9 minutes ago, toolg said:

Iran holds leverage here in negotiations and they know it. Trump has about 10 more days to get a declaration of war from Congress or he must stand down. Iran knows they can drag this out and force Trump into an illegal war.

He can extend it by 30 days but that's supposed to be to withdraw troops

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Which retort will I get?

"Take a midol"

"You have TDS"

"You are a mental patient"

Mysteries abound.

All true. All supported by equally mentally ill people in a herd.

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

He can extend it by 30 days but that's supposed to be to withdraw troops

Right. Trump has all the pressure to make a deal. Iran has already declared war on US. They have no reason to stop. They are going to call his bluff.

30 minutes ago, Gannan said:

They gained

Control of the strait

Revenue from tolls (and possibly the US)

Unfettered nuclear development

The United States has gained absolutely nothing from this. Higher gas and oil prices. Strained relations with our allies. Looking like a paper tiger on the world stage.

But we blew some stuff up! Thats all it takes to impress the simple half-man Magas.

26 minutes ago, toolg said:

Iran holds leverage here in negotiations and they know it. Trump has about 10 more days to get a declaration of war from Congress or he must stand down. Iran knows they can drag this out and force Trump into an illegal war.

As if Trump gives a sh-t about that, and as if Congress has any balls to actually do anything about it. I don't think that point matters one bit.

16 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

As if Trump gives a sh-t about that, and as if Congress has any balls to actually do anything about it. I don't think that point matters one bit.

Sad but probably true

37 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

As if Trump gives a sh-t about that, and as if Congress has any balls to actually do anything about it. I don't think that point matters one bit.

It should matter. Trump is testing his limits. This is how we lose democracy to apathy.

39 minutes ago, toolg said:

Right. Trump has all the pressure to make a deal. Iran has already declared war on US. They have no reason to stop. They are going to call his bluff.

Both sides have plenty of reasons to make a deal. The problem is Trump is not interested in a deal and if he actually were it's too late. There is no trust, no international involvement, nobody really even in charge enough on the Iran side to make a deal that would actually function in any capacity. From the opening strike, and you could maybe even say from the moment he ripped up Obama's deal, Trump has cornered himself into only 2 options: make something up and go home or, escalate to a full on war until Iran surrenders.

I think he's going for option 2, he's already gambled his presidency and legacy on this. So get ready to buy stocks on the low thursday.

11 minutes ago, toolg said:

It should matter. Trump is testing his limits. This is how we lose democracy to apathy.

I agree that it should matter. And it's also not like Trump is alone in this matter. Obama didn't get congressional approval for our military operations in Syria and Libya either.

He'll want this ended sooner rather than later. No way they allow it to continue close to midterms

There was a laundry list of crap that was going to be the focus for midterms and then trump started a war that raised gas prices and got soldiers killed

7 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Both sides have plenty of reasons to make a deal. The problem is Trump is not interested in a deal and if he actually were it's too late. There is no trust, no international involvement, nobody really even in charge enough on the Iran side to make a deal that would actually function in any capacity. From the opening strike, and you could maybe even say from the moment he ripped up Obama's deal, Trump has cornered himself into only 2 options: make something up and go home or, escalate to a full on war until Iran surrenders.

I think he's going for option 2, he's already gambled his presidency and legacy on this. So get ready to buy stocks on the low thursday.

You are probably right. I do not understand what Trump thinks he can get out of Iran that is better than the deal Obama negotiated. Trump can send Iran even more pallets of cash. Or Trump can bomb Iran until there is nothing left. What is this new regime that is supposedly waiting to take over Iran? Does Trump think he can restore the shah? I am certain Bibi is firmly in the camp of bomb Iran into the ground. He is using our cover to seek his own interests.

Just now, toolg said:

You are probably right. I do not understand what Trump thinks he can get out of Iran that is better than the deal Obama negotiated. Trump can send Iran even more pallets of cash. Or Trump can bomb Iran until there is nothing left. What is this new regime that is supposedly waiting to take over Iran? Does Trump think he can restore the shah? I am certain Bibi is firmly in the camp of bomb Iran into the ground. He is using our cover to seek his own interests.

I could definitely seeing this going the same way as NAFTA --> USMCA. Rip up an existing deal, claiming it was terrible. Make a new deal which is basically the same exact thing that was in place that he ripped up, but give it a new name so he can brand it as his own. Claim it's a totally different and better deal than what was in place before, and his bootlickers lap it up. Except in this case, I could see the new deal being worse than what was in place as I think Iran will get significantly more unfrozen assets and money out of it compared to the JCPOA.

