Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show.

It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no presidents have ever acted this way before. The difference here is that this president is also a power-tripping glorified reality show egomaniac. Thus, the operant term is the latter, not the former.





Again, that said someone is the President of the United States. If he wasnt the president, these companies probably wouldnt be doing this.

I still feel thats pretty relevant.


The part which is relevant is that he’s willing to break the law in unprecedented ways and has the full support of the Republican Party in doing so. Americans used to pride ourselves on the government not controlling businesses.

The US government has been dictating what company grows and what fails since WWII. Just like every other country.

Really? So like IBM getting big and then fading to Microsoft and then Apple and Google was a government plan? The government decided that American car manufacturers should lose to Japan but then pivoted back for … reasons?

This is not like “every other country”, it’s like corrupt authoritarian countries and you shouldn’t help cover for it by making excuses for corruption.


If he wasnt the President, he wouldnt be able to do those things.

Therefore the fact he is President is pretty relevant.


Sure, and again, that someone is also a 34-time convicted criminal and rapist. He wouldn't be doing these things if he wasn't predisposed to criminality and abusing people over which he has disproportionate power, or if he wasn't a malignant narcissist and glorified reality tv show egomaniac, with a track record of amoral transactional relationships aimed at improving his position at the expense of others.

So, your points and others' are all 'pretty relevant': we now have the means (provided by the article), the motive (provided by others), and the opportunity (provided by you). Thank you for your useful and equal contribution to the trifecta.


sorry, on HN you get flagged for stating the truth



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: