|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
Senior U.S. officials on Wednesday read the memorandum of understanding with Iran to journalists after days of secrecy over what is in the document.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to read the draft, which Iran has not released, ahead of a formal signing ceremony set for Friday.
Here is what is in the U.S. draft:
1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war by signing this MOU declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
4. Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of prewar traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
5. Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and, considering the needs for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
7. The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in Paragraph 7 with the minimum methodology to be downblending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
9. Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
10. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
11. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.
12. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
13. After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
14. The final deal will be endorsed by binding UNSC resolution. Masterclass in the art of the deal...  https://apnews.com/article/mou-transcript-iran-us-war-8576fbe2be1309977e903463fbf57ee6
Last edited by iggy; 2026-06-17 4:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
. I'd also point out that you never had a single word of criticism, or even any mention, of THIS document signed with Iran : Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
a k a, Barack Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal Which by the way, Iran's Islamic regime was breaking since before the ink was dry in 2015, continuing to pursue nuclear weapons and the long-range missiles to carry them, with no pushback or military action from either the Obama regime, or the Biden regime (while Biden's DOJ and FBI pursued maximum persecution and force against thousands of Trump supporters, and on Trump himself). Some elaboration on your part? CONTEXT? Obama's 2015 agreement was to permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by... now, 2026. Actually, Oct 18 2025. And only Trump's ending that Obama JCPOA deal in May 2018, and 2 vigorous bombing campaigns on Iran in the last 9 months, prevented Iran from already having nukes to blackmail or destroy the world. Trump's agreement (still in development and pending, for at least another 60 days) does NOT permit Iran to EVER obtain nuclear weapons. And I suspect the terms that Trump is agreeing to are because he is virtually certain Iran will not honor their terms in the agreement. Which would allow the U.S. and Israel to go right back in and bomb the Islamic regime ten times harder, and right back into the Stone Age.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
He just said we were 4 weeks from the spr being empty. Shut the fuck up. You elected a dumbass and you're now defending the lemon like a good sunken coster.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
Sounds like the IAEA is going to supervise downblending in Iran. This is the "bad Obama deal" but more costly and exposing of our weaknesses and deficiencies. Orange Turd folded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
But what about the guy that hasn't been president for over a decade but lives in my head rent free?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
He just said we were 4 weeks from the spr being empty. Shut the fuck up. You elected a dumbass and you're now defending the lemon like a good sunken coster. Profanity and insults, that's all you have. God are you filled with hate. Further proof that it cleary sucks to be you. Or anyone in your miserable personal life. Shithead. And regarding SPR (there are dozens of acronyms, shithead, you could have just said Strategic Petroleum Reserve and been clear)... 1) it was Biden who needlessly drained the petroleum reserve for frivolous reasons, and never refilled it. 2) I haven't seen that the U.S. was ever threatened by the Straight of Hormuz shipping interruption. Before the Iran war, we were only getting 2% of our oil from there, and Europe about 20%, neither feeling any great impact from the Hormuz attacks. The major recipient was always China who buys about 90% of Iran's oil, which is about 50% of China's total oil imports. The only other heavily affected nations were South Korea and Japan. So your argument is bogus. 3) Precisely BECAUSE Iran has been making attacks on ships in the Straight of Hormuz, and really not any great Iranian attacks, just a few harassments to raise a concern that a tanker MIGHT be damaged or sunk by Iran. But because of that, Saudi Arabia and other nations have been moving their oil out through pipelines to the Red Sea or elsewhere on the Arab peninsula. So ultimately, Iran has only succeeded in making their own oil, and the Persian Gulf shipping lane as a whole, less significant or needed. The oil is going out now elsewhere than the Persian Gulf. 4) Further , several nations are now dropping out of OPEC so they are now free of OPEC restrictions on how much oil they can produce and sell. United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia alone now produce millions more barrels daily than Iran was EVER exporting. So over the next 3 or 6 months as UAE and the Saudis further ramp up oil production, whether Iran produces or sells a drop of oil will become increasingly irrelevant. 5) The United States since Trump began his second term, now is not only completely oil-independent, but produces and exports more oil than it EVER has in the past. So the U.S. is able to fill that oil gap for Europe, Japan, Korea, or even China. Which again means Iran's ability to move and sell oil is increasingly irrelevant. And increased Venezuela production is yet another new source. All of which manifests you have no idea what you're talking about. It all just amounts to... hate Trump  . Shihead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
