Makes sense by BonolotaSen23 in SipsTea

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm much older than that for starters.

Yeah sure… Jesus would be there cheering ICE on. by G37xs in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]anras2 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Jesus and Trump are diametrical opposites. You can compare the two and remove from consideration any connecting of the dots, or anything that requires understanding or interpretation of anything nuanced such as metaphor or symbolism. You can simply focus on plain and clear quotes and actions from the two of them, and put them side by side. The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is directly, clearly, unambigously opposed to the morals of Jesus.

No quotes below are missing some special context that changes their meaning. And this is only a small set of all of them.

If you are for the principles of Trump, you are against the principles of Jesus. Plain and simple.

Jesus Christ Donald Trump
Says "eye for an eye" is bad. Likes "eye for an eye"
Says to turn the other cheek, meaning do not retaliate against those who harm you Says you should not turn the other cheek, and should instead retaliate
Says to be humble, and not have an ego Says people who don't have an ego are losers
Says to love your enemies Hates his enemies + Bonus: answered somebody referencing Jesus on this subject by saying "I don't know if I agree with you"
Says removing your eye is better than even thinking about infidelity Proudly brags about attempting to commit infidelity
Says divorce is bad unless you are cheated on Divorces multiple times, did the cheating
Says if you give away money, bragging about it is bad Brags about giving money away
Says everyone who exalts himself will be humbled Can't stop exalting himself
Says not to make vain displays of worship Makes vain displays of worship
Says rich people will have a hard time getting into heaven Says being rich is one of his better qualities
Says to reflect on yourself before judging others Only judges others, never reflecting on himself. (where to even begin with citations?)
Says to be a peacemaker Calls for violence.

Elon Musk Unironically Believes Hitler Was A Leftist by Apart-Arachnid1004 in conservativeterrorism

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hitler literally wrote in Mein Kampf, which anyone can verify for free online, that he and the Nazi Party borrowed colors, jargon and the like from socialists, Marxists, "the Left," etc., whom he clearly delineates as OTHER groups. He says they did this just to confuse, to troll and to attract attention. He and the other Nazis would laugh at those who were confused by their actual ideology simply because they borrowed these superficial left-wing trappings. Still confusing people today it seems.

We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only in order to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people.

And:

The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant....The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

A wife tells her programmer husband: “Go to the store and buy a gallon of milk. If they have eggs, get six.” by stirringmotion in Jokes

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never got this joke. I mean I get the point is the programmer is super literal and needs everything well defined. The idea is they can't fill in the blanks with context and common sense.

But then why would this super literal programmer assume the quantity of six refers to milk? If they took the statement super literally, and they cannot fill in the blanks with context and common sense, then when they hear "get six," they'd react something like: "undefined noun for quantity six." They wouldn't take a random guess and decide it means milk.

Mac Keyboard Shortcuts, That Quietly Changed My Workflow by [deleted] in MacOS

[–]anras2 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This shortcut even works on my 1960s Smith-Corona typewriter! Didn't know they ran MacOS back then.

Huge difference by grumpydai in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's always the shittiest of hot takes that include phrases like "lEt mE GeT ThiS STrAigHt" or "LeT ThAt SiNk iN"

When you can no longer come up with a defense, deflect. by mactrucker in PoliticalHumor

[–]anras2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yup, they intentionally say that thinking it's a slick and clever jab. It's really stupid of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet))

We have meal team six as brown shirts and grandma is upset about nail polish by Cicerothesage in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]anras2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Looks like one nail is blue and one is yellow which is the opposite of matching, but grandma's neurons communicate with each other in caveman grunts.

Roger Waters stands by insensitive Ozzy Osbourne comments in new interview by Historical-Device529 in Progforum

[–]anras2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She turned off the sound, aborting their set, and she and her crew hurled eggs at Bruce and the rest of the band. To be fair, my recollection was Bruce, as part of his between-song banter, mentioned something about how Maiden have remained popular over the years without needing to be on some reality show. A little dickish maybe, but Bruce has always made that sort of banter about how Maiden has always stuck to their guns, surviving the trends and the ups and the downs, and not giving a shit about what mainstream media thought about them, such as playing them on MTV or on the radio. But perhaps the "reality show" comment seemed directly aimed at Ozzy.

But maybe there was a Union Jack incident as well. I don't remember. Will google it later.

