It's PUTIN'S FAULT!

[detbuch]

Here is vox day's 16 principles of the alt right to which I alluded in the above post:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/...ht-is.html?m=1

I fail to see any Nazi or white supremacy affiliation in them.

BTW, the comments that follow are a good discussion.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Politifact is a joke....i'm waiting for the "facts" before jumping to conclusions or believing conspiracies regarding Russia messing in our elections

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...king/92514592/

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."


what are the facts your waiting for?

[scottw]

how many said Iraq had WMD's?....hmmmmm??

and you just linked a story from a guy who cites Politifact as his source for his facts..." according to Politifact...blah..blah..blah..."......Politifact is a joke

I'm pretty sure democrats would be pushing for Putin to get the Nobel Peace Prize if it were discovered that Russia hacked the RNC and disclosed embarrassing emails that might sway voters and the result of the election...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Here is vox day's 16 principles of the alt right to which I alluded in the above post:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/...ht-is.html?m=1

I fail to see any Nazi or white supremacy affiliation in them.

BTW, the comments that follow are a good discussion.

I've been around a long time...been all over the place.....I've yet to run into a Nazi, White Supremacist or KKK member....they should be easy to spot.....and apparently they are everywhere in sufficient numbers to sway an election....but voter fraud does not exist

[The Dad Fisherman]

Don't see how the Russians interfered with the election.

It was held on the date it was scheduled, the polls opened on time, people voted, votes were tallied, and a winner was declared. All seemed pretty orderly to me....

Now did they hack into some poorly secured servers owned by the DNC and HRC? And did they expose all the lies and corruption going on in the DNC? Hmmmmm.....

If Putin's last name was Woodward or Bernstein he'd probably get a Pulitzer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

The CIA concluded that the Russians not only tried to disrupt the election but specifically to aid Trump. And Trump ended up dismissing not only the intelligence agency's conclusion but also dismissed the intelligence community all together by calling its conclusions ridiculous. So the Russians didn't interfere with the elections yet Trump used the same emails they exposed to smear Clinton.🙈🙉🙊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Don't see how the Russians interfered with the election.

It was held on the date it was scheduled, the polls opened on time, people voted, votes were tallied, and a winner was declared. All seemed pretty orderly to me....

Now did they hack into some poorly secured servers owned by the DNC and HRC? And did they expose all the lies and corruption going on in the DNC? Hmmmmm.....

If Putin's last name was Woodward or Bernstein he'd probably get a Pulitzer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose

Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried

and now Trump and his supporter dont believe it?? not based on facts or any contrary information to support their position just the excuse they(dems and establishment R's) are upset they lost and he won...

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House,

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” his first Sunday news-show appearance since the Nov. 8 election. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.”

What road real or imagined with Trump take us down???

"Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried "

Can you support that please? I think most people, regardless of party, don't like what Russia did.

What's more important than how those emails were revealed, is what they revealed. Hilary getting debate questions ahead of time. The DNC paying operatives to start fights at Trump rallies. Hilary and the DNC working to sabotage Bernie's chances.

Seems to me that all liberals care about is how those emails were hacked. I haven't heard many liberals express concern about the content of the emails. Nor have I heard anyone at the DNC or the Hilary campaign, dispute the content of the emails.

Trump is now saying that if the FBI and CIA agree, he presumes they are correct. Hate to inject facts into your rant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

its very simple you either think its an issue or you take Trump stance . and don’t believe it at all

The mind boggles at the thought of where you get your information (Pravda? The Daily Worker? Tass?). Again, Trump has been saying that if multiple agencies say Russia is behind the hacks, he will presume they are correct. Look it up.

[Jim in CT]

WDMSO -

for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...us-report.html

Russia tried to influence the election by exposing truthful info about some disgusting Democrat tactics. There is zero evidence that the WikiLeaks leaks, played a major role in the outcome.

And if the leaks DID influence the outcome, is it the fault of those who exposed the truth? Or is it the fault of those who engaged in shameful tactics?

WDMSO, you want to comment on that, please?

Hilary ran against the most unpopular candidate ever, in terms of his unfavorable polling.

She spent WAY MORE than he did.