I have he fucking folded and Iran gets more out of this than JCPOA or anything pre-February, sunken cost examplar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
We'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address nonnuclear issues, such as [Iran's] conventional ballistic missiles," Trump said at the G7 summit on Wednesday. "I mean, they have to have some. Because other people have some. You gotta have some. Somebody said 'You shouldn't give them more … sir, you shouldn't let them have any missile.' … What am I gonna do? I'm gonna let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them? Like a fucking lawn chair...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
I have he fucking folded and Iran gets more out of this than JCPOA or anything pre-February, sunken cost examplar. I don' know what he just said. I don't think he knows what he said either. Shihead. Iran has to comply to get any economic aid. And that aid is CONDITIONALLY ( tentatively, not even agreed to yet ) from other Arab gulf states, NOT from the United States. And that condiion is that Iran becomes a free nation, plays nice with their neighbors, and give up funding proxy wars through Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and the Houthis. And if they don't, their aid funding gets cut off, and Iran gets bombed into submission again, until they finally learn their lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
We'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address nonnuclear issues, such as [Iran's] conventional ballistic missiles," Trump said at the G7 summit on Wednesday. "I mean, they have to have some. Because other people have some. You gotta have some. Somebody said 'You shouldn't give them more … sir, you shouldn't let them have any missile.' … What am I gonna do? I'm gonna let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them? Like a fucking lawn chair... Again, more Iggy gibberish, I can only try to guess what you intended to mean. And again, Trump is talking abou negotiations in progress, not anything that has been completed and agreed to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
While they sell unsanctioned oil at will...
Last edited by iggy; 2026-06-17 10:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
We'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address nonnuclear issues, such as [Iran's] conventional ballistic missiles," Trump said at the G7 summit on Wednesday. "I mean, they have to have some. Because other people have some. You gotta have some. Somebody said 'You shouldn't give them more … sir, you shouldn't let them have any missile.' … What am I gonna do? I'm gonna let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them? Like a fucking lawn chair... Again, more Iggy gibberish, I can only try to guess what you intended to mean. And again, Trump is talkign abou negoiations in progress, not anything hat has been completed and agreed to. No ballistic missiles was literally a war aim. And, if you can't figure out what "like a lawn chair" means then you're a fucking bufoon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America. Same way Mexico paid for the wall. Right, wonder surrender monkey?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America. Same way Mexico paid for the wall. Right, wonder surrender monkey? "surrender monkey" and "like a lawn chair" are two more pieces of nonsensical gibberish that mean nothing. This is why no one takes you seriously. Tariffs paid by Mexico, the threat to close the Southern border indefinitely, the threat of suspending Mexican imports, and other incentives, are how Trump got even a Marxist Mexican president to cooperate and deploy Mexican troops on their side of the Mexican border, to stop illegal immigration. Mexico is paying in other ways. And Trump coerced Mexico twice ( in Trump's 2017 first erm, and again inTrump'ss 2025 second term, fixing he disaster Biden lef behind) using these economic pressures on Mexico. In his first term he secured the border. And then after Biden created the worst U.S. immigration crisis ever in his 4 years, Trump again secured the border, slamming illegal migration to a halt, in less than 2 months. Mexico would pay anything to have access to American businesses and jobs, and they are perfectly willing to pay higher tariffs or taxes, and other compliance, to get that access. Whatever Mexico has to pay to meet Trump's demands, they will earn far more by paying it, just by having access to trade with the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
Sure, I can't try to defend my guy without burying the other guy guy. Suuuurrrreee. Surrender Monkey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
Sure, I can't try to defend my guy without burying the other guy guy. Suuuurrrreee. Surrender Monkey.
"surrender monkey" and "like a lawn chair" are two more pieces of nonsensical gibberish that mean nothing.
