I wonder if that absolute tool went back and apologized to Sam after Bat finally released the (redacted) Mueller report, and we all learned that Barr's memo that supposedly summarized Mueller's findings was complete and utter BS. Props to Sam for immediately putting this guy on his show, and allowing him a huge amount of time to make his points. Sam never runs from a debate like Cold Feet Crowder.
I love how Sam diffuses this change of topic in the first 5 minutes just re-asking him to answer the question. And it's not the first time we've seen this kind of deflection because in today's societies people frame questions on the media constantly. It feels good to have Sam say 'This is not a trap just answer this simple question.' He even gives him the option of saying that perhaps later he changed his mind it's not that big a deal.
It was a trap question though, and now that the whole fraud narrative has completely collapsed Sam looks a complete fool in retrospect. I wonder why he never mentions russiagate anymore
Hostbusters XL It has several meanings but in this context it means someone who tells you it like it is and is strong and unwavering. Sticking to the truth and your principles.
Tracey asked Sam if he calls out MSNBC hosts for their problematic ways, but did Tracey call out Tucker Carlson for his problematic ways when he went on Carlson's show?
Theo McDonald by appearing as a guest on Carlson’s show, he was working with Carlson in an attempt to spread a specific message. He was willing to work with Carlson but not willing to call him out on his problems. Tracey believes that we shouldn’t ever work with someone who is problematic such as MSNBC and centrist democrats, yet he is willing to work with one of the most problematic people in media, Tucker Carlson. So, my point stands.
Theo McDonald you’re clearly trying to miss the point. I don’t care what Sam does. I’m talking about Tracey and his hypocrisy when it comes to his own logic regarding problematic people. Think about this, would Tracey ever go on MSNBC? Probably not, but if he did, it would be to confront them. But when he goes on Fox News(which is, at best, just as bad as MSNBC but for different reasons) he doesn’t confront them. Instead he made comments on the show that imply that Carlson is just a regular guy whose work complies with high standards. He gave validation to a very problematic person and that person’s very problematic beliefs. By doing this, Tracey did not abide by his own logic. That is my point and it stands.
Theo McDonald if you’re a progressive, then you have to realize that he still is nowhere near netting positive. I’m not blind to MSNBC’s problems and I’m not blind to Carlson’s either, and I bet you aren’t as well. Now, I hope you have a good day and stay safe.
ASSANGE AND TRUMP WIN FATALITY I’m fairly certain Tucker was complicit in spreading numerous falsehoods about Iraq in the early 2000’s so he could rile people up into a frenzy and support the invasion. Tracey is so emotional about an investigation that he compared MSNBC’s response to it with the media failures in the early 2000’s that got us into Iraq, but strangely he didn’t go on Carlson’s show to call him out. I wonder why that is?
The thing that bothers me so much about Tracey is his that he’s speaking so definitively about something neither he nor anyone in Congress has any information on. WE DONT HAVE THE REPORT. IT IS NOT RELEASED. BARRS SUMMARY MEANS LESS THAN NOTHING. Why is this so hard to understand. Sam should have started the interview like this: “Have you read the Mueller report?” “No.” “Then how the fuck can you possibly know Trump is completely cleared and everyone got it wrong?” Checkmate because he cannot answer that because nobody on the Intelligence committees can even answer that let alone a no name journalist.
@@Matt_Barnes Sam was obviously wrong. What do you guys need, a dissertation? Just look at Sam's face today, and look at his face then. Clearly, he should've stopped shaving earlier. Every day he woke up and said "I'm going to use a razor" was a mistake.
Tracey starts the conversation by talking about how we need conversations in good faith. Doesn't seem to me that Tracey was sincere at all, he sounded more like an intellectually dishonest hack. He's just trying to promote himself and Sam wasn't going to be used that way.
Why is he being so evasive ... because he has a screed he wrote down days ago that he has to get out to make his position somewhat believable. In truth, Investigations start without evidence all the time ... rumors, a tip off and/or suspicious behavior can start an investigation. Investigating is usually how the investigators get/find the evidence in a crime.
Because the president was voted by the electoral not popular. So to investigate a tag team with dictatorship Russia and Trump is stupid. Because the popular voted for that bitch Hillary. Evasive on question of yes and no? Then no why you think that as a follow up question.
Of course right wingers would never accept a challenge from Sam or Michael. Whenever these righties are in a “debate” they make shit up in regards to policy in hopes their opponents can’t call them out on it, that strategy does not work against either Sam or Michael because they know everything so much more intimately than the righties do. See the debate with Sam and Charlie Kirk, Charlie just made shit up several times only to be made a fool of by Sam.
@@robertrichards9565 lol sorry, just making sure 😂😂😂 And yeah, I totally agree, Brooks pulls no punches. He has been slowly turning into my favorite progress.
The Dore crowd have become insufferable about this. I listen to both shows, but Jimmy has completely gone off the rails, essentially parroting Trump about the whole investigation being a hoax. Sam needs to take Dore on directly about his shit.
@@Eyoballin He may be right about no collusion, but that's very different from saying that the whole investigation was a hoax. The FBI certainly thought there was shady stuff worth investigating, and that was long before the Steele dossier was even a thing. It's irresponsible to condemn the whole investigation as if it was just something that came from Clinton's imagination.
It's become obvious to anyone with a brain at this point, aka not you! Go away, Hillarybot. She didn't lose because Russia hacked the election, she lost because she was a terrible candidate.
You know the moment someone says that they're trying to put you up to a standard that they won't practice so that they can try to be more effective in the discussion than you lol.
@@Peter-kp5gm Yeah, that's great, but now he's opposing it. Because nothing he says matters. That people buy into his lies makes me very concerned for the future of our species.
@@xAssailantx So what? How cant you see that this Russia gate conspiracy theory is turning good for him. As it stands now; it is: you and the rest of the world 0 and Trump 1. Do you bet this score will change in your favor after full release?
Definitely a bad choice having this guy on in the first place. He clearly just planned to use your platform as a way to spew his victory lap rhetoric and act righteous for 45 minutes without addressing anything you asked. Sam might as well have not even been there. This guy has zero following and in his mind he hugely benefited from you letting him on your show -_-
If you haven't read the full Mueller report you shouldn't be taking victory laps. *cough* Kyle Kulinski, Michael Tracey, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald *cough*
@@southgalaxydiedforoursins4193No one knows that's what waiting to see the report means. Since there's no such law as "collusion" RM couldn't find DT guilty of it but Congress can define it as a "high crime/misdemeanor" which is a political definition.
Literally every Michael Tracy appearance on any show is the same: He never answers questions, he's extremely passive aggressive, and just gish gallups until whoever is interviewing him gets so exhausted they just end it.
This guy is almost as bad at answering questions as Sargon of Akkad was in his debate with Brooks. I'm 10 minutes in and literally all he has done is filibuster and try to change the topic. Yawn.
@@scotthall5405 I dunno its hard to be that much of a misogynistic asshole... This guy is probably a 4/10 on the sargon scale and this video is about 5 sargons too long.
Tracey has to be the biggest pearl clutcher I have ever seen. He's only arguing about "tone". I had to look up the Maxine Waters clip, and he claims he got "hit by her." He wants to have a fight about TONE?
