a) There's no proof Russia was behind the DNC hacks
b) Even if they were, why does no one care about the corruption that was uncovered? Don't shoot the messenger...
c) Does no one remember the whole Snowden/NSA thing? Every state hacks every other state, the US does it more than most, other countries don't whine nearly as much.
Recent weeks have also shattered the idea of the US 'free media'. So much propaganda Stalin would be proud...
You know, the ones that were deleted years ago.
He was not asking Russia to hack anything, he was asking that if the Russians had already got access to those emails (due to their own hacking) then they should provide them to the FBI. It's a subtle but important difference.
It's also worth noting that this is well within the scope of a treaty [0] between the US and Russia (signed by none other than Bill Clinton) covering mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (which this surely is).
If you believe that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack various people in order to influence the US election, you have probably been deliberately misled by various media outlets.
I say deliberately because if you look at the media outlets driving this story, it's the same ones the DNCleaks show are in direct collusion with the DNC. The DNCleaks also contain information on a strategy that the DNC would try to distract the public from Hillary's email scandal if anything was released from that by trying to put the blame on Russia trying to influence the election (playing to the general public's confirmation bias that Trump and Putin are buddy-buddy).
The thing is though, that if there was enough evidence of wrongdoing in those deleted emails that they could influence the outcome of the US election, then Hillary Clinton probably shouldn't be running for president in the first place.
Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine if the deleted emails contain incriminating content that would cause Hillary to lose the election. Imagine Russia hacked Hillary's server and got access to them. Imagine if they don't release them. Imagine if Hillary becomes president.
Congratulations, now Russia has something they can use to blackmail the president of the United States.
Either there's nothing of importance in the emails and Russia providing them (assuming they even had them) would have no influence on the election, or there is something of importance in them and that disqualifies Hillary as a suitable candidate.
Either way, none of that is on Trump.
0: https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/22
So it is necessary for anyone in discussion to keep in mind that there is always a higher chance that the perception on Russia is worse than it really is.
I suppose you would also say that Russia had nothing to do with with Litvinenko's murder, Nemtsov's murder, Shooting down MH-17, having no soldiers in Eastern Ukraine, etc.
And concerning your comment about Stalin (Russians always did adore their Tyrants), he would have been very proud today.
Over 50 % of Russians have embraced him.
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-economy-communist-party...
> For the first time this year, a majority of Russians (52 percent) indicated in an annual opinion poll that they considered Stalin’s bloody rule “probably” or “definitely” a positive thing.
Just because Russia is guilty of some things, does not mean that they are automatically guilty of others.
> nothing to do with with Litvinenko's murder
Probably the Russian government was involved.
> Nemtsov's murder,
Nothing has been proven, it is just pure speculation. I really don't think the government benefited by killing him on red square -- it created a huge embarrassment.
> Shooting down MH-17,
Russia may have provided assistance to rebels (e.g. in the form of air defense). But there is no proof at all that a civilian plane was shot down on purpose on orders of the Russian government. In most probability it is a tragic accident (as happened earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812). These accidents are bound to happen when civilian planes fly over warzones.
> comment about Stalin (Russians always did adore their Tyrants),
Russians have a complex and tragic history. It is not that easy to reject all of your history (the good and the bad).
I wonder if you are equally vocal about neighbouring countries who still adore their Nazi independence fighters...
This isn't Reddit. The folks around here are quite Intelligent.
As for Russians' somewhat positive opinion about Stalin, it might have to do with the Great Patriotic War aka. World War 2, in which some 20% of citizens of the USSR were casualties. Think of the scale of their suffering, the threat they faced, and the fact that Stalin was their leader when they fought back and defeated Nazi Germany.
The US has never in its whole history suffered catastrophes even close to what Russia has suffered multiple times in the last century. You have to remember that when you think about why Russia is the way it is today (it actually goes for most eastern slavs - my grandparents were Ukrainian and the slavic psyche you could say is a mix of stoicism and cynicism - probably due to constant conflict and catastrophe, invasions by enemies, brutal despots not to mention the harsh climate).