[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

You need to lay off the performative pearl-clutching and understand how historians work.

This concept is no less controversial than criticising Neville Chamberlain for returning from Munich having appeased Hitler. Obviously Hitler caused the war and bears ultimate responsibility for what followed. That does not preclude criticism of those who failed to use what influence they had to slow or stop his preferred course of action unfolding.

In times to come people will look at the train wreck of Trump’s presidencies - the present one most of all - and wonder how the Democrats can have fumbled in order to lose to a known philanderer, abuser, felon and bully, not to mention someone who had already presided over one chaotic term in the White House. The depths of their complacency and their myopic policy obsessions are an outrage and I predict historians will not be charitable to them.

And yes, while whatever horror unfolds in Ukraine this year will primarily rest at Vladimir Putin’s door, he will have been aided and abetted by Donald Trump, who in turn had his chance to make a mess of things because the Dems lost an election that was theirs for the taking. When the history books are written, theirs may only be a minor contribution, but they are nonetheless a factor.

Straight to the personal attack. You said the the world is "less stable" because of the Democrats. You are wrong. It's like blaming Ukraine for failing to stop Russia invading. It is clear to most who is to blame in both scenarios.