Sam: Do you think there should have been an investigation on Trump for Russiagate? Michael: *deflects and babbles incoherently about how bad the Democrats are*
@@L0neSiPh0n Ukraine is a fake proxy war brought on by the expansion of NATO, Iraq never had wmds, Clinton killed Seth rich and sabotaged the 2016 elections and COVID was created in the US... It's pathetic that you still follow the mainstream narrative 😂😂😂🤡
@@Whoeverheardof handled how? I mean who were you listening to? All I heard is a bunch of dribble back and forth from the both of them; yet the problem is still there, that Seder and many others funneled clicks to their channel off of Hearsay/rumor rather than concrete evidence; and when people get called out on this the come back is "oh but we're still waiting on the full report" - F-that we can debate all day about financial ties, but the sad issue NO one wants to admit the DNC screwed the people over with allowing this piece of shit a red carpet to the white house with no true examination of the DNC's internal issues, this Russia narrative was born from them and progressive voices have been making an ass of themselves all riding the Rachel Maddow ratings train; don't be a coward speak on the fact that Seder was wrong
I wonder if Michael Tracey could give a straight forward answer to anything? Is it windy outside? How’s your day going? Is there such a thing as a wet ass P word?
Sam: *asks a yes or no question* Mike: *tries to respond with a thesis* Sam: dude it's yes or no it's not a gotcha yes or no it's just yes or no Mike: *longer thesis* Commenters: SAM IS SO BIASED I HATE HIM WHAT KIND OF INTERVIEWER ASKS SIMPLE QUESTIONS TO START
It's funny how in 2021, Taibbi and Greenwald are in disrepute, Greenwald has repeatedly doubled down on transphobia, and Taibbi just sounds insane. Tracey is a punchline.
You’ve got to love how Michael wants an apology from Sam, goes on the show to be told he doesn’t have integrity, and doesn’t disagree with Sam’s take. Beautiful
Don’t you just love the passionate look back guy. He’s always right in retrospect and then pulls out the trumpets to let the world know. This guy is ruining his reputation over this very very weird point that he is trying to make. And he might like to hear himself talk and use repetitive synonymous polysyllabic words more than Breed.
Wow ... Micheal really embarrassed himself here. This should have been a much simpler conversation but he was constantly making it way more complicated than it had to be. It was actually cringe-inducing and it makes me sad to see someone who is obviously more comfortable talking about this with Tucker Carlson than another progressive. Like ... he's coming off as defensive and scared of Sam in a fight that HE picked for no reason.
What’s hilarious is that, when a TYT Contributor, Tracey always released these videos where he pretended to be so exceptionally pensive and thoughtful, while over contextualizing even the most basic of arguments that he would make, but now, after mild prodding, he completely loses his calm and becomes super worked up! Nice ad hominem’s Michael; way to attack others in order to cover up your own mistakes, flawed arguments, and short comings! Hahaha
@12:09 Here Michael Tracey performs a not-so-elegant 'McNamara': "Never answer the question being asked, instead answer the question you *wished* were asked."
The guy comes on the show ranting about how Mueller "destroyed" certain assertions and claims of journalists meanwhile nobody outside of the Trump administration has read the report. For someone attacking people for supposedly not having journalistic ethics Tracy is sure making himself out to be a total joke of a journalist...
He's like this in every interaction, it's impressive how much of a weasel he is. Check out his debate with Vaush, it takes him a 5+ minute incoherent monologue to "describe" his political beliefs.
This shit is literally all Michael Tracey thinks he has. It's actually sad. And he isn't even correct! His twitter feed is full of insufferable tweets about this and other terrible takes.
Poor guy is dumb enough to have that opinion but smart enough to know that answering Seder's questions clearly & truthfully would contradict that opinion. What a conundrum.
He is building a case so he can fully endorse Trump in 2020. He posted Bernie articles from 2018, and using that as proof Bernie is not Progressive and equating him to a centrist. At this point I hope he is doing all this to at least cash in at Fox News, and not having mental health issues.
This! This is seriously the craziest part of it all. You have a 4 page? summary of a 300 page report. Put together by someone appointed by the person who is under investigation. And even this summary says "THIS DOESN'T EXHONORATE DONALD TRUMP" and people go nuts. How about all request the full report first before going at each other again. I can understand the position of the american taliban... But someone like Tracey rushes this far on a summary, just to blow himself?
For the love of everything, cut this guy off. Its a waste of airtime. These guys aren't credible -- not because there isn't room for different opinion -- but because their arguments are really bad and rely on the creation of a very specific reality.
O my god. What a mess. Couldn't go on for longer than 22 minutes. If you cannot have a normal conversation, and let a guy finish like ANY of his thoughts than just don't interview at all. What a disgrace.
Ah, you can tell that Sam is losing patience right after the first question at 1:57 . Its a radio show Tracey, no one cares how happy you are to be on, there's a time constraint. But the ol' "I'm so happy to be here" is the most obvious tool in the "avoiding the question" toolset, right next to "I'm so happy you asked me that because..."
Ste ik, Accusing someone of avoiding to answer the questions doesn't actually establish that they did that. Screaming at them that they must answer yes or no is what Bill O'Reilly used to do. Tracey was trying to answer the questions. Sam just wanted to fight, and Sam is the one who ended up looking like he wanted to avoid the issue by insisting that Tracey was making the Iraq War coverage and Russia, Russia, Russia coverage analogous, when clearly, Tracey said he was not equating those things. This was really embarrassing for Sam, uninformative, counter-productive, and down right silly.
@@lufo4599 Why couldn't he answer yes or no to that question? You et al keep saying that answering the question yes/no isn't reasonable, but none of you ever say _why_ . Not "Why isn't it reasonable to answer every question with yes/no", but "Why couldn't he answer THIS question with yes/no" ? This has caused a lot of division among people, so I did a deep dive into the interview to give us something concrete to argue over: The question was "Do/did you think the Russia investigation should have been launched." and the first answer Tracey gives (after his "its so nice to be here" waffling) was "we NOW know it was launched under false pretenses." That is not an answer to the question, it might be the basis for an answer but it does not actually answer it. Lo and behold, when Seder later tries to pin him down on it ( 6.20 ) Tracey completely reverses his position from "it was launched under false pretenses and a total fraud" to "well of course the investigation should have been launched to implicate Manafort..." which is in no way implied by anything Tracey said before that. This is exactly the kind of response Seder was trying to avoid, this kind of bullshit is what I expect from Trump officials and Fox News talking heads, not supposed journalists. Later on Tracey tries the same shit again, refusing to answer the question ( 8.15 ) Seder: "So you had no opinion? You were agnostic whether the president of the united states should be investigated at any time? You were completely agnostic?" Tracey: "I wanted him to be held to account and investigated for his actual offenses" Seder: "And you knew his offenses were what? Tracey: "And these were not one of them. Democrats and MSNBC... No, I did not support the conspiracy investigation." Can you see how Tracey isn't listening? Or is listening, but would prefer to talk about how much better he is than MSNBC? He doesn't answer the first question (Were you agnostic?) by moving the goal posts from "Did you support the investigation previously" to "did you support the "conspiracy" investigation?" After that, he either doesn't answer the question or has completely reversed his position. Seder didn't ask about a "conspiracy investigation", he asked about the investigation, parts of which Tracey just said he supported ("well of course the investigation should have been launched to implicate Manafort"). So, if the whole investigation is a "conspiracy investigation" then Tracey is contradicting the answer he gave 4 minutes ago and if its only part of the investigation that was a conspiracy then he didn't answer the question. Finally, at 11.35 , Seder understandably loses it and asks one basic question: Seder: "do you believe the report that you now tout in its saying that the russians were interefering in the election by hacking the emails or their shenanigans on social media? Do you think that is true, did you know in July?" Tracey: "I unequivocally reject this notion that election interference, that's talking about social media posts..." That's the icing on the cake really. Tracey is trying to talk about whether the interference changed the outcome of the election instead of answering about what he knew in July and how he knew it. And its obvious why, because Seder has him by the balls. Tracey is claiming that the only part of the Barr summary that's right is the part that he agrees with, while everything else should be doubted, especially whether Russians really did hack the DNC emails. Alongside the issue that Tracey had no way of knowing whether he was right or wrong in July until the report came out (and I'll remind you, it still hasn't come out) as evidenced by Tracey being wrong over who hacked the DNC. According to Tracey, it just so happens apparently that the only parts of the Barr summary that we can assume to be true is the part that he claimed was right July 2016, while the only parts that should be doubted are the parts he claimed were wrong in July 2016. Is that really not suspicious to you at all?