This is why no one takes you seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
Says the guy everyone still at this forum laughs at for how braindead partisan he is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
Says the guy everyone still at this forum laughs at for how braindead partisan he is. Says the partisan liberal nutjob. "Everyone" is... you. Dipshit. I'm neither brain-dead nor particularly partisan. Since 1980, I've identified as a center-right Reagan conservative. Whereas, over the last 30 years, particularly the last 20, the Democrat side has gone way off the deep end Socialist / Marxist / Communist Left. It is only by comparison to how crazy-Left YOUR politics are, a guy who PRETENDS to be centrist, but hates Christians to the point he openly boasts about being a junior college professor and deliberately harassing and discriminating against his students, who was a rabid supporter of "Occupy Wall Street", and based on that, probably also pro-Antifa and pro-Black Lives Matter. You clearly said you support the open borders flood of 12 to 20 million illegals under Joe Biden. So I guess relative to that level of craziness in your politics expressed here over the last 15 years, only by contrasting my distance from that level of craziness could I be considered "partisan". But in truth, my political views are the center of where the majority in this country have been for 45 years, and remain. Just saying the names of prominent Democrats makes my point. Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth "Pocahantas" Warren. A O-C Rashida Tlaib. Ilhan Omar. Maxine Wattters Zohran Mamdani Graham Platner Debbie Wasserman Schultz Barack and Michelle Obama Bill and Hillary Clinton Robert Reich Tim Walz It's an effort to name one Democrat who is not way the fuck off the far-Left deep end at this point. They literally are Cutlural Marxists who want to overthrow the country, and set up an authoritarian one-party Marxist system. And use federal agencies to vindictively punish anyone who disagrees with them. As has been openly said by Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Susan Rice, Kamala Harris, James Carville, and many others, WITHIN THE LAST 2 MONTHS. This is not "conspiracy theory", this is their stated plan. And apparently your plan as well. You are not only partisan, but filled with hate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
This was the most perfect surrender possible. A very well done, perfect surrender from the Surrenderer in Chief.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
This was the most perfect surrender possible. A very well done, perfect surrender from the Surrenderer in Chief. No facts, no case made, just more of your unhinged hate-filled insults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
Cry harder, lady boy for Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
Cry harder, lady boy for Trump .
No facts, no case made, just more of your unhinged hate-filled insults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
Actually you are very partisan WB. You prove that with pretty much every post. This thread for example you try to make it that only democrats are criticizing this deal. Anyone can read about the issue and see that isn’t true. And the criticism is understandable! Trump spent a huge amount of money, lots of people killed and for what? How are we better off than before Obama’s deal?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
Actually you are very partisan WB. You prove that with pretty much every post. This thread for example you try to make it that only democrats are criticizing this deal. Anyone can read about the issue and see that isn’t true. And the criticism is understandable! Trump spent a huge amount of money, lots of people killed and for what? How are we better off than before Obama’s deal? That is yet again another deceitful strawman argument. I never said that ONLY Democrats are critical and hesitant of the deal. But it obviously is primarily Democrats attacking Trump over the Iran negotiations, because they reflexively oppose and obstruct anything Trump does. What I clearly ACTUALLY said is that Democrats (Clinton, Obama and Biden) have previously negotiated bad deals with North Korea and Iran, that have made the world a more dangerous place, and assured that these rogue nations would get nuclear weapons. If not for Trump, both North Korea and Iran would now have nukes. So it is hypocritical to accuse Trump of negotiating a bad deal, when they / you NEVER criticized the bad deals made by three Democrat presidents (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden) over the last 35 years. And unlike you, I cited specifics of what these Democrat presidents did wrong. And in Ausralia-Dave's other topic on this subject, I also said : - https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1242159#Post1242159
Iran has been in constant war with the United States for 48 years since 1979, that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and civilians.
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden all did little to nothing, either afraid or just hoped against logic that Iran's growing threat would just go away. And in the cases of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, gave Iran's islamic terror regime billions of dollars to widen their war against the United States, and further attack our allies worldwide, and even used the money BIDEN AND OBAMA GAVE THEM to develop nuclear weapons, and the missiles to carry them.
