[yakcyll]

Pardon my ignorance, but as a non-American, I still have no bloody clue what the election hacking was about.

That, plus, it shouldn't matter who has done it, since (especially if it was Russia) they most likely won't be persecuted for it. What the focus should be put on is making sure this won't happen again - but that the general public isn't very interested in.

[akerro]

Because 'hack' is poorly understood word with negative meaning that was created by mass-media - it is and will be used everywhere to justify everything to anyone. People just need to know that hacking is a thing for criminal magicians. It sounds best when it's repeated by every media, every politician on every possible occasion.

Puf - hacked elections, puf - hacked city, puf - hacked country, puf - hacked your iCloud (well, not really, your password was 1234567).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJq3OiP6Sow

[camus2]

> Pardon my ignorance, but as a non-American, I still have no bloody clue what the election hacking was about.

There was no "election hacking", a DNC executive failed for a fishing scam, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was the Russians.

It's interesting how liberals became CIA and FBI shills in less that 2 weeks after the election, while ignoring the wide spread corruption in their party. Now maybe Russia did it, it doesn't make the content of the emails less true. There is also an interesting display of anti Russian xenophobia on liberal media, which proves that the party of "progress" is also capable of the worst when it comes to hate speech and warmongering, now labelling anyone who disagree as "traitor".

[akhilcacharya]

> while ignoring the wide spread corruption in their party

Because the crime of breaking in is far more disturbing than what was found, given that even the "victim" brushed it off? If you ask people what the worst part of the emails was, they point to out-of-context blurbs that are either common practices or misleading.

I have legitimate cause for concern when the President to be inaugurated does not believe intelligence about an American adversary.

[Inconel]

>concern when the President to be inaugurated does not believe intelligence about an American adversary

I dislike Trump for many reasons but, based on the track record of the US intelligence community over the course of the last 10-15 years, if he approaches the intelligence briefings that are fed to him with the same skepticism that he has displayed for climate science, I can only see that as a positive.

[curt15]

Do we want him to brush off the next "Bin Laden determined to strike US" intelligence reports? Let's not forget that the Iraq WMD fiasco was due in large part to Bush being fixated on hitting Iraq even before 9/11 happened and putting his thumb on the whole intelligence process. Obama on the other hand has demonstrated no such predispositions toward confronting Russia and was even criticized by the GOP earlier in his presidency for being too friendly toward them (the US already tried a "reset" with Russia not too long ago).

[krapp]

> if he approaches the intelligence briefings that are fed to him with the same skepticism that he has displayed for climate science, I can only see that as a positive.

A skeptic would at least concede the possibility that there is some truth to climate science, despite the political machinations around it, and actually consider the evidence on its own terms. Trump appears to believe the entire thing is a Chinese conspiracy to harm American business. That's not skepticism, it's just denial.

[a_imho]

Now maybe Russia did it, it doesn't make the content of the emails less true.

This is the part I don't get. It is easily discarded because it is attributed to bad guys. Ad hominem / guilt by association.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, the "liberals" are only a parody of liberals at this point. But then again, the "conservatives" are only a parody of conservatives, too...