Trump Just Surrendered to Iran--Pathetic

RagnarLothbrok

Heisman
Jun 11, 2025
5,746
15,519
113
Here's the difference between you and me. No matter who is in power, or who is in charge, I support my country and my president. You do not. You support Socialists and Marxists in your party. I don't, nor would I ever. Burn my flag, your party does so with glee. I'm not an antisemite, your party is very antisemetic. I believe in males and females, your party does not. I believe in proper immigration and actual borders, your party does not. We are not remotely the same.

I also vehemently support religious freedom, you absolutely do not.

More than anything, I believe in the Bill of Rights and our Conversation. You and your party absolutely do not. I also believe in the sanctity of life. You definitely do not.
Ryan Gosling Reaction GIF
 

Dadar

All-Conference
Dec 21, 2003
4,762
3,615
113
Be honest. Was that your position when the Obama deal unfroze roughly $2 billion of Iran’s money? I ask because MAGA types would bring up this talking point that “Obama gave Iran a bunch of money” even within this last year.


This is a fair and seemingly accurate objection. According to the information currently available, the $300 billion will be coming from private investment and NOT taxpayer dollars from the United States government.


However, the direct cost to American taxpayers is well over $100 billion, with the tracker stopping the count a week ago. What that number doesn’t take into account are the indirect costs of the war which could reach $1 trillion in long-term costs based off current economic conditions and long-term interest costs from debt-funded spending on the war.


The real question you and other hardcore supporters of the president are going to have to ask is, was the war worth it? Are the United States and its interests more secure as a result of attacking Iran? Is Iran worse off or more emboldened as a result of the war? How honest are you willing to be?


If you have maintained support of Trump this long, I highly doubt it.

Btw, why are you so grumpy?
I don't believe anyone has a clue about how this will play out in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RagnarLothbrok

Anon1750875978

Heisman
Dec 26, 2018
7,913
13,674
113
You should move to Iran with your boyfriend. Report back regarding all the freedoms you have, and how the economy is doing. Keep telling the board, Iran won the war. Not one of you has an ounce of honesty. Go to Iran and enjoy their abundance of food stores. Lmao. What a buffoon.

As Iranians wait for a peace agreement, their economy is fraying : NPR https://www.npr.org/2026/06/14/nx-s...or-a-peace-agreement-their-economy-is-fraying
You seem angry

You angry, bro?

I get it. It's tough seeing this WH flailing and trying to sell something that doesn't exist.
Trump got played by Bibi.
That's hardly open for debate.

November gonna be great.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

SB_SB

All-Conference
Dec 17, 2022
1,729
3,171
113
Trump is still alive and the “next guy up” in Iran was killed multiple times. Trump is much smarter.

And I’m not so sure Iran wasn’t behind some of the assassination attempts. That would render your point moot.
How many times do I have to say it, they want trump alive. That’s how Iran is guaranteed to continue to win. Also, just because trump is alive, it doesn’t mean the U.S. is winning. We are losing because trump is a loser. He can’t paint concrete right. What an idiot.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
25,758
24,689
113
How many times do I have to say it, they want trump alive. That’s how Iran is guaranteed to continue to win. Also, just because trump is alive, it doesn’t mean the U.S. is winning. We are losing because trump is a loser. He can’t paint concrete right. What an idiot.
If by continting to win you mean dying, sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

baltimorened

All-American
May 29, 2001
7,289
5,440
113
I think that is laughable. You usually pop in and rage respond about 10 posts in a row then disappear for a while, return and do the same. Don't see articles, sources, etc. Literally the first time I remember you sharing a source.

At no point did anyone think we haven't been bombing Iran. Where are you getting that from? Did you think people were complaining because they thought the bombing wasn't happening? The leap in logic is impressive. Just make up reasons in your head and then laugh your *** off. Must be nice.
huckleberry, with all due respect, posting articles is a meaningless, virtue signaling exercise. You can find articles from left leaning ( or right leaning, although not as many of those) publications where the author takes a normal biased position not much different from the person posting on the board...@LafayeteBear does it and @dpic73 is a master at it. But those articles just reinforce the bias..and when someone from the middle or right posts a countering article, well since that doesn't fit the agenda it's "lies, fake news" or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

baltimorened

All-American
May 29, 2001
7,289
5,440
113
No truth, and you have no source.
I have already given my opinion on the military aspects of this war...but as we go back and forth on winning...won't the determination of "winner" come from the achievement of the objectives of the conflict. Now, admittedly, Trump and the administration have been all over the map on the goals - no nuclear weapons, eliminate the already enriched uranium, make Iran ineffective militarily, end funding for proxies in the middle east (and I'm sure there are others) . Seems to me some of these have been accomplished and some haven't. So at this point, we haven't won and we haven't lost...

