Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

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

#61

Post by hagbard_c »

Loughla wrote: post #29
Alupis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama. Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama?

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.

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

#62

Post by Fauntleroy »

nailer wrote: post #48
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine a sitting President personally saying 'the highest holders of my grift coin get a personal visit with me'. That would seem odd, wouldn't it?

[flagged]

You started this (soon to be flagged to nonexistence) chain with whataboutism.

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

#65

Post by clipsy »

nailer wrote: post #26
techpineapple wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience): The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in survei…

Have you bothered to do any sort of comparison as to how similar attacks are reported? At a quick glance, I see nothing on George W Bush's wiki page[0] about the 2002 consulate attack in Kolkata[1], for example.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_attack_on_American_cultur...

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

#67

Post by anigbrowl »

nailer wrote: post #20
mikeyouse wrote: post #18

Remember when people pretended it was the scandal of all scandals that the IRS was reviewing PACs who were forbidden from doing political activity for political activity? And now many of those same people are cheering this, and the act blue ‘investigation’, and the threats against Harvard’s tax exempt status for nakedly corrupt reasons? Man I wish shame still had some stopping power.

[flagged]

I don't think those accusations need to be taken seriously while they're being hyped by people like Jim Jordan. If they have evidence of wrongdoing they should forward it to the DoJ and write it up in an indictment, where it can be reviewed by a court and jury that will evaluate the claims made therein.

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

#68

Post by habinero »

hagbard_c wrote: post #61
Loughla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama. Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama?

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 w…

> partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA

This is just a euphemism for "he was black in public and lesser white people didn't like it".

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

#69

Post by tzs »

> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

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

#70

Post by hagbard_c »

cogogo wrote: post #27
Alupis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I actually clicked this link in good faith. Glad to see the downvote I can’t make arrived.

Why are you glad for a downvote? Just because you don't agree with Sanger's point of view does not make it less worthwhile to read about it. Censorship is not something to be glad about and yes, downvoting opinions outside of your desired narrative until they are greyed out into oblivion or killed is a form of censorship.
Post reply on HN