11 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I agree that it should matter. And it's also not like Trump is alone in this matter. Obama didn't get congressional approval for our military operations in Syria and Libya either.

Syria can be argued it was an extension of ongoing war on terror against ISIS/ISIL. Libya was a coordinated NATO response.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I could definitely seeing this going the same way as NAFTA --> USMCA. Rip up an existing deal, claiming it was terrible. Make a new deal which is basically the same exact thing that was in place that he ripped up, but give it a new name so he can brand it as his own. Claim it's a totally different and better deal than what was in place before, and his bootlickers lap it up. Except in this case, I could see the new deal being worse than what was in place as I think Iran will get significantly more unfrozen assets and money out of it compared to the JCPOA.

If they manage to only gain that much in the deal switch I'll be surprised. They just have a much better negotiating position now. Not only do they hold the Strait as leverage but their enemies are weakened globally compared to 2015. Israel's a global pariah. And the US is being run by a child who's easy to impress and who only works for headlines and praise and who's alienated all of our allies.

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I could definitely seeing this going the same way as NAFTA --> USMCA. Rip up an existing deal, claiming it was terrible. Make a new deal which is basically the same exact thing that was in place that he ripped up, but give it a new name so he can brand it as his own. Claim it's a totally different and better deal than what was in place before, and his bootlickers lap it up. Except in this case, I could see the new deal being worse than what was in place as I think Iran will get significantly more unfrozen assets and money out of it compared to the JCPOA.

Even if he wanted to remake Obama's deal word for word, he can't. Obama's deal had Russia, China, Europe a stable iranian government and global trust in the US, and even then it was far from airtight. Trump has none of that, it would basically just be his word and whatever 5th string nobody is left to sign it with him.

So again, he can either make something up and go home or, go for broke and basically destroy Iran til the white flag goes up. He'd LOVE to go home, but even he knows his base is too fragile on this this subject to come home with anything other than a full pelt.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Even if he wanted to remake Obama's deal word for word, he can't. Obama's deal had Russia, China, Europe a stable iranian government and global trust in the US, and even then it was far from airtight. Trump has none of that, it would basically just be his word and whatever 5th string nobody is left to sign it with him.

So again, he can either make something up and go home or, go for broke and basically destroy Iran til the white flag goes up. He'd LOVE to go home, but even he knows his base is too fragile on this this subject to come home with anything other than a full pelt.

Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.

He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.

13 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.

He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.

Full steam ahead on a war that's already polling at about 30%. Hell even Bibi, who is actually accomplishing his objectives, is also tanking in the polls.

25 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.

He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.

LOL - you think it matters that it's documented? So was USMCA, which is basically just NAFTA, and they all believed it was a massive improvement.

Helps when your base is illiterate.

37 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.

He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.

Which is why you see him melting down and yelling all caps that he is winning against Iran. Not the United states, not the armed forces, it's HIM. His score vs Obama's.

2 hours ago, toolg said:

Syria can be argued it was an extension of ongoing war on terror against ISIS/ISIL. Libya was a coordinated NATO response.

There was no congressional approval for a war against ISISI/ISIL. Congressional approval was provided for 2 wars. The 2001 AUMF, which gave the president the authority to use military force against those who planned and aided the 9/11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF which gave the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. Isis in Syria does not fall under either of those congressional approvals.

The fact that Libya was a coordinated NATO response is irrelevant. The president must get congressional approval to go to war. So if Obama wanted the US to get involved in the war in Libya, then he was supposed to get congressional approval.

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Hopefully those kids know who the Geico Gecko is.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There was no congressional approval for a war against ISISI/ISIL. Congressional approval was provided for 2 wars. The 2001 AUMF, which gave the president the authority to use military force against those who planned and aided the 9/11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF which gave the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. Isis in Syria does not fall under either of those congressional approvals.

The fact that Libya was a coordinated NATO response is irrelevant. The president must get congressional approval to go to war. So if Obama wanted the US to get involved in the war in Libya, then he was supposed to get congressional approval.

yeah if Obama wiped his nose with that, this dude will wipe his arse.

Just now, dawkins4prez said:

yeah if Obama wiped his nose with that, this dude will wipe his arse.

Obama wiped his a s s with it too, the only difference is he's articulate so his base doesn't think it's as bad when he does it because he doesn't tweet inarticulate junk on twitter while doing it.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Obama wiped his a s s with it too, the only difference is he's articulate so his base doesn't think it's as bad when he does it because he doesn't tweet inarticulate junk on twitter while doing it.

The scale in Iran has already dwarfed Obama's nefarious drone campaigns, and that scale is about to increase dramatically