Sanders Campaign: Trust Glenn Greenwald's reporting

[KitSileya]

The Sanders campaign was apparently handing out flyers at the California Democratic Convention telling Democrats to trust the reporting of Glenn Greenwald and The Young Turks, among other things.

Link to tweet

It really boggles the mind. We all know Glenn Greenwald is a known Russian stooge that fully supports Putin and his puppet, and The Young Turks? Republican-funded, genocide-denying propaganda purporting to be "progressives". This is a travesty of the Sanders campaign, and they really need to clean house if they push this kind of Russian propaganda outlets with a straight face.

UPDATE: This seems to be from his delegates at the California Democratic Convention, and fortunately not from the official Sanders campaign. It will be interesting to see how the campaign reacts to this, and it does raise some serious questions about those the campaign chooses as its delegates at conventions.

[hlthe2b]

1. That will help you, Senator Sanders! (not) Is someone TRYING to sabotage him?

[KitSileya]

3. That is a relevant question to ask.

How could a flyer like this not be severely injurious to his candidacy? However, considering the people he has hired for his campaign, we cannot automatically assume that this isn't real. I have yet to hear of anyone he's hired this time around that actually supported and voted for the Democratic nominee in 2016.

[George II]

6. And why hasn't his campaign disavowed themselves from it? But as you point out....

....many, if not all, senior staffers and surrogates boast that they voted for Jill Stein.

[Nanjeanne]

18. Yes Rachel apparently since it's not from his campaign.

[DURHAM D]

2. Is this for real? nt

[KitSileya]

4. As i wrote upthread, that is a relevant question to ask.

It is also why I wrote "apparently" in my OP. However, none of the people I know of in his campaign actually voted for the Democratic nominee in 2016, so there's no reason to believe his campaign staff are Democrats, even if he has declared himself one.

[Nanjeanne]

19. No. Rachel, whoever she is, re-edited her tweet to say it's from some "delegates"

[DURHAM D]

22. Well, if it was passed out by delegates in the room then

it is for real.

[Nanjeanne]

23. No it was passed out by someone(s) Whose opinion it is. Not what the OP says which

is Sanders campaign. And this is all per “Rachel” so not understanding what this has to do with the Bernie Sanders campaign.

But yes you are right. It’s a Real piece of paper. So I guess you win.

[George II]

5. Those must have been from all the people who booed other candidates but not him.

[Cha]

14. That's what I was thinking..

immediately.

[ehrnst]

68. Yep.(nt)

[brooklynite]

7. Nothing in the flyer links it to the "Campaign"

Any number of individuals or third party groups could have prepared and distributed that.

Add to which, it calls for the candidate with a "plurality" of Delegates to be nominated, which the Sanders campaign knows violates the DNC rules that they agreed to.

[Blue_true]

26. Does Sanders' campaign think it will have a plurality of delegates once things are done?

If so, they are seriously delusional.

[mcar]

8. GG and TYT?

[LibFarmer]

9. Blatantly obvious

attempt. He might as well have said "only listen to MY propaganda and ignore all other news sources."

I first thought it was The Onion ... shocked to see that it is real.

[ecstatic]

10. Unbelievable. nt

[Nanjeanne]

17. It is unbelievable since it's not from the Sanders campaign.

[DetlefK]

11. RT Network? Fucking russian state-propaganda? Are they insane?????????????????????????????????????

RT?
The TV-outlet funded by the Kremlin?
The TV-outlet that treats Alt-Right extremists as legitimate political commentators?
The TV-outlet that lies by systematically withholding critical information from their audience?
The TV-outlet that feeds political instability by whipping up hatred on both sides?

And we're supposed to trust them?

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. This won't help. Echo chambers rarely do. n/t

[aidbo]

13. Your characterizations of those groups is inaccurate.

[ehrnst]

32. How specifically? (nt)

[aidbo]

33. not that I owe you any explanation, but the intercept is not Russian propaganda and TYT..

