>> And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.
This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.
The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe you misunderstood the parent post. They were pointing out the hypocrisy of caring about unprotected email servers now while not caring when it was done by a member of the same party. I don't believe the parent comment was saying that unprotected email servers are a-okay, just voicing frustration at the hypocrisy of the Republican party on that particular issue. It's possible that it is not hypocrisy, that an entirely different set of people were Republicans during Bush than those who are upset at Clinton's email controversy now; however, I don't believe that is the case.
In my opinion, hypocrisy is like cherry-picking data. It exists to validate your potentially false claims or misguide those viewing your results. Sometimes it's intentional and other times it is innocent. Sure, the results of the election shows that perhaps hypocrisy, at least the kind shown about the email servers, wasn't a deciding factor this time; however, should the hypocrisy turn into distinct lies and reveal any intended misguidance, I do hope it regains importance.
This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.
The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??
I never understood that logic.