> Also, if you'll remember through the partisan haze of polarized thinking, it used to be considered a good and reasonable thing to not want war or unmeasured f

> Also, if you'll remember through the partisan haze of polarized thinking, it used to be considered a good and reasonable thing to not want war or unmeasured foreign intervention, and it was a widely held belief by the progressive side of U.S politics. Now however, the Republicans get derided for holding more to that view, or just accused of automatically being friends of Putin, which, as the other comment states, is a gross bit of mendacity. Trump's "bromance" with Putin during his last term, coupled with extensive evidence of corruption, makes it reasonable to question whether he might prioritize Putin's interests over U.S. strategic goals. Historically, ties to foreign powers would disqualify a candidate from public office, yet the Republican Party seems largely willing to overlook these concerns. Even Joseph McCarthy, notorious for his paranoia about foreign influence, would likely see Trump as a textbook case — and for once, he wouldn’t be wrong. > I'd be willing to bet money, to anyone who offered, that during the Trump presidency, the U.S will emphatically not cease support to Ukraine, because, certain posturing and a small few fringe nuts aside, the Republicans do know that Russia is the real aggressor and has to be shown a strong hand for the sake of keeping American reliability credible on the world stage. Even Trump knows this perfectly well. As for the claim that Trump understands the importance of standing firm against Russia: his past behavior doesn't inspire confidence. I'd estimate at least a 30% chance that, under another Trump presidency, the U.S. could abruptly cut off support for Ukraine. Why? Because decisions wouldn't hinge on strategic considerations — they’d depend on Trump’s whims. Possible scenarios include: • He feels like it. • Putin flatters or bribes him. • Ukraine refuses to pay him off when asked. This pattern of impulsiveness defined his previous term, so why assume it would be any different now?