Three months ago when Trump sent negotiators to try and reach a peaceful solution, one of the Iranian diplomats boasted that Iran already had 60%-plus enriched uranium, enough to build 11 nuclear warheads, and missiles to carry them, and that Iran was just weeks away from having completed bombs and missiles, ready to deploy. When U.S. negotiators communicated this to Trump, THAT is the exact point that Trump made the decision to go to war on Iran, to prevent Iran from reaching that threshold.
Keep in mind, less than a year ago, the U.S. did a bombing strike that took out Iran's underground mountain nuclear manufacturing bases completely.
And then undeterred, Iran just immediately rebuilt its nuclear program and missiles.
And further used that redeveloped nukes program to threaten U.S. negotiators. In the Obama or Biden administrations, that would have intimidated them into submission, and Iran would now have nuclear weapons to blackmail or destroy the world. But Trump would not permit that to happen, and did what was necessary.
Trump would prefer a diplomatic approach, but because Iran was revealed to be weeks away from having completed nuclear weapons, Trump knew there wasn't time to wait till after the mid-term election, he had to act now to prevent Iran from being in a position to become a nuclear power. A fanatical Islamic regime that is already the greatest sponsor of terrorism, that for 48 years has daily chanted "Death to America", and "Death to Israel", has said it wants nuclear weapons "to advance the cause of Islam", and with nuclear weapons, it "would wipe Israel off the map".
A nation this fanatical can not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Period, the end.
I absolutely support Trump's actions in Iran. He is doing what is necessary, and 48 years overdue.
So I did include Republicans in those who all kicked it down the road for 48 years, for someone else to deal with. But the reckless giveaways that allowed and EVEN DIRECTLY FUNDED Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons, were ALL from the Democrat party. That is just an undisputable fact. And it is not "partisan" to simply cite the undisputable facts regarding Iran and North Korea's nuclear development, as you partisanly attack Trump. And then call ME partisan, for just answering the issue, and for citing the actual facts to correct what you distortedly raised. I have been and remain a Reagan conservative, as a majority of America have identified as, the shared center, for the last 45 years. What the hell are you? A far-Left Democrat talking points machine, that will parrot whatever the current rhetoric of the Left-lurching Democrat-Bolshevik party is. You advocate that it was right and just to have killed Charlie Kirk. https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1241830&page=1You threatened some kind of coming future vengeance and payback against conservatives for Trump winning a second term. https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1239936&page=1 You NEVER criticize even the most extreme and violent rhetoric or actions from the Democrat party. You ALWAYS find a way to rationalize and excuse it. And even advocate it. And then you have the audacity to portray me as a partisan, for pointing that out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
You just lying now WB. I was pretty careful about what I said about Charlie Kirk. Your response to his assassination vs the MN the lawmaker and her husband on the other hand shows you’re actually guilty of what you’re trying to accuse me off. I’m truly disgusted by your responses there.
Trump started this war. Before that he tore up the Obama deal. He’s spent a lot of money and gotten a lot of people killed. Trump made things worse. This is so bad that even a lot of republicans are criticizing it now. Not you though. It’s always the same with you.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
. "conservative grassroots activist Charlie Kirk assassinated" topic
https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1241830&page=1 We went back and forth about 60 posts, and you could NEVER admit that Charlie Kirk was senselessly murdered. You over and over ALWAYS said that Charlie Kirk "caused" his own death. By having an open dialogue, where in multiple videos I linked, Kirk in many cases persuaded liberals with the facts, and changed their point of view with civil dialogue and persuasion. So for you, simply having a conversation with words, that these people voluntarily came forward at a friendly public event to engage Kirk in, somehow excuses violently killing him That is way the fuck off the deep end crazy, M E M. And I'm absolutely not lying, YOU are. And that is crystal clear, in the linked topic, over and over. This is the mindset of the Left and the Democrat-Bolshevik party. If you disagree with them, your side thinks they have the right to threaten, intimidate, bully, or even kill those who disagree. And as I PROVED in that topic, you are unapologetically of the same mindset. There is only one side that is endlessly attacking and intimidating, and even killing people of the opposite political view, and that is the Democrats. and... It's not just a few Democrat crazies. These are attacks tha happen across the U.S., every day, for 10 years now, for things as insignificant and small as just wearing a MAGA hat. This mindset seems to be the new and increasing fanatical violence of a large portion of the Democrat party. The majoriy of Democrats, if not close to 100% of Democrats. As further proof of that, there is only one person in the Democrat party who has the courage to condemn this, Sen. John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania. And I'm sure he too has received death threats. And for calling Democrats to move away from communism and violence, the rest of the Democrat party has made it clear they will primary him in the next election. So the same complete intolerance and violent intimidation is aimed not just at Republicans, but also at other Democrats and independents/moderates who dare to dissent from the rest of the Democrat-Bolshevik party. As in the examples of Elon Musk, New York City former mayor Eric Adams, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. And more recently Eric Swallwell of California. In each case, these were guys who were protected by the DNC machine for roughly 20 years each, from scandal or prosecution. But the moment they stepped out of line and dissented, or in Musk's case openly supported the Republican party, the DNC machine either unleashed lawfare on them, or in Musk's case sent the red army out to burn Tesla cars and dealerships, to not only intimidate Musk, but to also intimidate anyone who buys or owns Elon Musk's cars. And even more so, sends a warning to everyone nationwide, of the Bolshevik violence and lawfare ready to be unleashed on anyone else who strays or gets in the way of the Democrat-Bolshevik party.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
