Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Is this president extremely concerned about drug dealers and gangs in the US?

Why is he pardoning a drug trafficker?

I understand your point, but it has become a waste of energy to try to point out hypocridy and ideological inconsistency among that group.

It's better to ignore the rational reasons to oppose them and focus on the emotional ones. For starters, people are repulsed by their cruelty.

I disagree, the lukewarm emotion driven campaign ("we're not the other guy!") and lack of any rational strategy or arguments from the oppositon is how these people won in the first place.
Appeal to emotions stands on the trustworthiness/track record of the pleader. The opposition, full of public/private office musical chair players, has been in the pocket of lobbyists/corporate interests - they don't have any standing to plead to emotions (not saying the incumbents do but they have been successful in harnessing their already enraged supporters).
Pleading to emotion works only if the target audience is not ideologically possessed, and by ideologically, I mean that they hate the mere thought of voting democrat even if they support the democrat’s agenda.

The Democrat agenda has far far higher approval ratings than Democrats, and that says a lot about the current state of affairs.

> The Democrat agenda has far far higher approval ratings than Democrats, and that says a lot about the current state of affairs.

That is a good point. The problem isn't with the message, so this time they shot the messenger.

To add, conservatives voters often claim they vote they way they do because "the other side" makes no attempt to understand them. I think GP is asking an honest question. If nothing else, I had the same question because I want to understand what the conservative voters want in this case, if not the surface level racism.

To anyone who voted for Trump because he said he'd be hard on drug dealers: how do you feel about him pardoning a top level drug dealer?

The answer is that what they want isn't ideologically consistent.

They want him to be hard on criminals who do things they don't like. The biggest drug dealers alive are the Sacklers or maybe McKinsey, and they're not in scope either.

Progressives aren't consistent either. No one is. For example, Dems keep screaming about being a country of laws when referring to GOP antics, but want to ignore certain immigration, anti-abortion, and drug laws (in some cases by just refusing to enforce them).

Unfortunately what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

When did he pardon a top level drug dealer? Source?
Ross Ulbricht is the top level drug dealer GP is referring to.
Systems administrator. Not dissimilar to the civil engineer who planned the streets the drug dealers down the block hang out at.
Yes, yes but children detention center which separated kids from their parents and then lost the paper work connecting them back to their family, even some kids died of neglect in the detention center...cruelty.

The rise of the morally bankrupt in America.

Trump clearly values favoritism to a high degree. He is doing exactly as he has promised, running the country like a businessman. If you scratch his back, he will scratch yours. Principles take a back seat to "getting the job done". For other examples, see his changed stances on TikTok, various foreign interests, cryptocurrencies, EVs post Elon support, etc. And in the opposite vein, he abandons support for anyone who challenges his authority on principles.
That sounds like corruption
{"deleted":true,"id":42794651,"parent":42791017,"time":1737564043,"type":"comment"}
s/businessman/gangster/

Principles are much more important to a businessman than a gangster.

In America? Not for a while.
loading story #42798930
Principled politicians are very rare. Do you think the outgoing administration was particularly principled?

People need to stop thinking of politicians as their friends and having parasocial relationships with them. They're public servants and should be treated as such.

Pardoning Ulbricht was a campaign promise he made at the Libertarian National Convention in response to it being a popular demand among the libertarians.
And more importantly, among the crypto crowd that dumped millions into his campaign. Libertarians have essentially no clout or money on their own. This was a pardon bought by Coinbase and Gemini and A16z.
loading story #42789316
No love for Trump or libertarians but I am a cypherpunk[0] at heart. I'm on board with the idea of ensuring that things can happen online outside of the jurisdiction of any nation[1], so for his part in building towards that I'm happy Ross is free.

On the other hand, it's clear to me that the correct amount of jail time wasn't zero either, given everything else he allegedly did.

[0] https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

[1] I think about this in the same way that we accept the possibility of bad things happening because people can have private conversations in their own home, or are able to have complete control over potentially dangerous tools and vehicles. IMO the risks are worth the trade-offs and these are important rights to protect in the relationship between people, technology, and government (or whoever wields power).

I’d like to know who wrote that speech. A lot of talk about how libertarians are domineered and persecuted. Something like “after criminal prosecutions, if I wasn’t a libertarian then, I sure am now” in front of a very idealistic audience whose skepticism of government is unrelated to how many billionaires it fingerprints. So, they booed and heckled him, and in hindsight I wonder if he was grasping for concessions.
Don't online drug marketplaces lead to reduced gang activity?

One does not need a gang and violence to sell drugs online. Selling drugs offline, gangs and violence will get involved.

loading story #42791029
loading story #42792178
I don't think he knows who RA is, I'm betting the cryptobros who ran his rug pulls and NFTs for the last year have his ear after making him millions of dollars.
I mean, I don't know why it's a full pardon, IMO Ulbricht's sentence was far too long and harsh, I'm sure it was to make a point that others should not replicate it, but wouldn't a stay on the remainder of his sentence been a better option here ?
loading story #42790132
No no no, my friend. Ulbricht was not a lowly drug trafficker (also, incidentally, not black or latino). He was an _entrepreneur_ who built a _marketplace_ that would bring together buyers and sellers, cutting out the middleman, and driving _efficiency_! Basically trustedhousesitters.com, just for illegal drugs instead of pets ;)
{"deleted":true,"id":42795627,"parent":42788948,"time":1737568788,"type":"comment"}
To appease the broligarch technologists, who all enjoyed buying LSD with cryptocoins.
He said he would do this during his campaign as a promise, a lot of libertarians voted for him based on this. He delivered on the promise after he won a convincing majority. I'm not sure why democracy offends you this much.
what's it like to be poor in a rich country? the libertarian party supported his reelection bid and by support Ross he garnered more of their votes. this couldn't be more obvious. he did the same for crypto.

according to Trump: "A promise made is a promise kept", he is keeping his promise to his constituents.

enjoy your CNN propaganda.