@@steik6414 First of all, it's not a yes/no question, as I have established. It's a multifaceted, open ended question, which Sam himself says is to establish the reason/positions for the debate. Michael Tracey very clearly explained that this is a complicated subject so he was trying to construct his answer with additional information. Sam should have let him do that if he were an honest actor. Sam also attacked Michael for not answering the question the same way Glenn Greenwald did, as if that is the only way/legitimate way someone must answer a question. Furthermore, you're ignoring the whole part about the Twitter post that Sam opened up the show with, but refused to let Michel respond in context or respond directly to. Michael was responding substantively to Sam's questions and Sam became totally unhinged.
@@lufo4599 ooof reading these comments a few years later is painful. This shit aged like milk under the sun lmfaooo, not only did Sam give him space to rebut the twitter thing, the bad faith coming from you guys is next level and the joint congressional report on this was released, definitively proving Sam right. Sheesh. How you can watch this and think Michael "Im officially a grifter and in love with white nationalist Tucker Carlson" Tracey is being the good faith actor here is wild lmao
Alas, poor Michael Tracy suffers an ancient curse which prevents him from making verifiable statements That's why he can't answer any direct questions or make definitive statements
@@banehelsing7541 Pushing this Russiagate hoax to promote world conflict and the interests of the rich and powerful is not a left-wing position. The left doesn't support this crap.
@@cpwm17 The Left doesn't support an investigation that unveiled campaign finance violation, violations of the emoluments clause, and the convictions of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, Papadopolous, potentially Roger Stone, and more? It's always annoying to see people dismissing the entire investigation based on only a third of its scope in Russian collusion.
@@thehumanity0 This investigation was sold on collusion with Russia, which is a hoax. Other results of this hoax are a new cold war with Russia to benefit the MIC (which creates a more dangerous world), the marriage of neocons with the Democratic Party, and attacks on independent media. All of this is done to increase class warfare (which benefits the rich and powerful), to not talk about anything that benefits the American people, and to excuse Hillary's election loss in the general and election fraud in the primary by playing the victim.
This was a total waste of time. I cant say that I'm familiar with Michael Tracey, and he appears to be quite long winded; However, Sam is very obviously letting his emotions get the better of him, keeps moving the goal post, and is going off the rails because he is obviously upset about Tracey's tweet...This is absolutely ridiculous. If you cant keep your cool long enough to have a rational conversation with the guy, then you probably just shouldn't have him on the show.
I like Sam, but he completely went full overload on this guy, and let his lizard brain take the wheel. This was basically watching a Twitter fight in real time.
I literally heard that comment from him, said to myself "dear god I hope someone points this out" and scrolled like 10 comments to find this. Thank you!
tomitstube, Alex Jones? Really? No. And it's tough to answer a question when three words into your answer you get someone screaming at you in an unhinged fashion reminiscent of Bill O'Reilly "YESSSS OR NOOOOOOOO, ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!"
@@lufo4599 that isn't how it happened, watch it again, sam asked tracey at least 4 times if he believed there was evidence to start an investigation, and *every single time* tracey would rant into a non-sequitur collage of topics. just like alex jones does.
@@douchebagbrigade Yes, you've said that, but provided little to no evidence to back that up. Sam opens up by talking about twitter, Tracey wants to respond to that, Sam refuses. Sam insults Tracey. Tracey laughs it off. Sam asks Tracey a multifaceted, open ended question. Tracey begins to answer and Sam starts screaming "YES OR NOOOOOOOO!" The rest s all downhill. So is the knowitall little kid you're referring to Sam? Because that, i would agree with.
Michael Tracey behaves the same way here as he does in his debate with Vaush. Just squirrely. Avoids answering questions straight up, has to run on a tangent for as long as is humanly possible before doing that.
@@Murky_MurkiMurka That's funny considering Michael Tracey was the one babbling like an idiot. I don't even like Sam really, but Michael Tracey is a total child.
@@thehumanity0 I like sam. Don't get me wrong but this interview will be shown to be crazy. Anyone would to some appear to babbling trying to get a word in without being interrupted for the most part. The conspiracy theorist seem to be overly emotional
@@Murky_MurkiMurka "Conspiracy theorist"? He's literally just arguing for basic logic and common sense. It's a fact that there were guilty pleas during the investigation, calling it all a hoax or fraudulent is factually inaccurate, not to mention the actual report is not even out and Republicans are blocking it like their lives depend on it.
@@Murky_MurkiMurka At one point Tracey even explains how he unequivocally takes Barr's word as fact on one part of Barr's letter, but then completely rejects another part of it on the Russian hacks. This is contradictory and he is clearly working backwards from his conclusion, whether you accept Barr's letter as the truth or not.
Lots of bolts loose in this comments section. Amazing how people can watch the same video and walk away with a completely different take. Tracy's a conservative in liberal's clothing.
Maybe. The thing is, there are a lot of legit leftwing criticisms to make of the Dem and liberal establishment. Someone can focus on that, think that's not being talked about enough in whatever liberal echo chamber. You bravely take a principled stand, and give little tactical consideration to the consequences of attacking the Dem establishment. Meanwhile, one gains an audience of fellow Dem crtitics - rightwingers, and useful idiot leftwingers like oneself. So in functional terms, yes, you end up as a rightwinger. Not in your heart, but in the political role you're playing.
Michael Tracey is so damn ignorant that I wish Sam hadn’t gotten so flustered when evading Sam first question demonstrated Michael’s inability to think on his feet. Also, when Sam accused him of having no integrity. Michael practically agreed by not objecting
@@jocksharerock7318 I can't blame Sam for getting flustered. Even just listening to this evasive hack got my blood boiling. I've been in conversations similar to this and to be frank at some point, the obnoxious disrespect of reality by your discussion partner just makes you want to slam the phone down. Hard to keep a clear focused mind when someone tries to rile you up like that.
Yes, I’m going through the same thing with the Jimmy Dore fanatics locally. They yell so loud that you can’t get a word in. Sorry you have to go through it too. It’s like an epidemic, the amounts of family and friends all screwed up to the point where you literally can’t have a discussion
@@jocksharerock7318 To be honest, it became a lot more bearable when I found this show and adopted some of their approaches. Before, I always took everything so seriously and really to heart, because as you say, this blatant disregard for reality is truly a disease that hurts the weakest in society every single day as well as having the potential to eventually destroy civilisation (and I mean that without any hyperbole). It feels absolutely threatening when you are confronted with this gaslighting style of debating and nothing you say matters. It's unarguably a great strategy to rid the political field of opposing voices, because many of us (including myself) find themselves desperate, flustered and thus incapable of standing our ground in any such discussions where facts and reality don't matter anymore. I found TMR and Brooks' show so helpful because unlike many others, they are relentlessly mocking and pointing out the absurdity of this new style of flexible-reality politics. They rarely ever acknowledge the proponents of these gaslighting politics as equals to be taken seriously in the discussion and thus take away a lot of the paralysis one might feel while being steamrolled with their bullshit. It's surprisingly empowering to learn to laugh into the face of an existential threat.
At the very end of this discussion, when Michael admitted jealousy of Wheeler/Sam and others, “getting MSNBC careers,” the biggest motivating factor for Michael’s ridiculous claims and tweets became totally lucid; Michaels is a VERY JEALOUS, avaricious, and insecure man, entranced with anger and hatred.
