US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Última edición por un moderador:
a pyrrhic victory
This is the second time I've seen you use this term but I'm starting to think you don't know who King Pyrrhus of Epirus was, or what happened at Heraclea.

He sacrificed his Epirotes, his elite troops who were few in number, crashing elephants into his own lines, to win the battle, but ultimately lost the war, retreating from Italy. This is not at all like the Iranians dying for 6 weeks straight and being cut a ceasefire they immediately violated.

Now if Trump had sacrificed a bunch of elite US forces to win a battle, and then left home for America? Sure, that would be a Pyrrhic victory, but what happened at Heraclea is a little more than what the Total War battle result screen taught you. There's no situation where America ever loses a head-on fight with Iran and has to bleed them out.
 
This is the second time I've seen you use this term but I'm starting to think you don't know who King Pyrrhus of Epirus was, or what happened at Heraclea.

He sacrificed his Epirotes, his elite troops who were few in number, crashing elephants into his own lines, to win the battle, but ultimately lost the war, retreating from Italy. This is not at all like the Iranians dying for 6 weeks straight and being cut a ceasefire they immediately violated.

Now if Trump had sacrificed a bunch of elite US forces to win a battle, and then left home for America? Sure, that would be a Pyrrhic victory, but what happened at Heraclea is a little more than what the Total War battle result screen taught you. There's no situation where America ever loses a head-on fight with Iran and has to bleed them out.
I was referring to Iran. Rather than agree to the US's terms of stepping down and dismantling their nuclear program, Iranian's leadership decided to try their luck, so Trump attacked them in hopes of coxing a regime change. The Iranian regime is technically still around so they did win on that front, but their nuclear program is destroyed, their military is annihilated, their infrastructure is in ruins, their leadership has been killed and replaced God knows how many time, and all their economic problems are going to be 100x worse than before. So while they did "win" by surviving, they should have just taken one of Trump's earlier deals instead of being left to rule a trash heap.
 
I was referring to Iran. Rather than agree to the US's terms of stepping down and dismantling their nuclear program, Iranian's leadership decided to try their luck, so Trump attacked them in hopes of coxing a regime change. The Iranian regime is technically still around so they did win on that front, but their nuclear program is destroyed, their military is annihilated, their infrastructure is in ruins, their leadership has been killed and replaced God knows how many time, and all their economic problems are going to be 100x worse than before. So while they did "win" by surviving, they should have just taken one of Trump's earlier deals instead of being left to rule a trash heap.
King Pyrrhus was the invader and he couldn't keep spending the troops he had, but he did win every battle. This does not describe Iran. What battles did Iran win with their tactical but costly genius? None.

It would describe Trump if we sacrificed a bunch of men to win every battle and then went home. But that's not what we've done either. I included this counterpoint to try to illuminate what an actual Pyrrhic victory is. The term doesn't describe either side. You're thinking they're winning in a manner similar to the Taliban, but that was a war of attrition.
 
King Pyrrhus was the invader and he couldn't keep spending the troops he had, but he did win every battle. This does not describe Iran. What battles did Iran win with their tactical but costly genius? None.

It would describe Trump if we sacrificed a bunch of men to win every battle and then went home. But that's not what we've done either. I included this counterpoint to try to illuminate what an actual Pyrrhic victory is. The term doesn't describe either side. You're thinking they're winning in a manner similar to the Taliban, but that was a war of attrition.
a modern day example of a pyrrhic victory would be russia in ukraine
>burned through hundreds of thousands of troops in order to (partially) occupy a lousy five ukrainian oblasts (out of 24 total)
 
When does Fettermans term ended? I actually kind of ended up liking him. He's rather moderate in his views when compared to most dems these days and even when I disagree I don't think he's terrible. I just wonder if the woke people who voted for him regret that they did and won't for his next election. A lot of them thought he was going to be a progressive which didn't happen.
 
Alex is calling for the 25th? Him? Why?
Hoooooly cope. Apparently if you get into a pointless fight with your enemies, waste resources, ruin your reputation and get absolutely nothing in return except egg on your face, you win!
Fucking embarrassing. This war should have NEVER happened in the first place. This shit isn't America first, it's Israel first, and I'm surprised you supposedly MAGA people are going along with it despite directly contradicting one of Trump's core campaign promises.
Look sneako/fuentes, this is not a good rebuttal to the pro war position. Elaborate on it being 'Isreal first' and clarify why an enemy getting nukes is actually ok
 
So the ceasefire is contingent on Iran still having the final say on which vessels pass through the strait? That's what Bloomberg is saying, at least. How is that a win for us at all? We should've just taken military control of the strait and coastlines.
 
So the ceasefire is contingent on Iran still having the final say on which vessels pass through the strait? That's what Bloomberg is saying, at least. How is that a win for us at all? We should've just taken military control of the strait and coastlines.
Read nigger, read. That's Iran's opening demand, not agreed terms of ceasefire
 
Read nigger, read. That's Iran's opening demand, not agreed terms of ceasefire
>Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Tehran's acceptance and said Iran would allow "safe passage" of the Strait of Hormuz during those two weeks "via coordination with Iran's armed forces."

So only vessels that coordinate with Iran's armed forces will be let through. Sounds like they need permission from Iran.
If that were possible we wouldn't have asked for and gotten a cease-fire. We would've just done that.
Why wouldn't it be possible? Is Iran's military that strong that we couldn't just take control of their coastline?
 
>Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Tehran's acceptance and said Iran would allow "safe passage" of the Strait of Hormuz during those two weeks "via coordination with Iran's armed forces."

So only vessels that coordinate with Iran's armed forces will be let through. Sounds like they need permission from Iran.
Every ship still has to pay the fee to Iran in order to pass. To help them rebuild according to Trump.

643G.png
 
What Trump is negotiating from:
Ver archivo adjunto 8822929
Keep in mind, agreeing to any of of the economic points is a win for Iran as they were sanctioned and didn't receive any fee prior to the conflict.

To illustrate how negotiations work

US responses

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Thanks!

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

> Okay. Liberalize.

"Look, we're prepared to give them 9 things for our 1 thing. It's a deal and we're totally losing out."
 
Atrás
Top Abajo