..are not republican nor do they deny the Armenian genocide. Nor was this flyer put out by the Sanders campaign, which the OP still hasn’t corrected in their headline.

But I’m not allowed to call the OP what it is because of this site’s rules.

[BannonsLiver]

35. Greenwald is a Putinite

And Ctenk has nothing but antipathy toward actual Democrats. Don’t think the gaslighting attempts will work.

[aidbo]

36. Again, because of the rules of the site, all I can say is you're wrong.

[BannonsLiver]

38. ....

[ehrnst]

39. This looks more and more like an excuse not to answer something

can't really answer.

Facts are facts. If you had any to back up your claims, you'd post them.

You're allowed.

[aidbo]

45. I'm not the one who made the claims. It's not my job to show the OP what is wrong with their post.

I cannot call the OP or you what you are without risking a hide so no, I am not allowed.

[ehrnst]

55. Actually, you made claims that the OP author is lying. That's up to you to prove.

The 'rule' that you're not allowed to back up your claims doesn't exist.

That's just an excuse for not being able to, while still claiming that they are lying.

And you apparently skipped over the post where I provided you with facts... why am I 'allowed' to while you are 'not?"

Post #37 is where you'll find backup for the OP.

Your turn. If I'm lying, then you can prove it.

I cannot call the OP or you what you are without risking a hide so no, I am not allowed.

What we are? We're right.

[ehrnst]

40. Bull.

That seems to be your excuse not to answer. "I'm not allowed to!"

[Gothmog]

44. I stopped paying any attention to Cenk and Greenwald a long time ago

Neither Cenk nor the Young Turks are reliable sources. Greenwald is clearly not reliable

[aidbo]

46. You've told me and this whole site this on many occasions. You seem to think..

..I care what you “pay attention to”.

I don’t.

[Gothmog]

48. I do not think that these sources are reliable

[aidbo]

50. I do not care what you think.

[ehrnst]

52. Yet you keep responding and giving the excuse that somehow you and you alone

are "not allowed" to back up your numerous accusations that other people are posting falsehoods.

No one here owes you agreement, compliance, validation for your feelings about Glenn and Cenk, or silence in the face of your insults and accusations of lying.

If your sources are credible, you would have no problem sharing them.

Is that clearer?

[Gothmog]

57. I am also find these responses to be non-persuasive

[ehrnst]

58. The "DU won't allow me to say what you are" excuse is utterly untrue.

It's sad when someone persists in proclaiming others liars, then when given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, they deploy a ficticious excuse.

Doesn't say much for their position that others are promoting falsehoods.

[Gothmog]

56. Do you trust Greenwald or the Young Turks as to anything?

I do not trust these sources but you are free to trust such sources if you wish.

[aidbo]

59. You have a flowery way of saying nothing.

[Gothmog]

61. So you actually trust Greenwald and Cenk?

That is your choice but I and many others do not trust these sources and will not comply with the amusing request in the demand discussed in the OP.

The request that good democrats should accept material from sources like Greenwald, Cenk and the Young Turks will not work in the real world. These sources are not reliable and I doubt that anyone who is not already supporting sanders will agree to such a condition.

[ehrnst]

64. +1000.(nt)

[ehrnst]

63. Well, at least Gothmog doesn't say that they "aren't allowed" to

back up their statements.

[ehrnst]

53. No one owes you silence on the facts because of your feelings about Cenk, the Intercept and

Glenn Greenwald.

[awesomerwb1]

54. Oh OK!!

That settles it!!

"aidbo" said you're wrong so that's it! Close the thread!

[ehrnst]

65. But of course! Because REASONS!!

"Not allowed to say" what those are, but I'm sure that they're totally legit.

[ehrnst]

67. Your charaterization of "not being allowed to answer on DU" is inaccurate.

I think it's because you have nothing to back up your claims about the OP lying about your favorite peeps.