She cheated - got debate questions ahead of time from CNN, and the DNC hired thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

She had the entire media, except for Foxnews, in her camp.

All that...and she got creamed in the electoral college. Naturally, her followers are shrieking their big, fat, red mouths and asking, in true totalitarian fashion, for a small number of people to reject the expressed will of the electorate.

In a democracy, sometimes the voters will not go your way. Them's the breaks. Hilary doesn't have superdelegates in the general election to hand it to her, like she had available to her in the primary.

And naturally, Michelle Obama is right back to hating her country. She says we have no hope. Investors sure seem to feel quite differently. Tell everyone who has a 401(k), that we are in a hopeless situation...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

Every news outlet and social media site tried to influence the election....

Interfering and influencing are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

This.
Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

Yes, but, as TDF noted, you use the key word here--"influence." That is significantly different from the words used in the other posts--"interfere" and "disrupt".

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

No they did not. If they actually were able to physically change the vote count, especially if that reversed the results, that would be significant enough to void the election.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

Yes, as do most other countries, including the U.S. That is, we try to influence the policies in various ways including cyber. During the so-called "cold war" we broadcast pro-American, anti-communist messages over their airwaves. We bribe with trade deals and foreign "aid", coerce with military pacts and military buildups, disrupt enemy economies by creating economic pacts with their competitors, and other clandestine ways. And yes, we even "interfere" in elections such as how Obama tried to do against Netanyahu.

But the most dangerous kind of influence is actual penetration of governments with agents in high government places which are actually able to direct policies--as the Soviets did in the U.S. in the 1930's to 1950's era. Moscow had agents, both foreign as well as American Communists or fellow travelers or just useful idiots who were able to influence our policies in Asia and Eastern Europe to the point that China and all of Eastern Europe were basically handed over to Mao or Moscow.

We all know about Oppenheimer and the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. But there were others equally or even more importantly, in the State Department, or Treasury, or Agriculture, or labor departments, as well as other influential places, and those who were close key advisers to FDR. And there were, very importantly, turncoat or sympathetic journalists and academics who spread false reports and propaganda.

China need not have become Communist. Chiang Kai Sheck
was actually defeating Mao with our provision of military equipment. He actually had driven the reds into Northern China where they tried to hold off Chiang's forces even though the Communists were badly equipped. But before Chiang could finish off the Reds the U.S. abruptly changed its stance toward him, forced a cease fire, and the Communists were able to recover and get re-equipped by Moscow, even with equipment we had given to it as an ally against the Nazis. And our military aid to Chiang dwindled or ceased. And he was driven to Formosa (Taiwan), which is the non-Communist remnant of China today.

This was all accomplished in various coordinated means of direct influence. There was false journalism (fake news long before the current crop), as well as key figures in our government cabinets and agencies. These were all used to influence the U.S. to desire the countries along the Soviet borders to be friendly to the Soviet Union.

Pro-Communist journalists who were either sympathizers or actually Communist Party members advanced Communist interests through organs such as Time Magazine and its Moscow correspondent, Richard Lauterbach who was confirmed by Venona as a Communist Party member, Guenther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor, Israel Epstein of The New York Times, Mark Gayn of Colliers, Edgar Snow of The Saturday Evening Post, and other smaller publications such as the New Republic and a Communist front publication Amerasia.

They wrote stories praising Mao and denigrating Chiang. Made it appear that Mao was actually doing the heavy fighting against Japan while portraying Chiang as doing little and ineffectivey when just the opposite was true. They painted Mao as the true and future leader who would make China the future haven of a free, egalitarian, productive, and happy nation. And made Chiang out to be a throwback to the old oppressive imperial regime.

They bolstered the efforts of diplomats such as Communist sympathizer John Stuart Service and others to return to the FDR administration reports glowingly, and falsely, favorable toward Mao and the Soviets. And this in turn made the work easier for those in high places as advisers to the President such as John Davies in State, and others such as Harry Hopkins, Laughlin Currie, and many more, who were at FDR's side and elbow.

In short, it was the advice of actual Soviet agents in FDR's administration which persuaded him to give China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin. Needlessly so.