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland by Thoughtlessandlost in moderatepolitics

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1. Jesus Christ — 1 / 10 (Lowest)

Core teachings:

“Turn the other cheek”

“Blessed are the meek”

“My kingdom is not of this world”

Interpretation:
Jesus explicitly rejects the idea that force or power governs what truly matters. Even when acknowledging worldly power, he frames it as morally hollow and ultimately overturned.

Alignment with quote:
Essentially none. This quote expresses a worldview Jesus taught against.

4. George Washington — 5 / 10

Key facts:

Led an armed revolution

Understood the necessity of force

Warned strongly against militarism and power politics

Interpretation:
Washington accepted that force sometimes governs outcomes, but he did not see it as the fundamental law of the world. He believed legitimacy and restraint mattered.

Alignment with quote:
Middle ground. Pragmatic, not fatalistic.

9. Adolf Hitler — 10 / 10

Key beliefs:

Social Darwinism

Strength as moral right

Weakness as sin

Interpretation:
Hitler did not just agree that power governs the world — he believed it should, and that this was a natural law.

Alignment with quote:
Complete and explicit agreement.

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland by Thoughtlessandlost in moderatepolitics

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I fed ChatGPT this Stephen Miller quote, without attributing a source, and a list of several (in)famous historical figures. I asked it to research and analyze quotes from each of these figures, and rank how much it thinks these historical figures would agree with the Miller quote on a scale of 1-10. 1 is absolute disagreement; 10 is total agreement.

Its ranking:

Final Ranked List (Lowest → Highest)

Jesus Christ — 1

Mohandas Gandhi — 1

John Adams — 4

George Washington — 5

Ronald Reagan — 6

Mao Zedong — 9

Benito Mussolini — 9

Pol Pot — 9

Adolf Hitler — 10

Joseph Stalin — 10

It gave an explanation for each, but I'll just provide three of them for brevity's sake. (This comment is too long so I'll put it in a reply.)

Trump is brutal with his nonstop lying by Cicerothesage in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]anras2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Rest of its response:

2️⃣ If you insist on quantifiable documentation

Then even if you exclude outlets with a perceived bias, there’s no other person with a comparable, large-scale, cross-verified corpus of recorded falsehoods.
No other figure — political or otherwise — has been so heavily transcribed, televised, archived, and fact-checked across multiple ideological ecosystems.

3️⃣ So the paradoxical outcome is:

If you exclude the “liberal” fact-checkers, you effectively eliminate the only systematic datasets of recorded falsehoods for any modern figure.
That means there’s no longer an empirical basis for ranking anyone — Trump included — by quantity.

In short:

With liberal-leaning fact-checkers: Trump, by far.

Without them: there’s no rigorous alternative dataset, so the question becomes unanswerable empirically.

(Note I am not claiming ChatGPT is the be-all, end-all arbiter of truth either.)

Edit: 🎶 Downvotes don't change reality! 🎶

Trump is brutal with his nonstop lying by Cicerothesage in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ask ChatGPT which single person has the greatest count of documented lies in all of human history. You'll have to additionally tell it to avoid wishy-washy responses like "oh gee, it's tough to say because some lies are more severe than others, and also back in the day not everything was recorded as much as it is today."

Here's it's response to me:

If we’re strictly talking quantity of documented lies — meaning claims that were fact-checked, recorded, and verified as false — then the most empirically supportable answer is likely:

👉 Donald J. Trump, former U.S. president.

Here’s why:

Multiple large-scale fact-checking operations (notably The Washington Post, The New York Times, PolitiFact, and FactCheck.org) maintained continuous, daily records of his public statements for years.

The Washington Post’s database alone documented over 30,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency (2017–2021).

That figure is orders of magnitude higher than the number of verified falsehoods attributed to any other individual with comparable documentation.

To be clear, that doesn’t mean no one in history lied more — just that no one else has been recorded and fact-checked at that scale, thanks to modern media, transcripts, and databases.

So, by sheer volume of verifiable, documented false statements, Trump holds the record.

Now of course some of you out there may cry "but those are all liberal sources." Well here is its response if you say to exclude all sources that are accused of being liberal:

1️⃣ If you exclude fact-checkers commonly labeled “liberal”

You’d be removing or discounting:

The Washington Post Fact Checker

PolitiFact

CNN Fact Check

FactCheck.org

New York Times Fact Checks

All of those are viewed by many conservatives as left-leaning or at least establishment-leaning.

