>As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.

▲

Chu4eeno 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.

	▲	gruez 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.