FDR was persuaded by them to believe, as he said, as told to his first envoy to Moscow, William Bullitt, that Stalin "wanted only security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work for world democracy and peace." FDR also wrote to Churchill "I think there is nothing more important than that Stalin feel that we mean to support him without qualification and at great sacrifice." AT Yalta, the conference where he effectively handed Eastern Europe over to the Soviet sphere, he told British Field Marshall Alan Brooke "of one thing I am certain, Stalin is not an imperialist."

Among many others, FDR was influenced in his pro-Stalin thinking by Soviet spy and sympathizer Joseph Davies of the State Dept. and Soviet agent Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent who was ensconced in the Agriculture Dept.

The U.S. Army cryptographers who "hacked" Soviet correspondence to Communist agents in the U.S. government were able, under a project named "Venona, to decode about 3,000 coded messages which confirmed the names of hundreds of Communist agents in our Federal Gvt. agencies and departments. These Venona papers were declassified and released in the mid nineteen nineties. The FBI already had, since the early 1930's, several of these names listed as possible Soviet agents. And the KGB files which were released in the mid nineties also corroborated and confirmed the names and others. There had also been in the 1930's House UnAmerican Activities Committee ongoing investigation of Communists employed by the Federal government which had about 180 suspected or confirmed employed agents.

For various reasons, the FDR administration was lax or totally averse to removing those exposed by the FBI and the Army cryptographers and the House committee. The laxness, tardiness of dismissing the infiltrators lasted into the Truman administration.

The maligned Joseph McCarthy in 1950 restored the fight, this time in the Senate, to investigate, expose, and remove the enemy agents. For various reasons he was rejected, vilified, and destroyed for trying. In the end, he was proven right.

That is the kind of influence, interference, and disruption that is truly destructive to "our democracy." It is the kind which comes from within. And it only can happen within if we have those in high places who are supportive of it. Who are its agents.

The chicken-chit stuff that Putin does is more annoying than anything else. And, since we must spend time and energy talking about it, shouldn't we be as much, or more, concerned with if the information is true? I find it strange that we are more concerned with hacking and attempted influence than if what is revealed is true. Even more strange that we consider the truth to be an interference or a disruption.

[Nebe]

Facebook is more to blame than Russia. Facebook is also probably to blame for the Arab spring uprisings as well. It's the most amazing tool to spread propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried "

Can you support that please? I think most people, regardless of party, don't like what Russia did.

Seem's you haven't been reading post in this thread

What's more important than how those emails were revealed, is what they revealed. Hilary getting debate questions ahead of time. The DNC paying operatives to start fights at Trump rallies. Hilary and the DNC working to sabotage Bernie's chances.

See you support the hacks .. because you like the outcome ..or believe them to be the truth



Seems to me that all liberals care about is how those emails were hacked. I haven't heard many liberals express concern about the content of the emails. Nor have I heard anyone at the DNC or the Hilary campaign, dispute the content of the emails.

Trump is now saying that if the FBI and CIA agree, he presumes they are correct. Hate to inject facts into your rant.

Here we go again he NOWS SAYS .. Why now?? because he is getting push back ,,, thats the only reason but Thats the problem with trump he has more flip flops then you can count ..and you and his supporters carry his excuse's proudly

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO -

for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...us-report.html

Russia tried to influence the election by exposing truthful info about some disgusting Democrat tactics. There is zero evidence that the WikiLeaks leaks, played a major role in the outcome.

And if the leaks DID influence the outcome, is it the fault of those who exposed the truth? Or is it the fault of those who engaged in shameful tactics?

WDMSO, you want to comment on that, please?

Hilary ran against the most unpopular candidate ever, in terms of his unfavorable polling.

She spent WAY MORE than he did.

She cheated - got debate questions ahead of time from CNN, and the DNC hired thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

She had the entire media, except for Foxnews, in her camp.

All that...and she got creamed in the electoral college. Naturally, her followers are shrieking their big, fat, red mouths and asking, in true totalitarian fashion, for a small number of people to reject the expressed will of the electorate.

In a democracy, sometimes the voters will not go your way. Them's the breaks. Hilary doesn't have superdelegates in the general election to hand it to her, like she had available to her in the primary.

