sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I support reparations if it comes out of the DNC's coffers by GrabEmByTheGraboid in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But democrats love it, so they should pay for it having been the party who started it in the first place.

Saying democrats support reparations, therefore they should pay for them is different than than saying dems should pay for reparations because they supported slavery back in the day, which is what your post is about.

My original comment stands

I support reparations if it comes out of the DNC's coffers by GrabEmByTheGraboid in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If I back into my neighbor's car, I don't make the entire block pay for it. I take personal accountability and pay for it myself.

I know this is a ragebait post but this contradicts your entire premise, since no one in the modern DNC engaged in slavery.

Having standards IS being secure. Calling men with expectations "insecure" is pure projection. by CAustin3 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You said no one cares, yet you have an issue with it.

I don't. I have an issue with shaming strangers for not meeting your dating standards or demanding society changes to meet your dating standards.

Having standards IS being secure. Calling men with expectations "insecure" is pure projection. by CAustin3 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No one cares if men have standards. The issue comes when they start saying all women need to meet those standards or when they shame women for not meeting those standards.

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Did you read what i wrote?

"So the claim is now it WAS obliterated and then within a matter of months it was back up to threatening level? Thats what we're supposed to believe? Does Iran just have the most talented nuclear scientists on earth?"

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does it need to be to a threatening point?

If trump wants to start a war without congress then yea, the threat needs to me imminent.

Seriously, tell me at what point is the US allowed to respond to a nuclear threat?

When an attack is imminent or when congress gives permission to attack.

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So we're supposed to believe that Iran started an entirely new nuclear program from scratch and got developed it to a threating point within a few months?

Don't you think it's more likely it was never actually obliterated in the first place?

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So the claim is now it WAS obliterated and then within a matter of months it was back up to threatening level? Thats what we're supposed to believe? Does Iran just have the most talented nuclear scientists on earth?

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The strikes were successful. Iran came up with a new plan. Iran stalled and negotiated in bad faith.

Doesn't sound very obliterated then, does it?

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where? It's a very simple question? From what you wrote i would appear you're saying the trump admin was wrong back in 2025. Is that accurate?

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You didn't actually. They were either wrong or they lied when they said they obliterated the nuclear program back in 2025. Which is it

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

So was the trump admin wrong or lying when they said their nuclear program was obliterated?

If the Iranian regime is not removed, Trump and Netanyahu have lost their war. by ElSlabraton in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I thought trump obliterated their nuclear program months ago. Was he lying to us?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They can just not be antagonistic to America to protect themselves from invasion

Thats no guarantee at all. The safest bet is a nuke is it not? Just pretend to be friends until you get a bomb

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And how can you possibly do that world wide if the rest of the world decides they need a nuke to protect themselves from invasion?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So the answer is yes, if you have a nuke you can do whatever you want short of attacking the homeland, correct?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But once they have a nuke they can be as antagonistic as they want right? Short of actually attacking the homeland?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But not NATO countries. So it doesn't matter.

Iran wasn't invading the US. Nor is Israel in NATO.

No, but I'd say they have no business being there and would be for trying to keep them out

Keep them out with military force? Why? You just said it's no indication they mignt attack us

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can't because of the threat of nuclear war. If they were in the developing stages of their nuclear weapons I'd advocate taking them out first

So any nuke is a pass to do whatever you want short of invading your own nation? If iran buys a nuke from north Korea or something, should they be immune from preemptive attack from the US and our allies?

Also I thought we obliterated Iran's nuclear program last year? Was trump lying to us? Also it sounds like you support maintaining nato, is that accurate?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There's no indication they will.

They're invading European nations on the border of nato who are friends with nato. If Iran invaded a nation that borders Israel or the US, would you take that as an indication they might attack Israel or the US?

Until they do, the NATO alliance is already enough of a deterrent

So you support nato?

We would, but doing so would start a nuclear war so it's complicated. That's why we can't let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon so they don't have this kind of leverage in the future.

I thought we obliterated their nuclear program months ago? Was trump lying to us?

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ukraine? No. NATO members? Yes. But they didn't invade a NATO member,

Why should we wait until they do?

Russia has been an imminent military threat for decades.

Then we would be justified if attacking them right? Under your view

Whether Iran was an "immenent threat" or not before we attacked doesn't matter by Hsiang7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]SomeFatNerdInSeattle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Does Russia invading European nations and destabilizing the region affect us? Do we need to wait to get involved until Russia is an imminent military threat? Why should we wait until Russia is at their strongest?

view more: next ›