What I actually said vs you lying… Political violence from either side is unacceptable! It was just not that long ago a democrat lawmaker and her husband were assasinated plus another dem lawmaker and his wife seriously injured. WB I understand your rage and won’t find any type of humor about this horrible murder acceptable. We are different that way and I’m grateful for it. I’m still grateful that we’re different that way.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
What I actually said vs you lying… Political violence from either side is unacceptable! It was just not that long ago a democrat lawmaker and her husband were assasinated plus another dem lawmaker and his wife seriously injured. WB I understand your rage and won’t find any type of humor about this horrible murder acceptable. We are different that way and I’m grateful for it. I’m still grateful that we’re different that way. We've been over this before. The shooter in the creepy mask is a rabid Democrat, and says he shot the lawmaker and her husband on orders from Governor Tim Walz. "Minnesota lawmaker and husband assassinated" topic
https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1240705 I also didn't make any cruel jokes about the murders, I only quoted Senator Mike Lee, who posted on social media about the murders, and then out of sensitivity deleted his post. Even if that last part about Walz sending him to kill them is untrue and only in the shooter's head, the shooter is still a fanatical Democrat ideologue, who was motivated to shoot Democrat leaders because they were voting in dissent from Walz and other Minnesota Democrats. Even though he was Democrat, he killed them because (in his mind) they weren't Democrat enough. And it is a further example of those in your party's need to resort to intimidation and violence when things don't go their way politically, or just run across someone who is wearing a MAGA hat, or just doesn't agree with them. (See the THOUSANDS of examples I linked above.) I fail to see how that connects to your slanders of Trump, and your CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death, saying he "brought about his own death" , with no sympathy or condemnation of Kirk's being shot by the lunatics in your own party, and the thousands of others gleefully celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media with such incredible cruelty. There's just no getting around that .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
I think people can see what I posted WB and that you’re projecting. Mike Lee removed the post only because it became politically damaging to himself. He’s an awful person too. The assassin’s background is clearly conservative. His friend that he rented a room from even said he was a was a Trump supporter. Friends say Minnesota shooting suspect was deeply religious and conservative
Fair play!
|
|
1 member likes this:
MisterJLA |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
I think people can see what I posted WB and that you’re projecting. Mike Lee removed the post only because it became politically damaging to himself. He’s an awful person too. The assassin’s background is clearly conservative. His friend that he rented a room from even said he was a was a Trump supporter. Friends say Minnesota shooting suspect was deeply religious and conservative"Projecting" what? FACTS ?!?I absolutely destroyed your arguments with cited and sourced facts. And you pretend I didn't back up everything I said. Whereas all you have is fake morality and outrage, with no facts to support what you said. And here's another fact : The poll I've cited several times, where 55% of Democrat liberals polled say it would be "morally right" to assassinate Trump. And in the same poll 48% think it would be "morally right" to assassinate Elon Musk? For WHAT?!? https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-bomb...ure-spreading-left-under-president-trump For building privately funded spaceships to Mars? For inventing brain-imptanted chips that will allow paraplegic injured people to move like everyone else again? For inventing Starlink that allows people in hurricanes and other disaster areas to communicate again? Or allows people under oppressive murderous regimes like Iran to communicate with the outside world? Yeah, what an evil guy, it would be morally right to kill him. Elon Musk, even if he creates nothing else for the rest of his life, has done far more good in the world than the Democrat-Bolshevik lunatics who would kill him ever will. He has created the bedrock technology that will elevate the entire human race over the next century. And these Democrat-Marxist lunatics want to kill him. The Democrat lunatics, which is to say the entire Democrat party at this point, is about seizing control, one-party rule and suppression, not about creating, or about actually helping people. And I've PROVEN this, in specifically sourced example after example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
So an assassin killed one law maker and her husband and almost succeeded in killing another and their spouse in Minnesota and when confronted with his religious and conservative background you go to a poll you like.