And naturally, Michelle Obama is right back to hating her country. She says we have no hope. Investors sure seem to feel quite differently. Tell everyone who has a 401(k), that we are in a hopeless situation...

Again you seem to to read I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose.. but thats not the issue its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Every news outlet and social media site tried to influence the election....

Interfering and influencing are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

I'm pretty sure if you look(not very hard)you can find info that was reported by the msm for political reasons after being obtained obtained by less than scrupulous methods and democrats claiming that the content was far more important than the questionable way it was "stumbled upon"

I think Obama was successful in his first run for office after the sealed divorce records of his opponent were mysteriously obtained by the media

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm pretty sure if you look(not very hard)you can find info that was reported by the msm for political reasons after being obtained obtained by less than scrupulous methods and democrats claiming that the content was far more important than the questionable way it was "stumbled upon"

I think Obama was successful in his first run for office after the sealed divorce records of his opponent were mysteriously obtained by the media

So we do know who hacked other people's emails?

While we don't know to what magnitude we do know it impacted some people's thinking (along w/Comey). Certainly no one can claim it threw the election though.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"See you support the hacks "

Once again, you respond to something that I didn't say. I actually said the opposite. We need to investigate the hacks and try to ensure it doesn't happen again. Fair enough?

But I think we also should discuss what the hacks revealed. You haven't said you have any issue with what they revealed. Yes, I like what they revealed. I can't deny that.

"or believe them to be the truth "

Is anyone disputing that? CNN fired the woman who gave debate questions to Hilary. The DNC fired the 2 guys who were hiring thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

I see a ton of news coverage about how the hacks are bad (and I agree). I haven't seen any stories suggesting that the hacked emails were untrue or fabricated. Have you?

Donna Brazil basically admitted giving debate questions to Hilary, when she said that as an activist, she was proud of what she did. She's not denying it, so I wonder on what basis you are questioning it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Donna Brazil basically admitted giving debate questions to Hilary,.

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again.

I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried?

ok...for starters...no more unsecured servers in the bathrooms of administration officials...even if their last name is Clinton

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you seem to to read I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose.. but thats not the issue its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

"its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue "

So the actions of the Dems that were revealed in the emails, have no importance?

I agree the hack is bad. But if the Dems weren't doing anything unethical, there would have been nothing to leak.

As I posted, Trump is conceding that if the FBI and the CIA are on the same page, than they are probably correct.

You want to say Trump is an azz, you get no argument from me. See, I can admit shortcomings in Republicans. I didn't see one word from you about what the emails reveal, except you question their accuracy. Given the way people got fired for what the emails claim they did, you seem to be the only one denying the validity of the leaked emails.

"I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking "

Who, exactly, is happy about the hacking? Sean Hannity maybe. That's about it.

Who on your side, is upset about what the hacks revealed? Anyone?

[Jim in CT]

Also, I remember a few years ago, Mitt Romney claimed that Putin was going to be an adversary.

Do you all remember Obama's reaction to that?

"Hey, Mitt, the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back". Haw haw haw, Mr President, please stop, my stomach hurts from laughing.

Obama - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

I've been wondering that too, it's not like team Obama/Hilary have done anything to curtail the guy. But Trump might be more of an active ally.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

Donna Brazil has been doing this for 35 years.

When Bush 41 was running against Dukakis, a Democrat staffer leaked a story to the press that Bush was having an affair, cheating on Barbara (yeah, right). The staffer was fired by the Dukakis campaign for such an outrageous action. The person who got fired for lying - Donna Brazil. She's STILL the head of the DNC, right? She's been lying about those who disagree with her for 30 years, and the Democrats still keep her around.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory.

Wow thats a lie if i have ever seen one . Trump won so are trying to delegitimize Trumps victory not me ... ..

I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

Making excuses like they always way do it .. sound like you accept it (support not against )




OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

Admitting it happened lets start there but we cant even get there ..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-story-sham/

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

But Trump supports are more like

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But Trump supports are more like

fixed it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory.

wdmso reply: Wow thats a lie if i have ever seen one . Trump won so are trying to delegitimize Trumps victory not me ... ..

