How come the US does not put a bounty on Putin like they did Bin Laden?

Because A: putting a bounty on the leader of a nuclear power is drastically different from the leader of a.. terrorist rebel organization(I'm not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).

And because B: it would change basically nothing. Putin already can't travel in most places internationally because there's an ICC warrant out on him for war crimes. The bounty isn't going to be relevant in Russia or allied places, and it's not going to be much of a motivator to an entire government.

the leader of a… terrorist rebel organization(I’m not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).
No no. You got it right.
- What's the difference between that and a government other than the size/capability of violence?
- When in doubt, I usually go with “asshole”.
- They were right. Until they won.
Putin already can't travel in most places internationally
He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel (and of course there are places where he does not want to - remember when Trumpeltier traveled to him, not the other way round)
- He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel
  Unless he wants to travel to a place willing to enforce the ICC's arrest warrant. Afaik he's only been to Mongolia and South Africa since the warrant was issued, and both were criticized pretty heavily for not enforcing it.
  Realistically, he's not going anywhere that even might arrest him.
  Either way, if nobody is going to enforce an arrest warrant they're not going to claim a bounty either.

Wouldn't that basically be a declaration of war?

Yes.
- Nah, nations don't do "war" any longer. They call it something else so that they don't have to abide by the rules we've all agreed to when going to war. Now they're "operations".

Keep in mind that Bin Laden was responsible for an attack against USA citizens and infrastructure. Putin did a lot of shit to several of Russia's neighbors (Ukraine is just the biggest target), spied on several countries, but never openly attacked USA territory, citizens or soldiers, nor that of any NATO allies.

If the USA did put a bounty on him, it's likely Putin and Russia would receive public support from currently neutral countries, because here goes USA playing world sheriff, pretending to own the entire fucking place and ignoring nations' rights to sovereignty again

- But even NATO doesn’t like it if some nation goes above and beyond, provoking hostilities from the US means potential unwanted conflict from others, and the nations supplying oil and / or weapons to Russia feel the same way. The world is a big shitty political stage where every time an actor moves people die
- Which seems hypocritical since the US never attacked those neutral countries directly.
  Which neutral countries are you talking about? Because USA has created enemies in neutral and "neutral" places and directly attacked other countries without provocation, like Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, yet nobody put a bounty on Bush or Obama's heads, but rightfully complained about 'merican overreach.
  By their logic they should mind their own business.
  You know how neighbors will complain about one another, but overall try to keep things civil and not invade the other's home to "fix" things? That's more or less how diplomacy is supposed to work. USA is that bully neighbor that decides to ram your door and invade your home, guns blazing. Russia did the same with Ukraine and they keep calling out the hypocrisy when 'murica complains.

The US (at least by executive order which can always be rescinded) has an official policy not to assassinate foreign leaders:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905

(See also EO 12036 and EO 12333 for confirming the policy)

Placing a bounty on Putin would probably violate that EO...

More importantly, the US is really fucking hoping Putin dies of old age or is voted out domestically because direct confrontations may result in Putin pushing ze button and launching ze nukes.

ze button and launching ze nukes.
But I'm Le tired.
Have a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILE!
- AHH MOTHERLAND
the US is really fucking hoping Putin dies of old age or is voted out domestically
Or is killed by disgruntled Russians.
Weird line considering what we're willing to do to nation states to keep their citizens from cooperating socially rather than competing against one another to keep their resource extraction rights open to our capitalists.
- Venezuela 2002 is a big old lie, can't believe that people really publish dictatorship propaganda without realizing it undermines their point.

Bin Laden didn't have a couple of thousand nukes at his disposal.

One of the differences is that Osama bin Laden was not the leader of any recognized state in the world whereas Putin is.

Putting a literal bullseye on another country’s leader would be seen as an act of war.

Also, the US is not currently in (direct) war with Russia while the US was with Osama’s group.

Who would replace Putin. If you don't know the answer or you don't like the answer any better what is the point. The short list of people likely to replace Putin are no better. (If you put me on the jobs I'd be shot within hours by one of the people on the short list)

Ok in your opinion who do you think would be on his or your list?
- I don't know, but I have no reason to think putin has allowed anyone who might change course to get anywhere close toethe short list.

Justify War Goal War goal will cost you 47.00 political power and take 265 days War Goal: Topple Government

If you somehow killed him he would be replaced by someone who would be in a position of having to prove they were strong enough for the position.