I will point out though that the information flow...US is giving Iran $300 billion, US is giving $24 billion, the strait is open - the strait is closed -...I don't really know how anyone really knows what's going on and can be so definitive in their statements. The "news" seems to change daily
 
  • Like
Reactions: sleepy64561

SB_SB

All-Conference
Dec 17, 2022
1,729
3,171
113
If by continting to win you mean dying, sure.
Just because the other side has people die, that doesn’t mean your side is winning. I know that’s the only argument you have because everything else has been a complete failure for trump. It’s extremely bad that trump has surrendered to Iran. The only people dumber than trump are you MAGAts that follow and defend everything he does.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
25,758
24,689
113
Just because the other side has people die, that doesn’t mean your side is winning. I know that’s the only argument you have because everything else has been a complete failure for trump. It’s extremely bad that trump has surrendered to Iran. The only people dumber than trump are you MAGAts that follow and defend everything he does.
I didn’t make that argument. I made the argument Trump is smarter because he is still alive. You are claiming that dead people are smart. Go on.

It’s like you are yelling into the abyss.
 

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
10,281
21,827
113
huckleberry, with all due respect, posting articles is a meaningless, virtue signaling exercise. You can find articles from left leaning ( or right leaning, although not as many of those) publications where the author takes a normal biased position not much different from the person posting on the board...@LafayeteBear does it and @dpic73 is a master at it. But those articles just reinforce the bias..and when someone from the middle or right posts a countering article, well since that doesn't fit the agenda it's "lies, fake news" or whatever.
Cool, but at least it is showing where you got your statement, and the reader can review and respond. Not raged induce drivel.
 

DFSNOLE_rivals

Heisman
Sep 25, 2002
3,930
10,455
113
But those articles just reinforce the bias..and when someone from the middle or right posts a countering article, well since that doesn't fit the agenda it's "lies, fake news" or whatever.
Ned, please tell me which side constantly bashes any media that challenges them and came up with the phrases "fake news" and "alternative facts". Here's a hint. It wasn't the left.
 

hawkeyetraveler

Heisman
Aug 10, 2010
5,849
23,499
108
tl;dr I find the back and forth about the $300B to be a bit of a red herring that masks the fact the $300B is unlikely to be fully paid by anyone. For the record my take is the primary US obligation is to organize a collation of countries who will pay that amount (which I doubt happens). So I believe Iran would either have to accept less or the deal will get blown up - which I believe is the highest probability outcome.

More below the line
__________

Pretend for a second a few of libs saying “the US is on the hook” are right. What would actually happen in reality?
  • Congress must approve that kind of spending
  • There is NO world where Congress approves $300B, they would all get voted out of office
  • Even if they did approve it, Trump would simply refuse to pay. This is a man who stiffs contractors for a living
  • So the US would end up reneging on the deal - which would void the whole deal and we are right back where we started. I suspect Iran would just close the strait again and we are right back into global economic instability and a higher price of oil

Now pretend for a second the MAGA people are right and other countries are on the hook to come up with the money.
  • They might pay some of it to get this monkey off their back, but they will extract the pain of that in other ways (reduced investment in US markets/assets comes to mind)
  • However, I think it is improbable they would pay ALL the $300B to Iran. After all, for many in the ME (Saudi Arabia, etc) Iran is an enemy. I suspect if they tacitly agreed to the structure of the MOU they certainly have not agreed to an amount they each would find acceptable. They would have some good leverage in the negotiation about how much each of them should pay.
  • I would bet money that each of them would make any contribution contingent on some obligation from the USA - either a portion of the $300B or some other deal that recoups some of their payment (cheap US real estate like Trump selling them national forest land or the like comes to mind).
  • Any deal where the US offsets the cost would be politically unacceptable to both parties and would likely cause us to renege. So that takes us right back where we started and Iran then has a decision to close the strait or not.
Net net, I don’t see a path where the likely outcome is the $300B gets fully paid. That strikes me as a long shot (call it a 20% probability). Now perhaps Iran has forecasted this already and would accept less than the full amount for the privilege of rejoining the global economy. Or perhaps their hardline death cult stance makes it more appealing to extract more pain from the infidels. It’s hard to say. What I do know is we were so very, very stupid to end up in this position in the first place.
 