It's not a lie. It's an opinion. Based on, as I said (and which you left out of my quote) "This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again."


I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

wdmso reply: Making excuses like they always way do it .. sound like you accept it (support not against )

What I said was not an excuse. It was a factual statement. The hacking is not unusual for Russia. Nor is it unexpected. That you see that as a support for it implies to me that your seeing a lot of words in my quote that are not actually in it.


OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

wdmso reply: Admitting it happened lets start there but we cant even get there ..

My statement to which you replied put us there then asked what then.

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

wdmso reply: But Trump supports are more like the faga emoticon

Your emoticon doesn't address anything I said. Certainly not my last sentence which your emoticon followed.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

Why does that surprise you? Didn't Manafort get like $20M from the Russions and Tillerson get a friends of Russia award or something like that? According to Trump's son "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets".

From Politico

More Republicans viewing Putin favorably

The GOP is warming to Russian President Vladimir Putin — even as evidence of his regime’s interference in the election intensifies.

While some Republicans in Congress have slammed the Russian strongman and called for investigations into the Kremlin’s attempts to influence the election, the party’s voters are increasingly fond of Putin.

The dramatic shift in sentiment — for a party that once defined itself by its staunch opposition to the Soviet Union — comes as President-elect Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to criticize Putin and signaled a different tone with Russia policy.

Trump has downplayed any role Russia played in the election and high profile hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. And some of his top appointments — including his pick for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his selection for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson — have longstanding ties to Russia and personal relationships with Putin himself.

The change in views has been swift.

Back in July 2014 just 10 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Putin, according to a poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov. By September of 2016, that number rose to 24 percent. And it's even higher today: 37 percent of Republicans view Putin favorably, the poll found in December.

While the Russian president still has a net un-favorability rating among Republicans, his standing has improved dramatically – from a net negative of 66 points to a mere 10 points.
By comparison, only 17 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of President Barack Obama, the December poll found. Obama’s net negative among Republicans is 64 points – significantly worse than the party’s take on Putin.

Within the GOP there has always been a faction with more sympathetic views toward Putin and Russia. Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher have taken a more open-minded view of Putin’s behavior in places like Crimea and Syria. But for years Rohrbacher and others like him were pariahs who existed outside the mainstream.

Now Rohrabacher — who was a speechwriter for Reagan and talks of fighting communism — is being floated for State Department appointments. (Rohrabacher said Thursday that he had been considering a role in Trump’s State Department but decided to stay in Congress.)
There’s a lot of negative things about [Putin] that are accurate but there are a lot of negative things about him that have been said that are inaccurate,” Rohrabacher told POLITICO. “At least the other other side of the coin is being heard now. … Finally there’s some refutation of some of the inaccurate criticisms finally being heard.”

For the GOP, it’s been a sudden shift from a hardline on Russia, toward something resembling respect, if not warmth.

Daniel Vajdich, a former foreign policy adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, recalled traveling to Foreign Relations Chair Sen. Bob Corker’s home state of Tennessee just after Russia annexed Crimea and supported rebel incursions in Eastern Ukraine.

For the Corker constituents Vadjich met, “no other issue—not Iraq, Syria or Iran— topped the emotion or frustration about what the Russians were doing in Ukraine and the way the Obama Administration was failing to do anything about it,” he said.

Now, the Republican president-elect Trump has said he would consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia.

“It is dizzying,” said Vajdich, who has worked on the presidential campaigns of Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz, all of whom represented the decades-old consensus view of Russia. “It’s just totally unexpected and counterintuitive to see how Republicans have shifted. I do think it has something to do with the general attitude that Trump expressed towards Putin and Russia. There’s no doubt there’s a very direct causal relationship about the permission he gave people.”

There also may be some politics at play, said said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia, because Putin’s alleged involvement boosted the GOP. Among the alleged Russian incursions into the election were hackers obtaining and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

“It’s just based on the ancient principle the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that,” said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia. “The Republican base, particularly the Trump part of the Republican base, is going to regard anyone and anything that helped their great leader to win as a positive force, or at least a less negative force.”

Trump, for his part, continues to contest that there was any Russian involvement in the election-related hackings.

