Tracey: Media's Encouraging Trump to be more Belligerent

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Good piece (as usual) by Michael Tracey here:
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/the-media-is-berating-trump-for-being-insufficiently-aggressive-why-2982a9c47004#.ousvz66ej

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I love how the problem is, according to you, "the media" and, not, you know, the irrational and belligerent Republican in the White House.

-Trump is far more rational and less belligerent than the standard-issue Republican. Weak post.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Young Turks, LOL. Over the summer they were encouraging Berniecrats to vote Trump.

-Has its upsides and downsides. Could open a way for Bernie 2020 (just like Romney's defeat opened a way for Trump 2016).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Young Turks, LOL. Over the summer they were encouraging Berniecrats to vote Trump.

This.
Also, you (Eharding) staunchly maintain your position about Trump, but really, the more days pass, the less respect I have for him. How can you claim that he's rational after this press conference where he told a reporter that a simple question about antisemism was 'too hard'?

-Not what happened.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

lol Michael Tracey

Tracey is basically a Kremlin mouthpiece

-Funny thing to say when you have nothing to refute his eminently convincing case.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why are you citing the neck beard "leftist".

-Sometimes, I find him to be among the last sane men on Twitter.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Young Turks, LOL. Over the summer they were encouraging Berniecrats to vote Trump.

This.
Also, you (Eharding) staunchly maintain your position about Trump, but really, the more days pass, the less respect I have for him. How can you claim that he's rational after this press conference where he told a reporter that a simple question about antisemism was 'too hard'?

-Not what happened.

...What? He told the Jewish reporter that "this isn't an easy question", to "sit down" and to be quiet when he tried getting him to actually answer the question. Again, I'm not saying that this means he's antisemitic- he's not.
Also, he said that "I'm the least antisemitic person you've ever met". In what madhouse is this considered rational?

-Here's what Trump said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question was, indeed, very insulting to Trump.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

lol Michael Tracey

Tracey is basically a Kremlin mouthpiece

-Funny thing to say when you have nothing to refute his eminently convincing case.

His "case" is based around the false dichotomy that when it comes to Russia our only two choices are nuclear war or coddling Putin at every turn.

-Where does he say that? Nowhere. Don't make stuff up, please. And "coddling Putin at every turn" is a phrase meant to obscure, not describe.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Everyone spies on everyone; every country hacks every other. I can hardly consider that a "crime", as there are almost never any negative reprecussions for such.

"that there might be some middle ground between Trump's current stance and a "belligerent" stance towards Russia."

-Everyone's idea of what a "middle ground" is is different. And what would be the purpose of such a "middle ground"? None that I can see.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

If what was leaked was so damaging to HRC as to constitute "cyber-terrorism", it is HRC that should be locked up, and we should be greatful the relevant material was leaked. Hacking into email is a crime, but, since it's done so often, hardly anyone responds to it at all, for good reason. Why "Russia" should be punished for (supposedly) doing something every hacker does, both state-sponsored and not? Also, the leaking was notoriously non-selective.

Again, what's "something"? What purpose would it serve? Not to keep Americans safe from hacking, obviously, since they would be just as vulnerable as before. The DNC and Podesta are not "our country", in any case.

Your whole case is very weak.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-This has nothing to do with the article.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

If what was leaked was so damaging to HRC as to constitute "cyber-terrorism", it is HRC that should be locked up, and we should be greatful the relevant material was leaked. Hacking into email is a crime, but, since it's done so often, hardly anyone responds to it at all, for good reason. Why "Russia" should be punished for (supposedly) doing something every hacker does, both state-sponsored and not? Also, the leaking was notoriously non-selective.

Again, what's "something"? What purpose would it serve? Not to keep Americans safe from hacking, obviously, since they would be just as vulnerable as before. The DNC and Podesta are not "our country", in any case.

Your whole case is very weak.

Again, you don't get to excuse a crime because you disagree politically with the victim or think that they somehow deserved it. And there's no "supposedly" about it. Even Trump finally admitted that all the evidence points to Russia being behind the hacks. Of course all he did about it was mutter some nonsense about how he's "pretty sure Putin won't do it again." And of course hackers of all stripes should be punished. We are a society of laws. Are you really taking the position that no hackers should ever be punished?

At a bare minimum, the appropriate response was the retaliation against Russian diplomats and the proportionate sanctions that Obama enacted. And what did Trump do about that? He bent over backwards apologizing to Putin for the sanctions. WTF is that?

None of this is about the well-being of Podesta or Hillary or the DNC. It's about the ability of our President to stand up to bullies on the world stage when they attack American citizens.

-Where did I excuse anything because I disagree with HRC? Don't make stuff up. Trump should have removed the sanctions on his first day. First of all, no evidence was publicly presented by the USG for the Russian govt committing the hacking (which should be a minimum standard here). The intelligence services are well known for their dishonesty. Second, Obama's tesponse did not make Americans less vulnerable to hacking, Russian or otherwise, one bit. It was pure deadweight loss for all involved.  "Stand up to bullies on the world stage" is another classic bit of rhetoric meant to obscure, not describe. Be concrete!

Hackers should be punished only if there's a possibility of someone to gain from that, either now or in the future.

Should the US govt be punished for all the hacking it does? The British? The French? So why the Russian (without even any evidence publicly presented for this attribution by the intelligence services)?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-This has nothing to do with the article.

says something about the wishes of the general public...even on FOX.

otherwise, the utter incapability of the crypto-left to even imagine, russia could be an obstacle, is once again showing.

no one with a working brain would suggest that the kremlin PLANNED this to work out this way...they just did more for it to work than would be legal and risked a lot.

tracey works only with black and white......i learned nothing new from reading this article.......the illiberal left is as silly as the illiberal right.

-What's "liberal" about encouraging Trump to be more belligerent?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What's "liberal" about encouraging Trump to be more belligerent?

please spare me your rhetorical questions.

in fact, trump is more belligerent than HRC would ever have been..

- threatening iran + talking about treaty ending

- threatening north korea

- threatening china

- talking openly about the need to return the crimea

- making absurd statements about nuclear war with russia or invading mexico


putin stands tall for his nation. - trump does not.

if putin would be such a cuck as trump, the nationalists would have sacked him years ago.

-Non sequiturs all. Answer the question.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

There is no point in even debating EHarding on things like this. His defenses and excuses of Trump are at cult-like levels, and you can't really argue with someone like that.

If Trump says the question was unfair, then EHarding believes it was unfair. End of discussion.

-Nonsense. I disagree with the President on torture, free trade, and other important matters.