[ehrnst]

37. The OP listed some facts. If you can refute them, please share. Don't say you're "not allowed."

Here is why you are wrong - not simply saying "You're wrong, and I'm not allowed to say why!"

Yes, Cenk has, at best, a spotty record on the Armenian Genocide:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/after-years-of-denying-the-armenian-genocide-cenk-uyguar-now-admits-he-doesnt-know-enough-about-it-to-say-anything/


And yes, tyt does indeed have Republican funding:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

Greenwald thinks that Democratic Party and the GOP are equally bad - which is a Russian talking point to young, white college educated Americans. He works to discredit the investigation into Russian election interference.

"The reason is Russia. For the better part of two years, Greenwald has resisted the nagging bipartisan suspicion that Trumpworld is in one way or another compromised by a meddling foreign power. If there’s a conspiracy, he suspects, it’s one against the president; where others see collusion, he sees “McCarthyism.” Greenwald is predisposed to righteous posturing and contrarian eye-poking — and reflexively more skeptical of the U.S. intelligence community than of those it tells us to see as “enemies.”

Both of those mesh with Russian goals, so yes, Greenwald, and by extension, his publication, does fit the description of a Russian "stooge."

Is that clearer?

I don't see why you're afraid to post any backup for your claims. Facts are facts.

[aidbo]

47. Again, I owe you nothing.

[ehrnst]

51. I didn't say you did. I pointed out that you were giving an excuse to avoid

backing up your proclamations that others are wrong, and that excuse that "you aren't allowed" isn't based in any actual rule.

Is that clearer?

[George II]

60. The founder of TYT denied the Armenian Genocide for decade, and to rub it in....

....he named his show (The Young Turks) after the group that perpetrated the Armenian Genocide. The Young Turks receives money from Russia (RT to be exact) and has accepted millions of dollars from right wing republican Buddy Roehmer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Roemer

In April 2014, Roemer became a partner at The Young Turks, an online progressive news network founded and run by Cenk Uygur. Roemer's firm - Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co, LLC - invested $4 million into the company.

People can draw their own conclusions from that. My conclusion is that they're funded by Russians and a right wing republican.

[ehrnst]

66. Facts - no fair!!!!!!!!!

You're "allowed" to back up your statements, while others "are not allowed."

[Hortensis]

15. Heavily recommending RT, YouTube, Facebook, Intercept,

and to try to avoid all big media that invest in investigative journalism?

Wow. They should just refer people directly to the GRU to sign up for their agitprop. Such stupid makework for them to have to identify and follow targets unnecessarily.

[ehrnst]

42. They are the only ones that won't fact check him. They just gush. (nt)

[Hortensis]

49. Yes, and worse. They manufacture lies for the gush-guzzlers.

As Honest Abe said, though, only some of the people can be fooled all the time. And this time everyone else has Sanders' own very pertinent recent record to scrutinize and make up their own minds about.

No need for them to research to learn such things as that during the 1980 RW Reagan takeover election, when we desperately needed every vote, Sanders was working to pull Democrats away from Jimmy Carter to the candidate of the trotskyist Socialist Workers of America party. The SWA candidate only managed to get a whole 40,000 votes nationally, but, hey, who doubts Sanders preened himself on his principles at that terrible turning point of history every bit as much as in 2016?

[Nanjeanne]

16. So it's from some delegates at the Convention and not the Sanders campaign and

Who is Rachel anyway?

[Scurrilous]

20. ...

[Nanjeanne]

21. You really need to change the title since this is NOT from campaign.

[Blue_true]

27. Wow, you are really invested in putting this down.

Normally I don't see many posts from you, but in this thread, you seem to be everywhere.

[Nanjeanne]

31. Wow. You actually care about me to know how much I post!!!

I think when an OP states something in a title that is completely inaccurate it should be corrected by the person who started the thread. But if not, it should be corrected by anyone who cares more about accuracy than being anti someone. It’s not a debate over policy. It’s inaccurately stated.

That should matter.