“If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?” Trump wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

In fact, Trump is incorrect to say that federal agencies did not talk about Russian interference until after he had won. They did so more than a month before Election Day.

The Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence released a statement on Oct. 7 saying they were “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

The Washington Post has since reported that the CIA concluded the efforts were aimed at lifting Trump’s prospects, rather than just destabilizing the election. And NBC has reported that Putin himself was personally involved in the effort.

Trump’s campaign contends that news of Russia’s involvement in the hacking is a media-driven plot to “delegitimize” the election.

Even if Trump’s ascendance allowed a more sympathetic view of Russia and Putin to become more mainstream, Vajdich does believe the appeal of Putin, and his leadership style, always existed in certain corners of the GOP.

“I think there’s something inherently attractive about Vladimir Putin when you compare him to President Obama and that’s something that’s going to resonate with some Republicans regardless of what Trump says,” Vajdich says.

“He’s decisive and unapologetically pursues Russian interests in a way Obama didn’t for America, in the minds of many Republicans.”

That reverence for Putin’s persona, if not his policies, extends even to those Republicans who decry Russia’s incursions abroad. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, for example, did not share Trump’s reservations about attacking Putin – he called Putin “small and bullying” at a September campaign event – but he still said he agreed with Trump that Putin was a stronger leader than Obama.

Even in 2014, in the midst of Russia’s widely condemned annexation of Crimea, Rudy Giuliani, who would become one of Trump’s most vocal surrogates, praised Putin for acting like “a leader.”

“[Putin] makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. And then everybody reacts. That’s what you call a leader,” Giuliani said.

And Russia has reciprocated.

State media has been full of praise for Trump, Tillerson and Flynn, noted Angela Stent, director of Georgetown’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a a member of the senior advisory panel for NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2010-2016. Russian media also portrayed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a persistently negative light.

“Certainly the Kremlin didn’t like Hillary Clinton,” Stent said.

But there’s another aspect to the affinity between some Republicans and Putin.

Putin has fashioned himself as a defender of traditional values around the world, something that has a particular appeal to the socially conservative elements of the Republican Party. He’s actively pushed anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion legislation in his country. Just this week, the Russian government prevented the UN Security Council, in their statement about outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, from praising the Korean’s promotion of LGBTQ rights during his time in office.

"President Putin sees himselfas the leader of the conservative world, battling decadent liberal values,” former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Mike McFaul told POLITICO. “When I was in the government there were overtures between evangelical and conservative religious organizations and Russians, including those associated with the government. … What brought them together was an ideological affinity about issues like LGBT in particular.”

The warmth toward Russia is not reserved to Trump and elements of the party’s base.

Rohrabacher went to great lengths in an unsuccessful attempt to derail legislation that Russia opposed in Congress. He even used information provided directly from the Russian government to make his case.

And he took to the op-ed pages of USA Today on Wednesday to defend Russia from accusations of attempts to influence the election, while also praising the work of hackers who targeted Democrats. He also wrote more broadly about his thoughts on the Russia-U.S. relationship.

“Putin is by no means guiltless in the deterioration of relations between our countries. Both sides failed,” he wrote. “We broke faith with a Putin-brokered deal with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in his downfall and an expansion of radical Islamic power. Putin has had ample reason to lose faith in America’s resolve.”

“Several people like myself, in order to say what we thought was truth, have been willing to take on the common knowledge that we think was wrong,” Rohrbacher told POLITICO. “There’s been this vilification not only of the Russian leader but of Russia itself.”

While Rohrabacher’s views have been injected into the mainstream, the party still has elements that are vigorously opposed to Putin.

There will be many Republicans, Sabato said, “who will not adapt to this new reality, they have long regarded Putin as one of the great evils of the world…They may just not bring it up very much.”

Some Republicans remain unwavering and outspoken in their opposition to Putin. And they expect voters will get behind them.

“For years, American diplomats and leaders have pretended Russia is our ally—we’ve tried resets and ignored their aggressions— that’s nonsense,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who did not support Trump, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Putin and his friends are murderous thugs and it’s time Americans stopped pretending otherwise. Period.”

Isaac Arnsdorf contributed reporting.