Just yesterday Trump lied and blamed Walz for cyber attacks that hit multiple states and that his own officials believe were likely conducted by Iran. After that I watched a clip of Jim Jordan being proud to campaign for a man that allegedly threw hot scalding water on his wife and abused his daughter enough to break her collar bone. I tuned out like most days after reaching my disgust quota that Trump and friends deliver daily.
Fair play!
|
|
1 member likes this:
iggy |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
And here’s some context on your 55 percent stat that you are using deceptively…
Do 55 percent of democrats feel it political violence would be morally right?
No, 55% of Democrats do not believe that political violence is morally right. Broad, generalized national tracking polls consistently show that the vast majority of Democrats, like most Americans, reject political violence.The "55%" statistic frequently cited in recent public discourse stems from a misinterpretation of specific, distinct polling questions.Where the 55% Figure Comes FromThe number 55% appears in two prominent, recent political studies, neither of which found that 55% of all Democrats approve of general political violence:Expectations of Future Violence: A POLITICO/Public First poll found that 55% of all Americans (crossing bipartisan lines) expect political violence to increase in the future, not that they endorse it.Target-Specific Outlier Sub-Polls: A report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) surveyed individuals who identify as "left-of-center" regarding very specific targets. In that hyper-specific, subset group, 55% answered that harming tech billionaire Elon Musk would be "somewhat justified". (In the same poll, 48% of that subset group said the same regarding Donald Trump). This does not represent 55% of the broader Democratic Party endorsing political violence at large.Actual Polling on Democrats and Political ViolenceWhen voters are asked broadly whether political violence is justified to achieve political goals, the numbers are significantly lower, though non-partisan researchers note a recent uptick across the political spectrum:Marquette Law School Poll: Found that 15% of Democrats agree it is "justified for Americans today to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals" (compared to 6% of Republicans).PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll: Revealed that 28% of Democrats believe Americans "may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track". This was an increase from previous years but remains a clear minority, trailing the 31% of Republicans who agreed with the same statement.UC Davis Health Survey: A comprehensive tracker found that 32.1% of "strong Democrats" believed violence could be usually or always justified to achieve at least one out of 20 specific political objectives (such as protecting abortion access), compared to 52.2% of MAGA Republicans looking at their own set of objectives.The Bottom LineWhile researchers from organizations like the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST) warn that tolerance for political rhetoric and targeted radicalism has risen on both sides of the aisle, 70% to 85% of Democrats explicitly abhor and reject political violence when surveyed generally.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
So an assassin killed one law maker and her husband and almost succeeded in killing another and their spouse in Minnesota and when confronted with his religious and conservative background you go to a poll you like. Asked and answered. A poll of Democrats shows 55% agree with killing Trump. And 48% in the same poll think it would be right to kill Elon Musk. The link is right above. And YOU don't condemn this, you just obfuscate and change the subject, and go on rationalizing the murder of Charlie Kirk as him somehow "causing his own death." We've been over this before. The shooter in the creepy mask is a rabid Democrat, and says he shot the lawmaker and her husband on orders from Governor Tim Walz. "Minnesota lawmaker and husband assassinated" topic