The core problem with Michael Tracey's argument is simply that he unequivocally believes one part of Barr's letter, but then unequivocally rejects another part of it. If you're going to reject any part of Barr's letter, then you have to operate on the assumption that the entire thing is not credible (which it isn't due to conflicting statements from the Mueller team).
Michael sure likes to hear himself talk, all the "journalistic integrity" and he is unable to answer a basic yes/no question. If you're unable to answer those, usually is a good indicator of false pretense or hidden motive. I know he is trying to sound intelligent, and in a debate it paints you into a corner, but he could drone on after the yes/no round and slather his biases. Not personally a huge fan of Sam, but he did pretty good in showing the lack of integrity of Michael.
@@joshuasone9110 What is it then? A conversation? When you're debating issues and ideas it's counter-productive to yell, scream, cut the other person off and call them a "coward" for supposedly dodging the question even though you don't give someone the time they need to formulate a response.
Wow i can see why tracey hates 'counterfactuals', he looks like such a fool when he tries to answer what would be different if the media didnt make these 'horrendous' errors in cheerleading the investigation
This Michael Tracey guy argues like that Sargon dude that Michael Brooks debated. The guy cant respond to a question with a simple answer and just have a point by point conversation. Literally every answer has to be an attempted pivot. That shit is flimsy and transparent, and it insults the intelligence of anyone who's listening to him as he tries to make his case. What a grand waste of time this guy is.
Joshua Sand, I watched that debate between Michael Brooks and Sargon of Akaad. Sargon was running from Brooks in that debate and being evasive. But that was not the case here. Sam would ask him a questions and before he could get a few words out Sam would shout over him, "YES OR NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" Don't have people on if you're going to control how they answer your questions.
@@lufo4599 I notice you've posted this a few times. I'm curious when watching a news interview with a politician and they're evasive and avoid the simple yes or no question don't you want them to cut through the crap and shout Just answer the question, Yes or No? It's just a basic platform for the interviewer to move forward down that route of inquiry. If the person being asked the question refuses then it's kind of on them (and they know it otherwise they'd answer the question).
@@Hoopla10 This interview wasn't with a politician,, and the question and the way it was asked can hardly be characterized as a "simple yes or no question."
Seeing this after Tracey vs Vaush is kind of funny. Dude evades straight questions like a fucking ninja.
These RUclips comments are filled with people begging for Sam to be civil. Pure irony.
A lot of people attacking sam in bad faith here. Tracey is such a weasel
Well, there are lot of dumb people like Tracey in the world.
I wonder if that absolute tool went back and apologized to Sam after Bat finally released the (redacted) Mueller report, and we all learned that Barr's memo that supposedly summarized Mueller's findings was complete and utter BS. Props to Sam for immediately putting this guy on his show, and allowing him a huge amount of time to make his points. Sam never runs from a debate like Cold Feet Crowder.
Mueller's report was absolute dog shit.
I love how Sam diffuses this change of topic in the first 5 minutes just re-asking him to answer the question. And it's not the first time we've seen this kind of deflection because in today's societies people frame questions on the media constantly. It feels good to have Sam say 'This is not a trap just answer this simple question.' He even gives him the option of saying that perhaps later he changed his mind it's not that big a deal.
It was a trap question though, and now that the whole fraud narrative has completely collapsed Sam looks a complete fool in retrospect. I wonder why he never mentions russiagate anymore
How Tracey could go on twitter after this and accuse Sam of getting mad when he spent half of this interview raging is truly mind boggling.
Tracey believes so much in free speech he was the first person to block me on Twitter
And this video continues to age like a fine wine
I'm back today too wtf. What brought you back to this video lol?
@@TheSethcast Any of his tweets in the past three weeks
@@TheJonnyEnglish "I'm not for or against the protests. They are just a thing that is happening."
Michael Tracey started whining as soon as he realized Sam was a real one. Yikes.
Hostbusters XL It has several meanings but in this context it means someone who tells you it like it is and is strong and unwavering. Sticking to the truth and your principles.
*FACTS*
@@Whoeverheardof These white folk don't know the lingo, sis lol
@@IBBMS
What white folks?
@@Murky_MurkiMurka your mom
Tracey asked Sam if he calls out MSNBC hosts for their problematic ways, but did Tracey call out Tucker Carlson for his problematic ways when he went on Carlson's show?
Theo McDonald by appearing as a guest on Carlson’s show, he was working with Carlson in an attempt to spread a specific message. He was willing to work with Carlson but not willing to call him out on his problems. Tracey believes that we shouldn’t ever work with someone who is problematic such as MSNBC and centrist democrats, yet he is willing to work with one of the most problematic people in media, Tucker Carlson. So, my point stands.
Theo McDonald you’re clearly trying to miss the point. I don’t care what Sam does. I’m talking about Tracey and his hypocrisy when it comes to his own logic regarding problematic people. Think about this, would Tracey ever go on MSNBC? Probably not, but if he did, it would be to confront them. But when he goes on Fox News(which is, at best, just as bad as MSNBC but for different reasons) he doesn’t confront them. Instead he made comments on the show that imply that Carlson is just a regular guy whose work complies with high standards. He gave validation to a very problematic person and that person’s very problematic beliefs. By doing this, Tracey did not abide by his own logic. That is my point and it stands.
Theo McDonald if you’re a progressive, then you have to realize that he still is nowhere near netting positive. I’m not blind to MSNBC’s problems and I’m not blind to Carlson’s either, and I bet you aren’t as well. Now, I hope you have a good day and stay safe.
ASSANGE AND TRUMP WIN FATALITY I’m fairly certain Tucker was complicit in spreading numerous falsehoods about Iraq in the early 2000’s so he could rile people up into a frenzy and support the invasion. Tracey is so emotional about an investigation that he compared MSNBC’s response to it with the media failures in the early 2000’s that got us into Iraq, but strangely he didn’t go on Carlson’s show to call him out. I wonder why that is?
Theo McDonald then there was really no point bringing it up, huh?
Had to drink a whole bottle of dressing to stomach that word salad
Anyone seen Traceys Twitter in the past few months? He’s been a Russia simp for years
Michael … Michael … MICHAEL
Michael
Michael
michael michael michael michael
At least Seder simply called him out for the coward he is and said he was just going to hang up. Vaush obviously is a masochist.
Imagine watching this and thinking Michael Tracey won.
The thing that bothers me so much about Tracey is his that he’s speaking so definitively about something neither he nor anyone in Congress has any information on. WE DONT HAVE THE REPORT. IT IS NOT RELEASED. BARRS SUMMARY MEANS LESS THAN NOTHING. Why is this so hard to understand.
Sam should have started the interview like this:
“Have you read the Mueller report?”
“No.”
“Then how the fuck can you possibly know Trump is completely cleared and everyone got it wrong?”
Checkmate because he cannot answer that because nobody on the Intelligence committees can even answer that let alone a no name journalist.
Have you read barr spittin barrs report? Curious. I won't be back till maybe a day or two. I'll give you time to read it
He's so eager to fight but he doesn't know how to go about it.
Michael Tracey has described Russia's invasion of Ukraine as being a mere "Inter-Slavic dispute."
4 years later and he still can't directly answer questions lol
4 years later and Sam's been proven wrong!! .
Countless times
@@dirtcom7care to elaborate?
Clearly @dirtcom7 didn't care to elaborate .🤷🏼♂@@AltheHealer
@@Matt_Barnes they love to poop on the floor, leave, and then act like that was somehow a victory.
@@Matt_Barnes Sam was obviously wrong. What do you guys need, a dissertation?
Just look at Sam's face today, and look at his face then.
Clearly, he should've stopped shaving earlier. Every day he woke up and said "I'm going to use a razor" was a mistake.
