Eh not as bad as an invasion.  So he didn't act, but he seemed to ward them off of anything more serious while in power

Simple.  Putin saw how Trump took down ISIS and his willingness to use MOBAs and that he would force Europeans to pay their fair share in NATO and said "Eh I'm good"

You consider the ones who make make a quick buck on the expense of the environment and public health as the tough ones, and the ones who oppose it as soft? It's easier to be reckless for the sake of profit. And more difficult to make a less profitable decision.

But I don't see how these things you mention are relevant to the Ukraine situation.
A thousand times more relevant is the fact that Trump was extremely soft on Russia, to the point where he was suspected by the FBI director to be compromised by Russia.

Trump stood on stage and undermined US intelligence in front of the whole world because he "believed Puitin's word" over them.
He also wanted to get USA out of NATO.
Putin's wet dream.

When it comes to which President he'd rather have in office while invading Ukraine, I don't see there even being a debate.

If Putin held off for any reason, it would more likely be until Trump had USA leave Nato. But then he lost the election.

Well saying it like that sounds like you're implying it. No one is a mind reader, but we can still consider how much we believe one thing or another.

Here's a copy of the reply to you that you missed:

Trump was extremely soft on Putin and Russia. He even stood on stage, and in front of the world undermined his own US intelligence by proclaiming he believed Putin over them. It was beyond parody.

What reason is there to believe that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine when he had the US president doing exactly what he wanted? Especially because Trump stated he wanted USA to leave NATO.

If anything, Putin was waiting for Trump to deliver on that front. And invade once USA was out of NATO.
Russia already invaded Ukraine in 2014. Were they afraid of Ukraine joining NATO back then too? That likely has little to nothing to do with it. Because Putin STRENGTHENED the NATO threat on their border through his invasion, by essentially forcing the long standing neutral countries of Finland and Sweden to join. A very predictable outcome.

Putin wants to restore Russia. That is the primary reason he's "taking back land that belonged to Russia in the past".

The assosication that "no attack under Trump = thanks to him" is really wild.

There was a bear attack in the neighborhood 30 years ago. After we got new mailboxes, there hasn't been a single bear attack in 30 years. Must be thanks to them?

"Not as bad as an invasion so it's irrelevant" is your argument?

You literally went from "Nothing happened under trump" to "Not as bad as other presidents".

You literally shifted the goal post.
You literally just pushed a logical fallacy as your argument.

You want to know what makes Trump WORST than biden?
Trump PRAISED Russia for stealing Crimea.
Trump PRAISED Russia for warmongering.
One of Trumps campaign aids even stated/LIED that Russia didn't take Crimea.

Russia is going to keep "peace" in Ukraine remember? That aged like sour milk.



Why can't you just lump all these presidents together and state that they have all managed the Ukraine and Russia issue incompetently? Is your bias so great for Trump that you can't see past the propoganda and reality distortion field?


At best Trump is incompetent, at worst... He is corrupt and deserves jail.

Biden is just incompetent.

Except he didn't ward them off. I've just literally proven that... You need to stop propagating that blatant fat lie.

War isn't something that happens over night.

You need to train people.
You need to build machines and munition.
You need to play a political and advertising campaign.

You need to prepare... Which is why Russia was building up along the Ukraine border for a period of time before the invasion. Even during Trumps term.

Iraqi security forces and Syrian Democratic Forces did most of the hard work in finishing off ISIS, not Donald Turmp who incompetently evacuated that war zone, killing American soldiers in the process.

Again. As a president, Trump is incompetent.

Covid happened during trump, I assume he is 100% to blame?  

Trump and other radicals have made an extensive job to relate themselves as "THE right wing", leaving pretty much no space for right minded people who are not nazi inclined to keep defending themselves as of being actually right wing inclined. G.W. bush would be considered a "moderate" nowadays, which is pretty much crazy. Actual right wing people that are not fascists should put their feet on the ground more firmly to differentiate themselves from these ultra radicals who are destroying any possibility of adult debate.

They unfortunately are behind at the moment. At the time we have people in power that, even if I don't like them, are not working to destroy democracy in front of everyone. But we have to be cautious, otherwise those fascists might come back.

So problematic speculation.

1.) Ignoring that the conflict was ongoing during Trump's presidency, (it started before the full scale invasion)

2.) Speculation that Trump would have been willing to do so against Russia, whom Trump had been praising and asking for help. Not remotely the same thing as ISIS.

3.) Despite Trump pushing on the NATO issue, that still hasn't changed that much. If he had a mechanism for forcing the Europeans to pay into NATO, why didn't he do that during his presidency? 

4.) Russia isn't ISIS. Russia has nukes, that they've threatened to use.

By the way, the correct acronym is MOABs.  

I know that leftwingers/liberals like to point at the fact that Trump disbanded the pandemic task force, and that he could have done more. Yes those things are true, I'm not convinced it would have made a substantial difference. 

I have a much higher burden of proof than Robert_Downey_Jr does here.

Ah yes the same bill that took the taxable amount of social security from 50 to 85% (funny you didn't mention that) and also wrote the budgets for 1998, 1999 and 2000 (oh wait that was still Clinton and the Republicans that did the budget).

That bill did play a part but even after its passage deficits were still projected.  Spending cuts, a surging dotcom economy that few saw coming, and extra money from Social Security were also contributing factors: the economy being one of the biggest.

I would expect nothing less from a die hard than to ignore who wrote and passed the budgets, ignore the emerging economy that helped produced an influx of income for the government all to pat their party on the back while giving no credit to the other side. Myopic views like this are part of what is fueling the great divide.

Why is it funny that I didn’t mention that? I didn’t mention any of the specific provisions that were imposed like raising the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, raising the top corporate tax from 34% to 38%, Alternative Minimum Tax increased from 24% to 28%, 4.3 cent increase for fuel taxes, limit on itemized deductions, expanded earned income tax credit, got rid of the income cap on Medicare taxes, and reduced military spending. It was a bill meant to balance budgets by increasing revenue and reducing spending and it did exactly that.

I’m not really sure what “gotcha” you’re trying to hit me with. Yes, of course it couldn’t happen without the booming economy and yes, Republicans were more moderate and easier to compromise with in the 90s compared to today’s MAGA wing.

Republican presidents oversaw massive tax cuts in the 80s, 00s & 10s and in my opinion, if we had a Republican president in the 90s we would have gotten another major tax cut bill that would have further contributed to the debt rather than the tax increases we saw under a Democratic president that helped balance the budget.