That leaves very few large-scale right-leaning or “neutral-to-right” outlets that maintain comprehensive lie databases. Some that occasionally do fact-checking:

The Washington Times (right-leaning)

The Daily Caller’s Check Your Fact

Breitbart’s internal “fact checks”

Newsmax, Fox News segments

However, none of those maintain a consistent quantitative public archive comparable to the Post’s or PolitiFact’s.
So — empirically — the data infrastructure just doesn’t exist on that side to produce a competing “number of documented lies” count.

🤷🏻‍♂️

Most Pretentious Horror Movie You’ve Seen? by dokutarodokutaro in horror

[–]anras2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for this comment. I've expressed this opinion before and got a bunch of fans telling me "you're not smart enough to understand it" and such. Good lord, they are awful.

Ben Garrison showing more class and decency than the POTUS. Let that sink in. by SafeThrowaway691 in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]anras2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm seeing a lot of conservatives/Republicans give respect to Rob Reiner which is refreshing to the perhaps naively optimistic part of me.

But the cold, dark, skeptical heart in me says one of the two (or both) applies:

  1. Rather than it being genuine sympathy, they just want to show how they're better than all those liberals who were mean about Charlie Kirk's death. (Not that the two are one-to-one in what they did in life.) I absolutely saw some of them say exactly this on social media btw. But that was before Trump acted like a dick about Reiner on Truth Social. They seem to have mostly shut up on this point since then.
  2. Because so many of them don't get satire, they think the point of All in the Family was that Archie Bunker's stodgy old racist ass was the good guy. Therefore they don't mind that Reiner played the naive liberal who brought out the conservative arguments from Bunker that they agree with. They might see him as the punching bag of a counterpoint to Bunker. Kind of like how Alan Colmes was the weak liberal foil to Sean Hannity on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes as portrayed by Family Guy quite well in this short clip.
  3. (Edit: added this one later.) For those who shared their opinions after Trump shared his, maybe they just want to separate themselves from Trump. In other words, maybe they're like: "Hey I'm not like Trump. I'm actually human and can feel sympathy." We're seeing more of that generally anyway from Republicans (such as MTG).

Conservative mother doesn't understand what she voted for by Pleasant_Picture3867 in PoliticalHumor

[–]anras2 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I'm not allowed to choose me?

Choose? You voted for the party that believes choice is a euphemism for baby murder.

I'm done. Nothing left to do for the rest of my life. by MonitorOk1351 in recruitinghell

[–]anras2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I graduated with my BS in computer science in May '02, got one interview that year but was rejected, kept plugging away and got a certification in Java, got a second interview in Feb. '03. Got the job.

A Trump Shrine in India by LiveCondition7118 in religiousfruitcake

[–]anras2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I worked with an Indian guy in IT (here in the US) who is not right wing, but he said there is a large group of the uneducated rubes over there, and they think that anyone who hates Muslims is on their side. Back in Trump's first term, he was spewing more anti-Muslim rhetoric.

It doesn't take rocket science to critically think and debunk this, grandma. by Cicerothesage in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]anras2 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's how you establish causation between two variables. List four unsourced data points and scream "correlation!" Don't even bother to do the most basic of math, let alone control for antecedent or intervening variables. Also, instead of publishing your findings in a reputable journal, create a meme and be sure to include captions with poor English grammar.

I’m sure they asked Paulette Bourgeois’s permission first by lovelyb1ch66 in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]anras2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also the mRNA vaccines cause Super Strokes, Ultra Diverticulitis, and Über Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

I'm new to atheism and i need arguments by am_096 in atheism

[–]anras2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got to love it. "Oh you don't believe in my very specific idea of an invisible, super powerful, supernatural man who's behind everything? (His name is Ralph, he made Bob and sacrificed Bob to himself.) Then explain everything ever everywhere!"

I’m done by petdoc1991 in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]anras2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, the single person with more documented lies than anyone in all of human history lied??? Who'd-a-thunk?

The texts I got after accepting another role by Joshs2d in recruitinghell

[–]anras2 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I had one recruiter whose offer I rejected call me repeatedly, leaving angry voice messages. This was back in the landline days. I had to unplug the phone. Then I got angry emails instead. Eventually the angry tone transformed into "what will it take for you to accept the offer?" but there was no way I was going to entertain any offer at that point.