Last edited:

baltimorened

All-American
May 29, 2001
7,289
5,440
113
Ned, please tell me which side constantly bashes any media that challenges them and came up with the phrases "fake news" and "alternative facts". Here's a hint. It wasn't the left.
you're right and no one could argue with your statement. But, that doesn't mean that the person writing, for any article, is right in what they are printing. I know I watch and read stories from both the left and the right and sometimes the stories are from 90-180 degrees different. ..both can't be right. So that tells me either the articles are based on opinion or somebody's facts are wrong.

IMO articles based on opinion are not fact and referencing them as such is relatively meaningless
 

SB_SB

All-Conference
Dec 17, 2022
1,729
3,171
113
I didn’t make that argument. I made the argument Trump is smarter because he is still alive. You are claiming that dead people are smart. Go on.

It’s like you are yelling into the abyss.

I never said the dead people are smart. I said Iran as a whole is smarter than trump and has zero reason to remove him from office because trump is so stupid. Why remove a loser.
 

tarheelbybirth1

Heisman
Jul 4, 2025
4,981
14,786
113
Pretend for a second a few of libs saying “the US is on the hook” are right. What would actually happen in reality?
  • Congress must approve that kind of spending
Since when? Have you not paid attention to this admin? Trump would strip the money out from somewhere else if he thought paying Iran was good for him. Much of the money he spent on his moranic wall came from money designated for things like military housing. He'll declare a "national emergency" over the strait being closed and just pay the money. And he'd take a finder's fee out of it.
 

hawkeyetraveler

Heisman
Aug 10, 2010
5,849
23,499
108
Since when? Have you not paid attention to this admin? Trump would strip the money out from somewhere else if he thought paying Iran was good for him. Much of the money he spent on his moranic wall came from money designated for things like military housing. He'll declare a "national emergency" over the strait being closed and just pay the money. And he'd take a finder's fee out of it.
He could try of course - although I doubt he would fight hard to give Iran money. He is more likely to just blame the Dems for the economic mess. Anyway it would get stopped by a lawsuit in a heartbeat and then much later the SC would weigh in. How they vote? Well who knows. In the meantime the 60 day agreement window would have concluded so it is kind of a moot point.

Also $300B is a LOT of money. That isn’t something you just strip out easily.
 

Moogy

All-Conference
Jul 28, 2017
6,491
4,702
113
huckleberry, with all due respect, posting articles is a meaningless, virtue signaling exercise. You can find articles from left leaning ( or right leaning, although not as many of those) publications where the author takes a normal biased position not much different from the person posting on the board...@LafayeteBear does it and @dpic73 is a master at it. But those articles just reinforce the bias..and when someone from the middle or right posts a countering article, well since that doesn't fit the agenda it's "lies, fake news" or whatever.

This is why you're broken.

Trump and his "alternative facts" have convinced you that reality isn't real, and you can make up whatever truth you want ... just by saying it.

No, a well-researched article from "mainstream media" isn't just one version of the truth, and given the same weight as some absolutely insane article posted by TigerGrowls from some conspiracy whacko. Trump ... your President ... is not a reliable source. It's sad that's the case ... and it's never been the case before, and, hopefully, never will be again ... but that's the actual truth.

So you keep wanting to "both sides" everything, while skewing them all toward favorability to Trump ... but, the overwhelming majority of the time, you're "both sidesing" between reality and made-up whackadoodle craziness.
 

Rifler

All-American
Jan 26, 2011
5,255
6,115
113
Perceiving Obama as being a divisive president is not racist,... He came into the office equipped with the ability to fail, just like all others.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
25,758
24,689
113
Tell us again how Obama is the most divisive president of all time.
I don’t think I have said that. I do think a lot of his comments were divisive, and I also think he was pushing the racist, divisive, DEI garbage.

Is he the most divisive of all time? I don’t think I have ever made that claim.

Anyway, I maintain the government should be colorblind. We are all created equal.
 

tarheelbybirth1

Heisman
Jul 4, 2025
4,981
14,786
113
I don’t think I have said that. I do think a lot of his comments were divisive, and I also think he was pushing the racist, divisive, DEI garbage.

Is he the most divisive of all time? I don’t think I have ever made that claim.

Anyway, I maintain the government should be colorblind. We are all created equal.
Exactly how are diversity, equity, and inclusion divisive? It's literally the story of this country. Additionally, the government has been for a very long time not "colorblind". What's your solution for that?

I mean, unless you're a raging racist maggot, of course.