I don’t like reporting on fellow DUers. Unlike many. Just like truthfulness over truthiness.

But thanks for your attention. I feel loved.

[Blue_true]

71. Actually, it's not attention as much as it's recognition.

You are one of about five huge Bernie supporters on DU, when I see a post from you or one of the others I start to pay attention to how many posts are made. I do the same thing with the others too.

I don't know whether the OP was alert able or not, but you took the right path, IMO.

[Nanjeanne]

72. Huge Bernie supporter? Yes. Also donate to Warren and Inslee.

But whatever.
FYI. I rarely post on DU any more and you’ve reminded me why - so not sure what you are seeing or why you care so much about other people.

But ... as I said I do prefer truthful OPs and don’t care about the anti Bernie stuff. Just the completely false ones.

Accurate OPs - well doesn’t seem to matter to you and that’s ok. You seem to have it all done up in your head with a bow so as long as you are happy - that’s great!

[BannonsLiver]

34. Looks good to me.

[ucrdem]

24. "Therefore, I pledge to brainwash myself faithfully"

[Honeycombe8]

25. I wonder who wrote that paper for him. It has a split infinitive. nt

[Indykatie]

28. Bernie Always Manages to Surround Himself with Questionable Advocates

This was one of the reasons he was not able to make progress increasing his support in the African American community. He surrounded himself with Black folks who were anti-Obama. That's a surefire way to fail.

[NastyRiffraff]

29. Sanders needs to start taking responsibility

I realize he can't oversee his delegates 24/7, but he certainly can and should speak out after something like this happens. Glenn Greenwald, FFS! It might as well be Putin's chief of staff.

[betsuni]

30. Important to proofread carefully after translating from Russian to English.

[ehrnst]

41. Sanders' contentiousness with the free press and fact checking has been observed.

Such has been the story of much of Sanders’s political career. Since he mounted a failed 1972 bid for the U.S. Senate on the left-wing Liberty Union Party ticket, Sanders has been underestimated, underappreciated and often ignored by the press. He has long maintained that if the media would only cover what he has to say, the American people would embrace it — a theory that was bolstered by his surprising success in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

But Sanders’s remedy for what ails the media — uncritical, stenographic coverage of his agenda — betrays a misunderstanding of the role of a free press. And his dismissal of legitimate journalism not to his liking as “political gossip” bears a troubling resemblance to what another politician refers to as “fake news.”
..........................................................

Though Sanders understands the problem, his solutions leave something to be desired. The way the senator sees it, the job of a journalist is merely to transcribe his diatribes unchallenged and broadcast his sermons unfiltered.

“He would not be happy with anything that did not basically publish his press release in its entirety — word for word, quote for quote,” said Graff, who spent nearly three decades reporting in Vermont for the AP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/?utm_term=.65ecc2349b52

[Gothmog]

43. I do not trust Greenwald, Cenk or the Young Turks

[Skidmore]

62. +1 nt

[Otto Lidenbrock]

69. Cenk is one of those Republicans turned progressives...

Who have such a lack of self-awareness. They start lecturing life-long democrats for being centrist. Newsflash: a centrist is better than a right winger!

Example: When President Clinton and First Lady Hillary were advocating for healthcare reform "Hillarycare" in the 1990s, Republicans/Libertarians were totally outraged at this "socialised healthcare bill" and did all they could to block it - which they did. And Cenk being on the right wing point of view back then - presumably - embraced that.

Fast forward to 2016 and Cenk was attacking Hillary for not being fully on board Medicare For All as if with the click of the fingers it could happen.

The fact is if Hillarycare passed in the 90s, we'd probably be very close to having M4A right now because of incrementalism. Instead we're 15 years behind schedule because of people like Cenk who did not want government to get involved in the 90s, yet he now expects government to instantly overhaul the entire healthcare setup with Bernie in the White House.

[betsuni]

70. +1

[Cha]

73. Thank you for that

perspective, Otto.