as with congress. » - Nope that’s not going to be enough to justify those numbers. Especially not when the Republican Party polls about the same while trying to enact an incredibly unpopular policy. **actually, it does. parties and organizations poll worse than individuals. you'd need to provide a lot more of a case to prove your point.
« in your sum up part: i'm a bit confused, the wording implies that conditions a) and b) would be apply to the same group, yet it doesn't make sense talking that way; also in condition a) do you mean that they act responsible when things are bad, or that they are responsible for things being bad? » - c), the group is the progressives in both cases, and what I meant was that they are claimed to be responsible for things going bad. Probably not the best wording. ** that wing of the party has been given some chances to lead; they had a credible chance for bernie to be the nominee, he just didn't get the votes to win the nomination. I don't see where you're getting them not being given any chance, that seems like a stretch based on selectively looking at a few cases. also, if the progressives are claimd to be reponsible for things going bad, then it'd make sense to not have them in leadership positions, so I don't see hwat your point would lead to.
another general note that some may reasonably perceive (whether i'ts right or wrong is a trickier questoin, though mostly it's true to a degree, the question is what degree, large or small): Sanders stirs up a mob with revolutionary rhetoric, but can't control it, so it starts damaging the party and hurting the election chances. Getting a large base of supporters can be quite useful, if you can control it, but if you can't it's far less useful. an angry mob that supports you can be a powerful force, if you can't control that mob though, it just destroys whatever is nearby. At the nomination, sanders said his supporters should all get behind hillary to oppose trump, which is good and proper play. but then his supporters boo hillary instead, at the nominating convention which is supposed to be about party unity.
So Sanders recklessly creates a force he can't control that then starts eating at its own party. politics is abotu getting votes, if you can get people to vote for you personally, that's kinda nice, getting people who will vote for who you say to vote for is far more valuable, and great in an alliance.