12:28. Holy fuck, Michael Tracey gave a yes/no answer to a yes/no question. I feel like I've seen a unicorn
Tracey starts the conversation by talking about how we need conversations in good faith. Doesn't seem to me that Tracey was sincere at all, he sounded more like an intellectually dishonest hack. He's just trying to promote himself and Sam wasn't going to be used that way.
Why is he being so evasive ... because he has a screed he wrote down days ago that he has to get out to make his position somewhat believable.
In truth, Investigations start without evidence all the time ... rumors, a tip off and/or suspicious behavior can start an investigation. Investigating is usually how the investigators get/find the evidence in a crime.
Because the president was voted by the electoral not popular. So to investigate a tag team with dictatorship Russia and Trump is stupid. Because the popular voted for that bitch Hillary. Evasive on question of yes and no? Then no why you think that as a follow up question.
So this all boils down to Michael Tracey being butthurt cause MSNBC won't have him on...
I don't think Michael cares about going on a network which has been shown to be propagandists.
@@osbos69 If that were true he wouldn't be whining about it. he totally cares.
Sam has to debate Ben Shapiro. Ben really needs to be taken a down multiple pegs.
Ben won't accept the challenge, he's been dodging true challengers for years now. Like most members in the IDW he prefers debating college students.
Of course right wingers would never accept a challenge from Sam or Michael. Whenever these righties are in a “debate” they make shit up in regards to policy in hopes their opponents can’t call them out on it, that strategy does not work against either Sam or Michael because they know everything so much more intimately than the righties do. See the debate with Sam and Charlie Kirk, Charlie just made shit up several times only to be made a fool of by Sam.
@@robertrichards9565 by Michael you mean Michael Brooks right? Because Tracey is a complete tool.
Matuco BULLAguero Brooks, I was worried I made that ambiguous, but yes seeing Michael Brooks destroy fascists on itv makes my day whenever I see it.
@@robertrichards9565 lol sorry, just making sure 😂😂😂
And yeah, I totally agree, Brooks pulls no punches. He has been slowly turning into my favorite progress.
The Dore crowd have become insufferable about this. I listen to both shows, but Jimmy has completely gone off the rails, essentially parroting Trump about the whole investigation being a hoax. Sam needs to take Dore on directly about his shit.
Hes right though.
@@Eyoballin Has he seen the full Mueller report?
@@Eyoballin He may be right about no collusion, but that's very different from saying that the whole investigation was a hoax. The FBI certainly thought there was shady stuff worth investigating, and that was long before the Steele dossier was even a thing. It's irresponsible to condemn the whole investigation as if it was just something that came from Clinton's imagination.
It's become obvious to anyone with a brain at this point, aka not you! Go away, Hillarybot. She didn't lose because Russia hacked the election, she lost because she was a terrible candidate.
Jimmy wont debate sam again. Sam has extended an open invitation to debate Jimmy like a year and a half ago and Jimmy hasnt taken him up on it.
Michael Tracey: "I think people need to discuss this in good faith."
*does not discuss it in good faith*
You know the moment someone says that they're trying to put you up to a standard that they won't practice so that they can try to be more effective in the discussion than you lol.
It says a lot that in 45 minutes, Tracey was unable to answer the ONLY QUESTION he was asked.
11:15 "Michael, why are you being so evasive? Why are you being so fucking evasive here?"
Holy shit, this is the angriest I've ever seen Sam.
Sam has been very uptight lately
Sam can't stand the fact that he supported the Russiagate hoax, so he went full Bill Oreilly for cover.
Good lord what an amazing moment
Sam is the GOAT. Michael Tracey can't answer a direct fucking question
Wtf is wrong with this guy?
How do these guys keep making conclusions about this while we still haven't seen the fucking report?
The pertinent question isn't, "how," it's, "why."
Do you know that Trump called for releasing full report? -I wonder why. Hmmm...
@@Peter-kp5gm Yea he also said he'd give us his tax returns like 3 years ago.
@@Peter-kp5gm Yeah, that's great, but now he's opposing it. Because nothing he says matters. That people buy into his lies makes me very concerned for the future of our species.
@@xAssailantx So what? How cant you see that this Russia gate conspiracy theory is turning good for him.
As it stands now; it is: you and the rest of the world 0 and Trump 1. Do you bet this score will change in your favor after full release?
This video aged like fine wine.
please stop being so mean to this victim of assault
Oh man I laughed so hard it hurt
Maxine Waters viciously assaulted my microphone! Lol
Sam you are 100% correct ... I'm just tired of Dimmy's fanboys!!!
These purist nuts are insufferable!
Saudie Arabia forevaaa
Like kyle kulinski???
Definitely a bad choice having this guy on in the first place. He clearly just planned to use your platform as a way to spew his victory lap rhetoric and act righteous for 45 minutes without addressing anything you asked. Sam might as well have not even been there. This guy has zero following and in his mind he hugely benefited from you letting him on your show -_-
Brought to you by the CIA! Thanks for watching msdnc
If you haven't read the full Mueller report you shouldn't be taking victory laps. *cough* Kyle Kulinski, Michael Tracey, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald *cough*
Seriously!
Thank you.
Add Zero Books to your list. Wait a few weeks and the entire gang is going to look even more like hacks.
How so? Show more corruption or will there be proof of Russian collusion?
@@southgalaxydiedforoursins4193No one knows that's what waiting to see the report means. Since there's no such law as "collusion" RM couldn't find DT guilty of it but Congress can define it as a "high crime/misdemeanor" which is a political definition.
Literally every Michael Tracy appearance on any show is the same: He never answers questions, he's extremely passive aggressive, and just gish gallups until whoever is interviewing him gets so exhausted they just end it.
Michael. Michael. MICHAEL. - Literally anyone trying to have a discussion with him.
This guy is almost as bad at answering questions as Sargon of Akkad was in his debate with Brooks. I'm 10 minutes in and literally all he has done is filibuster and try to change the topic. Yawn.
Emptyheaded idiots always do that when confronted by intelligent, quick people
lmao.... now that I think about it if this guy had an accent he could literally be sargon
@@scotthall5405 I dunno its hard to be that much of a misogynistic asshole... This guy is probably a 4/10 on the sargon scale and this video is about 5 sargons too long.
I was disappointed by sam in this interview. Let the guest make their points then counter their points . simple
How to successfully and efficiently derail your convsations with the Megamind that is Micheal Tracey.
Ask him a Yes or No question.
Tracey has to be the biggest pearl clutcher I have ever seen. He's only arguing about "tone".
I had to look up the Maxine Waters clip, and he claims he got "hit by her." He wants to have a fight about TONE?
This guy is incapable of answering a question… ask him “yes or no, is the sky blue” and he will go on for 10min about why Russia is good actually
"I think the Russians probably did it" - Matt Taibbi, 8 months ago.
Michael Tracy is a professional poser.
lol
Sam: Do you think there should have been an investigation on Trump for Russiagate?
Michael: *deflects and babbles incoherently about how bad the Democrats are*
and now we've been proven that Russiagate was a conspiracy lol
@@RocketGator05 Love the absolute delusional denial of reality
@@L0neSiPh0n and the sheeple still believe and still watch this channel 🤦♂️
@@RocketGator05 Keep coping
@@L0neSiPh0n Ukraine is a fake proxy war brought on by the expansion of NATO, Iraq never had wmds, Clinton killed Seth rich and sabotaged the 2016 elections and COVID was created in the US... It's pathetic that you still follow the mainstream narrative 😂😂😂🤡
Sam destroyed this hack.
Glad to see Michael has always been a weasel regardless of world events. Very consistent.
Micheal Tracy is so interminably circular in his answering, he could be a character straight out of a Lewis Carroll novel.
Tracey should come on more often. He's good comedic material.
I would say fodder rather than material but hey...
