Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Anderson Cooper: Disgraceful performance by Trump during Putin meeting" video.

How do they let Bash spew such nonsense: she says oh we have to verify the translation, etc.--ok, so do it BEFORE reporting it! Her speech is practically an unbroken string of logical fallacies. Her behavior is utterly journalistically irresponsible!
2
Poor old farts, they just can't adjust to reality. I've seen it numerous times, personally. It's like they know instinctively that, in order to accommodate reality they would have to break their minds quite a bit; so they fall back on the old world order style of effete politics: ineffectual, pompous, all appearance and no substance. The US's meddling in elections/governments around the world has been ongoing for decades! Get real! Everybody does it and it doesn't matter in developed countries, where the only influence possible is through messaging/advertising/propagandizing; in underdeveloped countries meddling could extend to actual vote counting/reporting. So the fuck what! If you want reliable elections, then secure your voting hardware/software. Everything else is free speech: attempts at persuasion cannot be considered meddling/interference! According the US law, people from any country have a right to persuade Americans in their opinions at any time through speech/text.
2
Putin's right: the US, and I'd say the UK as well, doesn't play by the internationally-prepared rules/treaties; the US just blusters, makes belligerent noises, instead of utilizing the mechanisms established for such interactions. The US extracts special treatment based on its status and bluster, and, traditionally, uses it to bully other nations.
1
Alitas Jiromato, Watergate bears only a passing resemblance to "this affair", and, relevance anyway? It doesn't matter at all who's funding RT! Not a wit! Who's funding ABC? It doesn't matter; what matters is what YOU do with any given informational presentation! If the only choice that occurs to you when experiencing informational presentation is to "believe it or not", then your critical skills are non-existent, and your opinion, therefore, unimportant, except insofar as it may motivate you to irrational action. Any information/argument should be evaluated on its merits, whether proffered by god or an idiot--that's how logic operates. Funding source knowledge may provide insight into the biases you detect. But if you intend to "believe" based upon the funding source, then "reason" is no concern of yours, is it?
1
I largely agree, except this "Russian collusion" narrative has not been demonstrated as even likely, to my satisfaction. All I see is a bunch of tough talk and posturing (for the next election, most likely), no evidence. Just the fact that the DNC servers were not confiscated as a matter of national security stinks to high heaven. And Seth Rich? The problem I'm beginning to see depends from the difficulty of holding so many points of interest in awareness together to form a "big picture" overview. The resulting tendency is to focus on higher profile points to the exclusion of other aspects with less immediate interest. As long as the big picture isn't too complicated this isn't usually much of an issue. But this whole situation has expanded/evolved without becoming much more clear. Now we have new Page-Strzok texts implicating the Obama white house! It's very challenging to juggle the known information into an accurate understanding without creating bias against the future integration of as-yet unknown information. And what if what we're actually talking about is the US govt spying on the Republican party and reporting it to the Clinton campaign?? Because that's the image forming in my analysis.
1