Basically he’ll do anything to get the votes he needs, there’s no morality behind it.
So that's the interesting thing about it; he gets the votes from it, so apparently many people agree with him? Only in public nobody seems to agree with him? How is that possible?
>Only in public nobody seems to agree with him? How is that possible?

Societal taboos for example can create a division like this. You can see this divide between truly anonymous forums vs moderated conversations online.

Most of his voters have no idea what his campaign or promises are, and that's intentional, see mexican voters apparently surprised by his anti-mexican stance now.
> see mexican voters apparently surprised by his anti-mexican stance now.

Source?

And it seems people don't particularly like Trump, but vote on him because he seems to be the only one that wants to do something about illegal immigrants:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policie...

And I understand that it's even frustrating for legal immigrants, who waited for years to get citizenship, that illegal immigrants don't have to do anything and get it right away.

>illegal immigrants don't have to do anything and get [citizenship] right away

Do they really? How? Asking for a friend.

loading story #42801499
This is representative of the dichotomy we face within society, in that we rarely associate with people who have different opinions than us, even when we think that we do regularly. It is the paradox of our social circles that overlap but never interact.
>Only in public nobody seems to agree with him

What? In my experience his supporters literally never shut up about how they are the silent majority. The irony seems entirely lost on them.

The trick is inside or brains. We’re having trouble dealing with detailed percentage breakdowns and differentiating between groups of people.

Instead we think of “the average person” and project that on everyone.

You looked at the small libertarian interest group, and based on that projected how everyone is. Now you look at hacker news and you’re projecting how everyone is. This projection is where our reasoning fails.

Yeah but to be honest, most mainstream media channels that I see criticize Trump a lot. And the media that praises him is often seen als radical / extreme / whatever right.

So, either the old government is in power of the mainstream media, or people are secretly on the right and don't speak out about it. Or maybe a combination of the two.

It’s the selection of media that you see. Try watching Fox. Try listening to Joe Rogan. Try going on a clean YouTube account and watching random videos for a week. It’s there.

You made a false dichotomy, but I’m sure you can figure that one on your own.

There’s also the other aspect where you align your views to the views of your group.

There are places in the US, where being a Republican is absolutely the core of what you are, and you will adopt and genuinely love any candidate from that party.

This is democracy manifest.
thank god he won. someone had to do whatever was necessary.
I wish we had leaders with integrity, but we won’t for the foreseeable future.
I am just happy someone is slowing the H1B and indian out sourcing down. between that and AI california tech was about to die for Americans.
Whether that happens remains to be seen. In the first row on his inauguration was an Indian tech CEO and Elon loves H1Bs.
Trump yesterday: “I like both sides of the argument, but I also like very competent people coming into our country, even if that involves them training and helping other people that may not have the qualifications they do. I don't want to stop…”

"We want competent people coming into our country. And H-1B, I know the programme very well. I use the programme. Maître d', wine experts, even waiters, high-quality waiters, you've got to get the best people. People like Larry, he needs engineers, NASA also needs... engineers like nobody's ever needed them"

{"deleted":true,"id":42789523,"parent":42789347,"time":1737525628,"type":"comment"}
A drug trafficker sells drugs

A developer builds a platform like eBay but without censorship that can be used by the drug trafficker

It's not the same thing

I make and sell soap. The soap contains an ingredient that anyone can use to make bombs. Some people buy my soap only for that purpose. I know because they literally tell me how they use my soap. I can remove that ingredient but I would loose a lot of sales.

The police finds my soap in the lab of someone who blew up a building. Some people died. Was it my fault, knowing how it was being used? Did I do anything illegal? Unethical? Immoral?

Interesting thought experiment, but no, I don't think it's llegal/unethical/immoral to sell that soap. But in practice this sort of business will change their formula to avoid bad press and regulation.
Having done some internet things (email stuff) that have been abused by others I always felt obligated to make the abuse as hard as possible once I found out about it.

I am not sure about the legal standpoint, but from a moral one I would have felt bad running the business knowing it's regularly abused to harm others and I am not doing anything against it.

> I can remove that ingredient but I would loose a lot of sales.

Or: I can remove that ingredient but it goes against my principle of not accepting constraints.

> Some people died. Was it my fault, knowing how it was being used? Did I do anything illegal? Unethical? Immoral?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/

loading story #42789394
loading story #42790165
If you set up what is clearly a perfect marketplace for drugs, and you know it's going to fill up with drug dealers, and it does fill up with drug dealers, and there's one goofball that decided to sell a hamburger.... you're not an innocent guy who is running a hamburger marketplace.
It’s not not the same thing either.

The purpose of eBay isn’t to facilitate illicit transactions, doing so is abusing the platform.

SR was very much for illicit transactions.

Creating a website where you can trade (potentially illegal) stuff is not the same as being a drug trafficker.
loading story #42790260