Eh? What's the difference between a re-run and starting something that has already happened before and therefore would qualify as being *again* or 'a re-run' for all the zero difference that would make because the cold war is something that never really went away completely?
There is no 'changing of mind'.


See above. These things never go away, then get shoved on the back-burner to warm up a bit before being shoved in a bag behind the ancient peas again.


Of course it is! It always is! When is a 'spy vs spy' thing *not* about grandstanding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38301686

His Russian connections are probably all "mainstream media lies" too! I'm divided tbh. On one hand I've some schadenfreude at the downfall of America, with all their boasting about their great democracy and freedom of speech, but on the other it's a bit frightening!

You said "reads like an attempt to re-run the Cold War." Attempt means motive.

This is a reaction, not an offensive. This is about stopping the loss of boundaries with the US government and tangled with oil company deals. Can't see why that isn't blindingly obvious.

Making it 'spy versus spy' is apologizing for Russia and minimizing what occurred. We have to make judgements at some point. Judges don't rule, 'your word against theirs.' They make a finding.

To sum up, I guess it feels okay if it wasn't your election that got tampered with

What are you talking about, I've only said that once haven't I?

No, the definition of a conspiracy theory is to have a theory of a conspiracy without presenting any actual evidence and basing it on mere conjecture and hearsay.
You're doing it again 'so and so says it's true, therefore it must be'.
Citing unnamed sources is usually something on here which we criticise tabloid newspapers for when we know that they're making something up. You have sources who can stand by their comments or you have nothing. You have tittle tattle and rumour. With something as major as the idea that a foreign national power tried to circumvent the result of a national Presidential election it would be a necessity that evidence MUST be presented before the American public. If the American public just let that fly by then they themselves probably aren't being responsible as a citizen.

I don't need to ask myself why some Republicans are coming together with Democrats over this issue. Because it was evident during the campaign that some Republicans were anti-Trump as much as the Democrats. It would also be naive to assume that some Republicans aren't a part of the same machine as Hillary Clinton and her cronies.
There's also the thought that Donald Trump probably isn't what you'd call a natural Republican anyway, which would play some part in why some of the party faithful aren't happy with the direction that they fear Trump may take the party. Mitt Romney and John McCain are two such characters who spring to mind.

No I'm not saying 'so and so' says it's true. I'm saying 18 intelligence agencies think that.

See the difference?

This may help you see some of the circumstantial evidence in the case: who was targeted, long term investment, use of Russian language, connection to Fancy Bear;

https://www.google.com/amp/arstechni...ump/%3Famp%3D1


Where does it say that the public is entitled to all intelligence information? Can you show me?

No shit that Russia aren't America's friends. Are you surprised after the last six months or so? Clinton has even been threatening war with them when she thought she was going to become the president. If anyone wasn't just a bit worried about that then they might need their head testing.
If Russia aren't America's friends whose doing do you think that is down to. At least Trump has said that he can work with them. Isn't that usually an attitude we would normally consider to be a responsible approach when it comes to foreigner policy?

If Russia did hack the emails quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised. But it would be naive to think that different countries don't spy on each other. It's uncomfortable to think that this goes on, but it does. In which case the Democratic Party shouldn't have been so careless and lax with their disregard for email security.
It is another case of the pot calling the kettle black too. As it wasn't so long ago that it was found that America had been spying on Angela Merkel. I don't recall American officials trying to make a major crisis out of it, and curiously Germany didn't fly off the handle either.

To make out that Trump has been in cahoots with Russia over this idea that they may have been responsible for the hacking of Democratic Party email servers is tin foil hat stuff. And why is nothing being made of the Democrats' blase approach to email server security?

Where is the evidence? So far we have had a statement from such agencies as the CIA speaking utter rot! Apparently, this intelligence regarding Russia is from a anonymous source using said source's the anonymity to not show this evidence? Does anyone even believe that this intelligence actually exists? Because, where I stand, it sure stinks to high heaven!

Now you're overstating. She said responses, not war.

Yes different countries spy and if they're caught, they get 'responses.'

How did the RNC get hacked? Careless?

Show me your evidence for 'utter rot.'

Your evidence as to where 17 intelligence agencies got their information. I'm sure they haven't told you where.

And more specifically Russia. One minute they're commie, the other they're far-right.

They even claimed that Russia had invisible submarines at the time. When asked for evidence of this they said that because the submarines were invisible it's hard to present evidence but it just shows you how good they are.

I see we you used the age old tactic of deflection here. Simply put, these agencies have not shown one bit of evidence... wouldn't it be in the public interest to show this evidence?

Here's some REAL evidence for you to chew over.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204E

Now I wonder why this has happened? Maybe because of the lack of evidence!

So I guess this thread now needs to edit it's title from "confirmed" to unconfirmed and lack of any evidence at all?!

---edit--- It could be advantageous to report this thread as "fake news"

I could describe dozens of 'what about' scenarios. But it swerves from the main point. It's not about goodies and baddies. I think most people here would state that Russia have hardly been a paradigm of virtue over the years themselves. But to say 'what about Russia?' is sidetracking from the point which was about America's less than trustworthy track record when considering their credibility when it comes to being truthful to the public.

Better the devil you know though eh

Then I guess that if enough people believe it to be true then it must be then. A bit like how they arrived at the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
They played The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game back then too.

'Unnamed sources' is bullshit until names can be presented who can then be called to account and questioned.
If we are critical of the press like The Daily Mail and The Guardian when they 'report' using the old 'sources revealed' chestnut then we should be holding a government to the same standards, if not a higher standard.

Nothing like that. Did you misread my post?

Not open to debate???
Jesus, that line in itself tells you so much in itself.
Not open to debate.
So what happens if we want to debate it? It's not allowed? It's not acceptable? It's wrong? We shouldn't question power?

Of course it's open to debate.
I'm not stating that Russia definitely didn't hack the Democrat email servers, but it is open to debate.

Has anyone said there shouldn't be an investigation? Or that information that is safe to be declassified, shouldn't be?

We elect our representatives to hear things that might not be revealed to the public and act on them. Otherwise we wouldn't need representatives.

There were a lot of Dems against the war in Iraq. Not a good analogy. It was well known at the time by the public, what the problem was with that strategy.

Would this include Merkel being spied on by America? Or is it okay when they do it?

You've got to laugh. The head of Britain's top spying agency MI6 telling the public that it's wrong to spy.

The conclusion he heard from 17 agencies isn't debatable. Most likely some juicy details in there.

Well I said several times now that if someone gets caught, they suffer consequences, didn't I?

Anything from embarrassment to sanctions.

Spying and implying bad things about a Presdential candidate who wants cleaner air and national healthcare, are two different things.

No it's not open for debate. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204E this article will set things straight.

No it really isn't.


No, it is that this kind of accusation is serious enough to require proof, not 'evidence' from unnamed sources which is being reported in a way that is indistinguishable from conflating 'apparently by people in former soviet states' with 'it was the Russians done it'.

Far better to wait for the results of a proper conclusive (as far as it can be) investigation by people in possession of the full facts (as far as they can be determined) before going off half-cocked and poking a bear with a pointy stick.

Did you read it?

It said this:

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named."

The only thing that isn't nailed down is that they wanted Trump. It's agreed they wanted to compromise Hillary.

They don't disputed the overall analysis. There are 17 agencies supporting it.