DON’T 👏🏾 COME 👏🏾 ON 👏🏾 SAM 👏🏾 SEDER’S 👏🏾 SHOW👏🏾 THINKING 👏🏾 YOU 👏🏾 GON 👏🏾 TAKE👏🏾 OVER!
this whole thing was a mess
M Valle Michael Tracy is a ridiculous person and was thus handled.
@@Whoeverheardof handled how? I mean who were you listening to? All I heard is a bunch of dribble back and forth from the both of them; yet the problem is still there, that Seder and many others funneled clicks to their channel off of Hearsay/rumor rather than concrete evidence; and when people get called out on this the come back is "oh but we're still waiting on the full report" - F-that we can debate all day about financial ties, but the sad issue NO one wants to admit the DNC screwed the people over with allowing this piece of shit a red carpet to the white house with no true examination of the DNC's internal issues, this Russia narrative was born from them and progressive voices have been making an ass of themselves all riding the Rachel Maddow ratings train; don't be a coward speak on the fact that Seder was wrong
@@mvalle6072 Damn. Well said.
I wonder if Michael Tracey could give a straight forward answer to anything? Is it windy outside? How’s your day going? Is there such a thing as a wet ass P word?
Have you watched his conversation with Vaush? It's an hour and 45 minutes of him avoiding every single question.
Jeff C yeah it got me reminiscing of this video so I had to watched it again.
The dude's autistic if it's not noticeable, give him a little slack, he talks as if he is writing
Sam: *asks a yes or no question*
Mike: *tries to respond with a thesis*
Sam: dude it's yes or no it's not a gotcha yes or no it's just yes or no
Mike: *longer thesis*
Commenters: SAM IS SO BIASED I HATE HIM WHAT KIND OF INTERVIEWER ASKS SIMPLE QUESTIONS TO START
Lmao exactly
EXACTLY. FOH comment section
It's funny how in 2021, Taibbi and Greenwald are in disrepute, Greenwald has repeatedly doubled down on transphobia, and Taibbi just sounds insane. Tracey is a punchline.
What 2021 are you living in?
lol, tracey sounds exactly like his tweets, i don't think there's any irony in them
@@ktd522 The 2021 where sane people live.
The opposite is true
russiagate was a dud, how did this make them in disrepute, no one is talking about russiagate anymore.
You’ve got to love how Michael wants an apology from Sam, goes on the show to be told he doesn’t have integrity, and doesn’t disagree with Sam’s take. Beautiful
Tracy has basically gone full conservative now, let that sink in folks who follow tracey.
Decided to check his twitter - yeah, pretty much.
@@davidm1926
Yeah, we see this a lot from "Liberals".
Don’t you just love the passionate look back guy. He’s always right in retrospect and then pulls out the trumpets to let the world know. This guy is ruining his reputation over this very very weird point that he is trying to make. And he might like to hear himself talk and use repetitive synonymous polysyllabic words more than Breed.
Tim Pool watched this and was like "damn that dude was ahead of his time"
Apologize for what? He (Sam) should apologize for doing journalism and coverage of the Russia investigation?
If Sam apologizes, Michael can move onto to putting his head in the sand on another issue.
No. For the WAY in which he covered it.
Wow ... Micheal really embarrassed himself here. This should have been a much simpler conversation but he was constantly making it way more complicated than it had to be. It was actually cringe-inducing and it makes me sad to see someone who is obviously more comfortable talking about this with Tucker Carlson than another progressive. Like ... he's coming off as defensive and scared of Sam in a fight that HE picked for no reason.
Sam performing like a true MSNBC contributor.
How could anyone watch this and not think Michael Tracy is a grifter?
How is he a grifter?
What’s hilarious is that, when a TYT Contributor, Tracey always released these videos where he pretended to be so exceptionally pensive and thoughtful, while over contextualizing even the most basic of arguments that he would make, but now, after mild prodding, he completely loses his calm and becomes super worked up! Nice ad hominem’s Michael; way to attack others in order to cover up your own mistakes, flawed arguments, and short comings! Hahaha
@12:09 Here Michael Tracey performs a not-so-elegant 'McNamara': "Never answer the question being asked, instead answer the question you *wished* were asked."
I can totally understand why Michael is an 'independent' journalist.
Wendy Schneider because he thinks for himself? Yes very true
I would come call Sam independent as well.
dont insult us freelancers.
The guy comes on the show ranting about how Mueller "destroyed" certain assertions and claims of journalists meanwhile nobody outside of the Trump administration has read the report.
For someone attacking people for supposedly not having journalistic ethics Tracy is sure making himself out to be a total joke of a journalist...
Tracey never answered any questions. He just waited for Sam to stop talking and went back to his 40-minute-long rant.
He's like this in every interaction, it's impressive how much of a weasel he is. Check out his debate with Vaush, it takes him a 5+ minute incoherent monologue to "describe" his political beliefs.
@@TayTayMakesBeats We might be getting round 2 with Vaush shortly...
This shit is literally all Michael Tracey thinks he has. It's actually sad. And he isn't even correct! His twitter feed is full of insufferable tweets about this and other terrible takes.
Yeah he's trying to use this as a springboard for his career. Note he said he was glad to get pats on the back for being "right" about Russia.
I don't even know who this michael guy is but he sure made sams hands shake in the beginning before the introduction. Now I'm gonna look into him
Whoever this Michael Tracey is, he's definitely a whiny coward.
To be fair, he's probably still getting over the trauma of Maxine Waters beating him half to death.
@@robschroeder8297 I'm amazed he even survived that encounter.
damn. love sam. tracey is a worm
Apologize? Hell no! Trump/Russia wasn’t a fraud or hoax!
Yes it was... Time to diversify your news consumption.
Poor guy is dumb enough to have that opinion but smart enough to know that answering Seder's questions clearly & truthfully would contradict that opinion. What a conundrum.
Has Michael Tracey seen the Robert Mueller report? He seems to be confidently making all these assertions based on the Bar summary.
He is building a case so he can fully endorse Trump in 2020.
He posted Bernie articles from 2018, and using that as proof Bernie is not Progressive and equating him to a centrist.
At this point I hope he is doing all this to at least cash in at Fox News, and not having mental health issues.
This! This is seriously the craziest part of it all. You have a 4 page? summary of a 300 page report. Put together by someone appointed by the person who is under investigation. And even this summary says "THIS DOESN'T EXHONORATE DONALD TRUMP" and people go nuts. How about all request the full report first before going at each other again.
I can understand the position of the american taliban...
But someone like Tracey rushes this far on a summary, just to blow himself?
@@leo9753 Everyone is Gas Lit and we don't even realize how crazy this all is.
For the love of everything, cut this guy off. Its a waste of airtime. These guys aren't credible -- not because there isn't room for different opinion -- but because their arguments are really bad and rely on the creation of a very specific reality.
Man, I love Sam, what a hardass!
I want Michael Tracey to apologize for his dismissive statement about Joe Biden's creepy touchy behavior as if it's completely fine.
O my god. What a mess. Couldn't go on for longer than 22 minutes. If you cannot have a normal conversation, and let a guy finish like ANY of his thoughts than just don't interview at all. What a disgrace.
It's super funny, because the "Facts don't care about your feelings" people always start crying over the phone when presented with facts.
they just project. the right wing is severely mentally ill.
Ah, you can tell that Sam is losing patience right after the first question at 1:57 . Its a radio show Tracey, no one cares how happy you are to be on, there's a time constraint. But the ol' "I'm so happy to be here" is the most obvious tool in the "avoiding the question" toolset, right next to "I'm so happy you asked me that because..."
Ste ik, Accusing someone of avoiding to answer the questions doesn't actually establish that they did that. Screaming at them that they must answer yes or no is what Bill O'Reilly used to do. Tracey was trying to answer the questions. Sam just wanted to fight, and Sam is the one who ended up looking like he wanted to avoid the issue by insisting that Tracey was making the Iraq War coverage and Russia, Russia, Russia coverage analogous, when clearly, Tracey said he was not equating those things. This was really embarrassing for Sam, uninformative, counter-productive, and down right silly.
