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

[Tintrlvr]

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

[(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.

[7,052,770]

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

[(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).

[America Needs R'hllor]

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'?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The media is intentionally attempting to sow chaos and discord in the White House. I'll give them credit for playing their cards well, but they won't succeed.

The most important purpose that Trump has served is to act like a flashbang. He's exposed the deep government comprising of the corporate elite, the cubicle class in the bureaucracy, the media, and the CIA along with their internationalist cohorts in the UN and other NGOs. They've lost their monopoly on information and are in a panic. They may take Trump down in the end politically or even literally (I am convinced that he will end up being martyred by the military-industrial complex), but they won't ever get Pandora back in it's box.

The media's behavior has been annoying but also a blessing. New sources are starting to rise, some of which are actually decent and some of which are just alternative opinions (Breitbart), which will give the traditional networks and the established papers the fight of their lives over the next decade. Public confidence in the media is permanently and irreparably damaged.

[(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.

[Lief 🗽]

lol Michael Tracey

[America Needs R'hllor]

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?

[JerryArkansas]

Why are you citing the neck beard "leftist".

[KingSweden]

lol Michael Tracey

Tracey is basically a Kremlin mouthpiece

[(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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

[(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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

I read Tracey's piece. His whole argument is that the media should not focus on berating Trump for his stance on Russia. Tracey says, "So just to reiterate: the press is taking fault with Trumps reluctance to engage in antagonistic rhetoric with nuclear-armed foreign powers." Tracey believes the media should encourage Trump's softer stance towards Russia because encouraging a more aggressive stance by Trump "could well lead to some kind of disastrous diplomatic blow-up or lame-brained military confrontation." So yes, Tracey is saying that any more aggressive action towards Russia risks some sort of calamity. In order to argue that there is no cause to criticize Trump's current position, Tracey wants you to ignore the possibility that there might be some middle ground between Trump's current stance and a "belligerent" stance towards Russia.

And what exactly is Trump's current stance towards Russia. Oh, I'll describe it to you: Trump's position on Russia is that there should never be any negative repercussions towards Russia even when Vladmir Putin orders crimes to be committed against American citizens. That's not hyperbole. That has literally been Trump's policy since before he even took office.

[(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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

Yes, hacking into someone's email is a crime. There's no debate to be had there. It is illegal under any country's laws. What Putin did was not spy on the U.S. No, he hacked into the email of American political entities and then deliberately and selectively leaked the resulting information in order to influence our election. And before you try, no, you don't get to excuse a crime because you think the victim (the DNC) "deserved it."

The purpose of responding to what Russia did would be to show other country's that there are consequences for committing acts of cyber-terrorism against American nationals. Call it "aggression" or "hostility," but in this case it would be warranted. That doesn't mean I think we should throw diplomatic relations with Russia into the gutter, but we should have done something. You can say we should work towards a more cooperative relationship with Russia without doing what Trump is doing which is to make a mockery of our country on the international stage by turning a blind eye towards crimes committed against our country.

[(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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

[ApatheticAustrian]

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-This has nothing to do with the article.

[ApatheticAustrian]

-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.