https://www.rkmbs.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1240705 I also didn't make any cruel jokes about the murders, I only quoted Senator Mike Lee, who posted on social media about the murders, and then [ Mike Lee] out of sensitivity deleted his post. Even if that last part about Walz sending him to kill them is untrue and only in the shooter's head, the shooter is still a fanatical Democrat ideologue, who was motivated to shoot Democrat leaders because they were voting in dissent from Walz and other Minnesota Democrats. Even though he was Democrat, he killed them because (in his mind) they weren't Democrat enough. And it is a further example of those in your party's need to resort to intimidation and violence when things don't go their way politically, or just run across someone who is wearing a MAGA hat, or just doesn't agree with them. (See the THOUSANDS of examples I linked above.) I fail to see how that connects to your slanders of Trump, and your CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death, saying he "brought about his own death" , with no sympathy or condemnation of Kirk's being shot by the lunatics in your own party, and the thousands of others gleefully celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media with such incredible cruelty. There's just no getting around that . The SHOOTER HIMSELF says that he was shooting Democrats who were's Democrat enough, ones who dissented from supporting legislation Tim Walz advocated. So he's a far-Left Democrat lunatic, who was shooting other Democrat legislators he perceived to not be far-Left enough. What exactly is it about plainly written English detailing these facts from quoted news sources, that you don't understand? Just yesterday Trump lied and blamed Walz for cyber attacks that hit multiple states and that his own officials believe were likely conducted by Iran. I frankly disagree with Trump on this point. But it is not proven that Trump is wrong. After that I watched a clip of Jim Jordan being proud to campaign for a man that allegedly threw hot scalding water on his wife and abused his daughter enough to break her collar bone. I tuned out like most days after reaching my disgust quota that Trump and friends deliver daily. I don't know who or what that is reference to. I assume this one I Googled: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...allegedly-abusive-republican/ar-AA299em5But emphasis on the word "allegedly", not something proven. In the article, Rep. Jim Jordan supports Miller's re-elecion. But Senator Bernie Moreno (Miller's father-in-law, faher of his wife) vocally opposes Miller's re-election. It's presented in the re-posted gay advocate article (clearly partisan-left, choosing sides with the Democrats) as if it was a straight apples-to=apples comparison. But it is not. There is one allegation against Miller, it could be a he said/she said, and I even saw Miller interviewed on Newsmax about it, andinerview before Miller of Bernie Moreno in the same story. Miller's estranged wife is Moreno's daughter. Miller explained she is bipolar and not accurate in the allegation. It's one incident, and he said / she said. Whereas Graham Platner has a whole boatload of allegations, from multiple accusers. Frankly, I wouldn't endorse or vote for Miller, and I wouldn' voe for him, it's too questionable. But Jim Jordan has worked with him in the House, knows him personally and they talk frequently, I haven't. So Jim Jordan seems to know him and have assessed Miller as telling the truth and judged him no capable of that, not just endorsed him out of a bid for Republican House control. Miller also alleged in the interview that Senator Moreno offered him a large sum of money, 6 or 7 figures,t o quietly divorce his daughter without publicly discussing the break-up events and her alleged history of violent bipolar behavior. But if that's true, that certainly was not a transaction accepted, and the whole ugly mess has been made public, by both sides. And you turn a blind eye to many such things in your own party, such as things said and endorsement by a large number of Democrats, of killing Jews in the Oct 7th Hamas attacks, by both Mamdani and his wife, his wife giving "thumbs up" on Facebook to the slaughter, murder and rape of 1,200 Jews. Likewise Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Hasan Piker, and this Al Sayed guy running in primaries this week. That the Bolsheviks in your insane party all endorsed. https://townhall.com/columnists/tay...l-cast-of-candidates-in-history-n2681134Likewise this Graham Platner guy in Maine running for Democrat Senator. Aside from having a Nazi SS tattoo ( same as the guards at Auschwitz, and Platner basks in his historical knowledge of the Nazis and clearly knew exactly what his tattoo means, and boasted abou it for 20 years), he also roughed up a girlfriend and trapped her in a room for an entire night, essentially kidnapping her. And also trolled for under-age girls on an under-age dating website. And cheated regularly on his newlywed wife of less than 3 years. And raped another girl, this las one he death blow to his Senate run. Plus lunatic stuff about masturbating in port-a-potty bathrooms. And Platner fantasizes to others about catching a man burglarizing his house, so he can rape and humiliate him. Oh, but not because he's homosexual!! No SIR !! Every Democrat endorsed this Platner guy until the last girl made her rape allegation. And at that point other Democrat leaders ONLY stopped supporting him because from then