@@lufo4599 Why couldn't he answer yes or no to that question? You et al keep saying that answering the question yes/no isn't reasonable, but none of you ever say _why_ . Not "Why isn't it reasonable to answer every question with yes/no", but "Why couldn't he answer THIS question with yes/no" ?
This has caused a lot of division among people, so I did a deep dive into the interview to give us something concrete to argue over:
The question was "Do/did you think the Russia investigation should have been launched." and the first answer Tracey gives (after his "its so nice to be here" waffling) was "we NOW know it was launched under false pretenses." That is not an answer to the question, it might be the basis for an answer but it does not actually answer it. Lo and behold, when Seder later tries to pin him down on it ( 6.20 ) Tracey completely reverses his position from "it was launched under false pretenses and a total fraud" to "well of course the investigation should have been launched to implicate Manafort..." which is in no way implied by anything Tracey said before that. This is exactly the kind of response Seder was trying to avoid, this kind of bullshit is what I expect from Trump officials and Fox News talking heads, not supposed journalists.
Later on Tracey tries the same shit again, refusing to answer the question ( 8.15 )
Seder: "So you had no opinion? You were agnostic whether the president of the united states should be investigated at any time? You were completely agnostic?"
Tracey: "I wanted him to be held to account and investigated for his actual offenses"
Seder: "And you knew his offenses were what?
Tracey: "And these were not one of them. Democrats and MSNBC... No, I did not support the conspiracy investigation."
Can you see how Tracey isn't listening? Or is listening, but would prefer to talk about how much better he is than MSNBC? He doesn't answer the first question (Were you agnostic?) by moving the goal posts from "Did you support the investigation previously" to "did you support the "conspiracy" investigation?" After that, he either doesn't answer the question or has completely reversed his position. Seder didn't ask about a "conspiracy investigation", he asked about the investigation, parts of which Tracey just said he supported ("well of course the investigation should have been launched to implicate Manafort"). So, if the whole investigation is a "conspiracy investigation" then Tracey is contradicting the answer he gave 4 minutes ago and if its only part of the investigation that was a conspiracy then he didn't answer the question.
Finally, at 11.35 , Seder understandably loses it and asks one basic question:
Seder: "do you believe the report that you now tout in its saying that the russians were interefering in the election by hacking the emails or their shenanigans on social media? Do you think that is true, did you know in July?"
Tracey: "I unequivocally reject this notion that election interference, that's talking about social media posts..."
That's the icing on the cake really. Tracey is trying to talk about whether the interference changed the outcome of the election instead of answering about what he knew in July and how he knew it. And its obvious why, because Seder has him by the balls. Tracey is claiming that the only part of the Barr summary that's right is the part that he agrees with, while everything else should be doubted, especially whether Russians really did hack the DNC emails. Alongside the issue that Tracey had no way of knowing whether he was right or wrong in July until the report came out (and I'll remind you, it still hasn't come out) as evidenced by Tracey being wrong over who hacked the DNC. According to Tracey, it just so happens apparently that the only parts of the Barr summary that we can assume to be true is the part that he claimed was right July 2016, while the only parts that should be doubted are the parts he claimed were wrong in July 2016.
Is that really not suspicious to you at all?
@@steik6414 First of all, it's not a yes/no question, as I have established. It's a multifaceted, open ended question, which Sam himself says is to establish the reason/positions for the debate. Michael Tracey very clearly explained that this is a complicated subject so he was trying to construct his answer with additional information. Sam should have let him do that if he were an honest actor. Sam also attacked Michael for not answering the question the same way Glenn Greenwald did, as if that is the only way/legitimate way someone must answer a question. Furthermore, you're ignoring the whole part about the Twitter post that Sam opened up the show with, but refused to let Michel respond in context or respond directly to. Michael was responding substantively to Sam's questions and Sam became totally unhinged.
@@lufo4599 ooof reading these comments a few years later is painful. This shit aged like milk under the sun lmfaooo, not only did Sam give him space to rebut the twitter thing, the bad faith coming from you guys is next level and the joint congressional report on this was released, definitively proving Sam right. Sheesh. How you can watch this and think Michael "Im officially a grifter and in love with white nationalist Tucker Carlson" Tracey is being the good faith actor here is wild lmao
Alas, poor Michael Tracy suffers an ancient curse which prevents him from making verifiable statements
That's why he can't answer any direct questions or make definitive statements
That demon got him.
“The media being discredited is what contributes to harm, but all I want to do is discredit the media.”
Ok this guy Michael Tracey is the epitome of right-wing politics sorry to say, he sounds like a total lunatic.
Tracey is to the left of Russiagaters.
cpwm17.. He considers himself an independent yet spews alt-right wing rhetoric, he's obviously far from the left.
@@banehelsing7541 Pushing this Russiagate hoax to promote world conflict and the interests of the rich and powerful is not a left-wing position. The left doesn't support this crap.
@@cpwm17 The Left doesn't support an investigation that unveiled campaign finance violation, violations of the emoluments clause, and the convictions of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, Papadopolous, potentially Roger Stone, and more? It's always annoying to see people dismissing the entire investigation based on only a third of its scope in Russian collusion.
@@thehumanity0 This investigation was sold on collusion with Russia, which is a hoax.
Other results of this hoax are a new cold war with Russia to benefit the MIC (which creates a more dangerous world), the marriage of neocons with the Democratic Party, and attacks on independent media. All of this is done to increase class warfare (which benefits the rich and powerful), to not talk about anything that benefits the American people, and to excuse Hillary's election loss in the general and election fraud in the primary by playing the victim.
Sam "answer the fucking question" Seder
Mike needs to work on his basic debate skills
This was a total waste of time. I cant say that I'm familiar with Michael Tracey, and he appears to be quite long winded; However, Sam is very obviously letting his emotions get the better of him, keeps moving the goal post, and is going off the rails because he is obviously upset about Tracey's tweet...This is absolutely ridiculous. If you cant keep your cool long enough to have a rational conversation with the guy, then you probably just shouldn't have him on the show.
Notice any time Tracey bashes a leftist who was a Russia zombie Sam has to stop Tracey to defend liars and hacks like he himself is
I like Sam, but he completely went full overload on this guy, and let his lizard brain take the wheel. This was basically watching a Twitter fight in real time.
“A preponderance of likelihood.” -Michael Tracey.
Lmaoo
I literally heard that comment from him, said to myself "dear god I hope someone points this out" and scrolled like 10 comments to find this. Thank you!
wow, impossible to have a conversation with tracey, he's a left wing version of alex jones.
He's Unhinged because this guy can't answer a question to save his life
tomitstube, Alex Jones? Really? No. And it's tough to answer a question when three words into your answer you get someone screaming at you in an unhinged fashion reminiscent of Bill O'Reilly "YESSSS OR NOOOOOOOO, ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!"
Lu Fo we said this in another post but honestly it’s like teaching a knowitall little kid about politics.
@@lufo4599 that isn't how it happened, watch it again, sam asked tracey at least 4 times if he believed there was evidence to start an investigation, and *every single time* tracey would rant into a non-sequitur collage of topics. just like alex jones does.
@@douchebagbrigade Yes, you've said that, but provided little to no evidence to back that up. Sam opens up by talking about twitter, Tracey wants to respond to that, Sam refuses. Sam insults Tracey. Tracey laughs it off. Sam asks Tracey a multifaceted, open ended question. Tracey begins to answer and Sam starts screaming "YES OR NOOOOOOOO!" The rest s all downhill. So is the knowitall little kid you're referring to Sam? Because that, i would agree with.
