So Russia should be involved in every US election from now on? They get to pick one candidate to smear and effecively hold the political process hostage? 

Now the question is what do they want, and that's where things get a bit omnious, but don't kid yourself, Russia didn't do this because they care abou the US. It is done to destabilize the US, no ifs, ands, or buts, their long game here is to destabilize the US and to push it to break apart so that they can further their agenda in Europe and globally. 

Hand waving it away because this time a candidate you preferred won doesn't change that fact. They did not do this for the "lulz". Several things are expected now I suspect, chiefly from Trump that sanctions against Russia will have to be dropped, and NATO needs to back off so Russia can have more leverage in "influencing" other Eastern European countries. 

I think from now on actually Russia will interject into all major elections, US and Europe included. Why not? It works great. You can destablize other countries by bankrolling/pushing candidates who are either unhinged themselves or willing to be manipulated by you. 

That's not what I said.

What I said is that since we know that media/special interests/foreign powers/etc will always want to try and influence US elections (this should not be surprising to anybody, seriously. I mean really. It would be far more surprising if they DIDNT try.) and the recent hacks exposed vulnerabilities, then it falls onto the political parties to make sure they are not vulnerable to such influence.

It does not excuse the said groups from their attempts at espionage. And prosecution/retaliation (once irrefutable proof is found) is warranted. The same way it does not excuse the US when it does shady espionage activities. But espionage is a reality in our world. Let's not pretend it is not.

When is the last time a foreign government *actively* interjected themselves into a US election by doing things like trying to actively doing things like hacking into computers to favor one candidate over another? 

The Saudis or Chinese or whoever may donate to a favorable candidate (though often they just donate to both sides), but this is the first time I can recall an American election having active involvement from a foreign government, one which is lets not kid ourselves, hostile to the United States.

Even at the height of the Cold War, Russia would not have dared then to try to interfere with an American election. 

Congratulations on both misreading and inserting your own agenda. Not only did did my analogy paint both parties as insidious, but I recommended both parties get punished. 

But, you know. Keep up the good work. I'm sure you'll get a job as MSNBC one day. 

Punished how exactly? And more specifically by who? Trump? He's going to punish Russia for aiding him in winning the election? Does that make any sense?

If I'm Putin I'd keep on doing this every election from now, in fact I'd increase my investement in it. It's working out great. I would also look to intefere more in European elections. 

I think they do have dirt on Trump too, but they are smart in using it, they can hold it over his head now and save it for 2018 if Trump does not comply with their demands. This is how you play the game. This has been done in Eastern Europe for years now, Russia will push a pro-Russian candidate and smear the hell out of the other party. 

It's actually quite smart what they're doing. 

Textbook "talking in circles". You could be the next Anderson Cooper.

You made a point about "punishing both parties", I replied by saying how exactly do you propose to punish them? 

Answer me this, do you think they are not emboldened right now? Do you think their end game here is to have a stable America? 

I read the report. Not entirely convinced this was Russian intelligence tbh. It was mostly circumstantial evidence.

How is donation not active "interjection"? Just because we've never heard of something, doesn't mean they didn't try. Secrecy is the whole point of espionage. The US meddles in foreign policy/governments/elections all the time. Is it only bad when someone else does it to you? And there are many approaches to espionage. W/c is mostly done to exploit weaknesses. Which takes us back to my original point: the hacks exposed a vulnerability in the parties. It is now up to them to protect themselves from such attacks. It does not excuse those that engage in espionage when caught, however.

I notice a bit of arrogance, with a touch of hypocrisy, tho.

"We can do it to others, but don't dare do it to us!!"

The Saudis, as ass backwards as some of their domestic policy might be, don't really have any active interest in destablizing the United States as whole.

The Russians do. That to begin with is a fairly large difference. 

They have military textbooks that state they want the United States to collapse upon itself due to isolationist and racial disharmony (hmm, what kind of candidate would you want in that case? Hmmmm), UK to alienate itself from Europe (hello Brexit!), Ukraine annexed, and wish to see the "Finlandization" of Europe, if you're not familiar with that term is a Cold War term when Russia didn't directly invade Finland but basically had so much influence over Finland that it was a puppet state in effect. 

Does it matter what a foreign government's interests are? Influence is influence. They tend to be selfish and they are seldom if ever in the interests of the parties being influenced. Let's not split hairs here.

Again, destablization of governments one doesn't like is practically US MO. You practically own the rights to it. Also, I doubt Russia would wants to completely destabilize the US as the world's economy is so tied to it. Maybe in the long-long term. Just because they might want something, doesn't mean they think it's a good idea.

And you're still missing my point...