on he was losing in the polls, so even then, they ONLY stopped supporting him because he couldn't win. And this race-obsessed Francesca Hong communist running for governor of Wisconsin, and her long list of Marxist and America-hating comments. And likewise a total of 37 similar America-hating Marxist and/or Islamic jihadist advocating candidates. The ONLY reason Democrats don't endorse the worst of the worst in their party is if they aren't winning in the polls. Otherwise, there is NOTHING, no shameful past event, that Democrats will not support. and that is proven over and over again. Going back to at least 2016, with Debbie Wasserman BITCH-CUNT Schulttz exposed by Wikileaks, forcing her to resign as DNC chair. Plus Hillary Clinton, insider trader Nancy Pelosi, "well we won, didn't we?" Harry Reid. Along with new DNC chair Donna Brazil who helped give Hillary Clinton CNN's primary debate questions in advance, and also helped rig rig the DNC primary elections for Hillary Clinton, and against Bernie Sanders. All with heavy ties to Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, both of whom Democrats still took campaign money from, and were best pals with, long after these two were each indicted and national news , for their decades-long systemic abuse of women. Democrat-Bolsheviks one and all. No ethics, no shame.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
“The SHOOTER HIMSELF says that he was shooting Democrats who were's Democrat enough, ones who dissented from supporting legislation Tim Walz advocated.
So he's a far-Left Democrat lunatic, who was shooting other Democrat legislators he perceived to not be far-Left enough.
What exactly is it about plainly written English detailing these facts from quoted news sources, that you don't understand?”
Because you keep ignoring that his friends and family say he was a conservative and a Trump supporter. I believe I’ve sourced that fact a couple of times. He’s one of those far right lunatics that had a list of other democrats to kill to tip power to the republicans in Minnesota. Instead of acknowledging his conservative background that is really glaringly apparent you play games. It’s about what I come to expect from you.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,310 Likes: 112 |
Democrats forced Platner out. Republicans kept Max Miller in. In fact the white house has even asked the gop to stop calling for Miller to drop out. I think he’s a perfect candidate for your party, lol.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
I frankly disagree with Trump on this point. But it is not proven that Trump is wrong. You really don't understand how much of a lap dog this still makes you sound, bootlicker? It's not temerous to say he's fucking wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,634 Likes: 40 |
. I frankly disagree with Trump on this point. But it is not proven that Trump is wrong. You really don't understand how much of a lap dog this still makes you sound, bootlicker? It's not temerous to say he's fucking wrong. The partisan piece-of-shit liberal media (and unhinged lying cocksmokers like you) ALSO had a hissy-fit when Trump in his first term said that rapes in Sweden and other European countries has skyrocketed over the last 2 decades, precisely because of Muslim immigration to those countries. But they were all wrong, and Trump was right on that statistical fact. I saw a report in the last 2 weeks , that rape has escalated about 700% in the United Kingdom, precisely because of Muslim immigration to the U.K.. So like I said, I disagree with Trump on the Minnesota cyber-attacks on public utilities (and other blue states). But he can't be proven to be wrong. I think Trump said it to draw attention to the contempt Democrat governors, and Democrats in general, have for national security and the safety of the American people. And said it to stick it to Walz personally., because Walz is such a corrupt and dangerously Anti-American schmuck. I think it was political rhetoric on Trump's part, and I didn't take it too seriously when Trump said it. And since a dishonest barely closeted unhinged liberal partisan like you hyperventilated so much about it, I'd say for Trump... mission accomplished !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,246 Likes: 59 |
You're stupid and unhinged if that's your takeaway from all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,590 Likes: 88
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,590 Likes: 88 |
I frankly disagree with Trump on this point. But it is not proven that Trump is wrong. You really don't understand how much of a lap dog this still makes you sound, bootlicker? It's not temerous to say he's fucking wrong. MAGA is a cult, disagreeing with their leader is forbidden.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