Michael Tracey behaves the same way here as he does in his debate with Vaush.
Just squirrely. Avoids answering questions straight up, has to run on a tangent for as long as is humanly possible before doing that.
The similarities are uncanny
Alternative title: Man comes on stream to tell off guy he doesn't like, shits pants and somehow falls face first into it
Be nice to sam. He has some faults but for the most part he might be nice
@@Murky_MurkiMurka That's funny considering Michael Tracey was the one babbling like an idiot. I don't even like Sam really, but Michael Tracey is a total child.
@@thehumanity0
I like sam. Don't get me wrong but this interview will be shown to be crazy. Anyone would to some appear to babbling trying to get a word in without being interrupted for the most part. The conspiracy theorist seem to be overly emotional
@@Murky_MurkiMurka "Conspiracy theorist"? He's literally just arguing for basic logic and common sense. It's a fact that there were guilty pleas during the investigation, calling it all a hoax or fraudulent is factually inaccurate, not to mention the actual report is not even out and Republicans are blocking it like their lives depend on it.
@@Murky_MurkiMurka At one point Tracey even explains how he unequivocally takes Barr's word as fact on one part of Barr's letter, but then completely rejects another part of it on the Russian hacks. This is contradictory and he is clearly working backwards from his conclusion, whether you accept Barr's letter as the truth or not.
Lots of bolts loose in this comments section. Amazing how people can watch the same video and walk away with a completely different take.
Tracy's a conservative in liberal's clothing.
Maybe. The thing is, there are a lot of legit leftwing criticisms to make of the Dem and liberal establishment. Someone can focus on that, think that's not being talked about enough in whatever liberal echo chamber. You bravely take a principled stand, and give little tactical consideration to the consequences of attacking the Dem establishment. Meanwhile, one gains an audience of fellow Dem crtitics - rightwingers, and useful idiot leftwingers like oneself. So in functional terms, yes, you end up as a rightwinger. Not in your heart, but in the political role you're playing.
I dis agree , I see some one who is trying to navigate around BS where ever it lies.
As soon as he started talking "IDW coattails moron" just slipped out of my mouth
What the hell is wrong with you? All of his critiques of the Dems are from the LEFT. You’re defending red-baiting. Go vote for Biden.
Michael Tracey calling someone else a fraud. That's rich
Looking at the comment section, Sam is clearly triggering some boys.
Sam has the patience of a saint.
Michael Tracey is so damn ignorant that I wish Sam hadn’t gotten so flustered when evading Sam first question demonstrated Michael’s inability to think on his feet. Also, when Sam accused him of having no integrity. Michael practically agreed by not objecting
@@jocksharerock7318 I can't blame Sam for getting flustered. Even just listening to this evasive hack got my blood boiling. I've been in conversations similar to this and to be frank at some point, the obnoxious disrespect of reality by your discussion partner just makes you want to slam the phone down. Hard to keep a clear focused mind when someone tries to rile you up like that.
Yes, I’m going through the same thing with the Jimmy Dore fanatics locally. They yell so loud that you can’t get a word in. Sorry you have to go through it too. It’s like an epidemic, the amounts of family and friends all screwed up to the point where you literally can’t have a discussion
@@jocksharerock7318 To be honest, it became a lot more bearable when I found this show and adopted some of their approaches. Before, I always took everything so seriously and really to heart, because as you say, this blatant disregard for reality is truly a disease that hurts the weakest in society every single day as well as having the potential to eventually destroy civilisation (and I mean that without any hyperbole). It feels absolutely threatening when you are confronted with this gaslighting style of debating and nothing you say matters. It's unarguably a great strategy to rid the political field of opposing voices, because many of us (including myself) find themselves desperate, flustered and thus incapable of standing our ground in any such discussions where facts and reality don't matter anymore. I found TMR and Brooks' show so helpful because unlike many others, they are relentlessly mocking and pointing out the absurdity of this new style of flexible-reality politics. They rarely ever acknowledge the proponents of these gaslighting politics as equals to be taken seriously in the discussion and thus take away a lot of the paralysis one might feel while being steamrolled with their bullshit. It's surprisingly empowering to learn to laugh into the face of an existential threat.
@@waugse we need to stop "debating" mentally ill psychos. If we the smart people acknowledge them at all, just mock them. It's all they deserve.
Enter the "Benny Hill Theme Song" everytime Tracey speaks and doesn't answer the question. Smh.
At the very end of this discussion, when Michael admitted jealousy of Wheeler/Sam and others, “getting MSNBC careers,” the biggest motivating factor for Michael’s ridiculous claims and tweets became totally lucid; Michaels is a VERY JEALOUS, avaricious, and insecure man, entranced with anger and hatred.
you can tell just form the tone of his voice!
Who tf are all these clowns in the comments?
RIIIGHT??!! WTF.
Whenever Tracy gets attention for saying some stupid ass shit on Twitter, this video always gets a little traffic.
@@TheJonnyEnglish so every day?
Michael Tracy fan(s).
This is the most upset I have ever seen Sam.
The core problem with Michael Tracey's argument is simply that he unequivocally believes one part of Barr's letter, but then unequivocally rejects another part of it. If you're going to reject any part of Barr's letter, then you have to operate on the assumption that the entire thing is not credible (which it isn't due to conflicting statements from the Mueller team).
Michael sure likes to hear himself talk, all the "journalistic integrity" and he is unable to answer a basic yes/no question. If you're unable to answer those, usually is a good indicator of false pretense or hidden motive. I know he is trying to sound intelligent, and in a debate it paints you into a corner, but he could drone on after the yes/no round and slather his biases. Not personally a huge fan of Sam, but he did pretty good in showing the lack of integrity of Michael.
This is a god awful interview by Sam Seder. He didn't let Michael explain his points at all.
Fuck Michael
LOL he didn't have "points".
all tracey had to do was answer one question but he kept tripping on all of his adjectives and "preponderance of evidence"
Nick Kemp this isn’t an interview
@@joshuasone9110 What is it then? A conversation? When you're debating issues and ideas it's counter-productive to yell, scream, cut the other person off and call them a "coward" for supposedly dodging the question even though you don't give someone the time they need to formulate a response.
What the fuck difference does it make how Democrats felt or feel about Mueller or Rosenstein? It makes literally zero difference to the outcome.
exactly. It's like complaining about a sports team's fan on the performance of the team.
Wow i can see why tracey hates 'counterfactuals', he looks like such a fool when he tries to answer what would be different if the media didnt make these 'horrendous' errors in cheerleading the investigation
This Michael Tracey guy argues like that Sargon dude that Michael Brooks debated. The guy cant respond to a question with a simple answer and just have a point by point conversation. Literally every answer has to be an attempted pivot. That shit is flimsy and transparent, and it insults the intelligence of anyone who's listening to him as he tries to make his case. What a grand waste of time this guy is.
Joshua Sand, I watched that debate between Michael Brooks and Sargon of Akaad. Sargon was running from Brooks in that debate and being evasive. But that was not the case here. Sam would ask him a questions and before he could get a few words out Sam would shout over him, "YES OR NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" Don't have people on if you're going to control how they answer your questions.
@@lufo4599 I notice you've posted this a few times. I'm curious when watching a news interview with a politician and they're evasive and avoid the simple yes or no question don't you want them to cut through the crap and shout Just answer the question, Yes or No? It's just a basic platform for the interviewer to move forward down that route of inquiry. If the person being asked the question refuses then it's kind of on them (and they know it otherwise they'd answer the question).
@@Hoopla10 This interview wasn't with a politician,, and the question and the way it was asked can hardly be characterized as a "simple yes or no question."
@@lufo4599 Do you believe that the Muller investigation was justified?
The same guy who got beat up by Maxine Waters?
This aged well.