←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
760 points coloneltcb | 2 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.421s | source
Show context
jmclnx ◴[25 Apr 25 23:08 UTC] No.43799332[source]▶
Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
replies(6): >>43799359 #>>43799397 #>>43799410 #>>43799551 #>>43799584 #>>43799659 #
Alupis[dead post] ◴[25 Apr 25 23:20 UTC] No.43799397[source]▶
[flagged]
Loughla ◴[25 Apr 25 23:42 UTC] No.43799504[source]▶
His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama.

Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama?

replies(1): >>43799614 #
hagbard_c ◴[25 Apr 25 23:56 UTC] No.43799614[source]▶
No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and will mostly likely be seen as partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA due to his use of and support for identity politics in a (successful) attempt to win a second period by cobbling together the 'coalition of the oppressed'.

How Trump will end up in the history books wholly depends on whether he succeeds in his attempts to curtail globalism and save the USA from becoming insolvent due to the rising debt. If the economy fails his presidency will as well and with that he'll be remembered for all the controversy around his political career. If he succeeds he'll be seen as a 'realpolitiker' who pulled the USA out of the downward spiral it had been in since ... the late 90's? The end of the cold war?

Of course there is also the chance of a large-scale conflict breaking out during his watch in which case his place in the history books also depends on how that ends.

Time will tell.

replies(3): >>43799640 #>>43799713 #>>43800122 #
1. anigbrowl ◴[26 Apr 25 01:30 UTC] No.43800122[source]▶
It's hard to take you seriously when you employ 'democrat' background and Republican as contrasting terms. Referring to the Democratic party and its supporters is more easily effected by saying [the] Democrats. This sort of baity rhetoric undermines any aspirations to objectivity.
replies(1): >>43803627 #
2. hagbard_c ◴[26 Apr 25 13:52 UTC] No.43803627[source]▶
You can look through (and may already have done so) my comment history for my explanation for putting "democratic" between quotes. In short it is because the party is not democratic and thus should not be called such. Had they been democratic they'd have run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, they'd have had primaries where there were none, they'd have allowed people like RFK and Tulsi Gabbard to have a shot at the candidacy (and might have won the presidency that way, more fool them). The "democratic" party is run by the DNC, not by its constituents. It does not listen to those constituents, the people or 'δημος' ('dèmos', Greek for 'municipality' or 'city', i.e. the people) in 'δημοκρατία'. If and when the party becomes true to its moniker I'll call them by their chosen name, until such a time they're the "democratic" party. Truth in advertising is a good thing after all.