Donald Trump on Tuesday pardoned the creator of Silk Road, a dark-web marketplace where people sold heroin, cocaine, LSD, and other illicit drugs by using cryptocurrency to keep the transactions anonymous and avoid being caught by law enforcement.
He really loves other con artists and criminals.
last May at the Libertarian National Convention, Trump pledged to pardon Ulbricht in exchange for Libertarians’ vote.
Ah, there it is. Good ol’ fashioned quid pro quo.
I get the sentiment, but that kinda should be how politics is done. If you want people to vote for you, you tell them you’ll accomplish their political goals. Plus, their values align with him anyway so it’s not a huge stretch they’d vote for him regardless.
If you want people to vote for you, you tell them you’ll accomplish their political goals.
But whose political goals should get priority? Not every group has the same political goals, and often the goals of one group will run counter to those of other groups?
Well, your initial comment just took issue with the quid pro quo nature of the exchange, and I was just pointing out that it’s how politics is done. But just for fun, I’ll bite. Generally, these alliances are between parties that have closely aligned values. You see this kind of thing in Europe more than the US just due to the different systems in place, but like most politics it’s all about votes. If you’re part of a coalition and something will upset a large enough group of your overall base to get you replaced, you don’t do it regardless of who wants it. If you’re in some crazy situation where you’re gonna get replaced regardless because the coalition is 50/50 and 50% will be upset regardless, I can imagine deferring to your party line on the issue makes the most sense since that’s your general voter base going forward so you want to keep them happy for next time around in case you can find someone else to coalition with. If Rs want church in schools and libertarians want to get rid of schools, Trump can get rid of schools and say churches now can act as schools no oversight needed. Two birds one stone. Otherwise, if there’s no way to accomplish both, he can just do what Rs want because we have a two party system and really what are the libertarians going to do? Move to new Hampshire again? Lol.
Well, your initial comment just took issue with the quid pro quo nature of the exchange, and I was just pointing out that it’s how politics is done.
I take issue with the quid pro quo nature of the exchange, and politics in general. Politicians need votes, but they also need money. When politicians are courting groups, they’re not just seeking their votes, they’re seeking their money and donations, as well. This incentivizes candidates to seek the support of those with the most money to give. Support for a candidate, through both votes and donations, is an investment, and the expectation is a return on that investment.
Also, while it makes perfect sense that a politician would seek the votes of those with whom they are ideologically aligned, the ideology itself matters. Even if no money is exchanged between the politician and the candidate, if their shared ideology is that some people should be able to get very rich, even at the expense of others, then those voters will give their votes to the candidate believing that it is financially beneficial for them to do so.
Plus, what if the ideology of the politician and the voter group they are trying to court is aggressively hostile to democracy itself? A quid pro quo relationship between them would make sense, but it is antithetical to the overall institution.
That’s a lot of words to say “politics bad.” I’m not disagreeing, I was just responding to your question/comment. You keep asking questions as if the answer isn’t right there. It doesn’t matter if it’s antithetical to the institution. They don’t care about the institution. They care about staying in power. If dismantling democracy is the best way to ensure that, they will do it. You can dislike it, but this seems like a weird time to air your grievance with politics as a whole, seeing as this is an instance of an elected politician taking an action his base wants and that he said he would take.
Would love to see dems do that more tbh.
Ok, I’m willing to admit that a quid pro quo relationship between a politician and their voter base is not necessarily a bad thing. And, yes, you’re also right that it is a bad thing when politicians say one thing to a voter base and then don’t follow through or keep their promises. And, yes, this instance with Trump is an example of a politician making a promise to prospective voters and then keeping that promise. I just don’t think that’s always a good thing. If a bunch of voters want a politician to do some fucked up shit, the politician promises to do said fucked up shit, and then follows through on that promise, that’s not a good thing, even if it is politics working the ways it’s supposed to work.
I similarly don’t like when bad people want bad things to happen and then get those bad things happen, so I think we’re in agreement. Bad things happening gets a 0/10 in my book. Maybe next time we can have more good people and less bad people involved. Fingers crossed lmao.
Ultimate cringe banner. There’s not much phonier than capitalists trying to recuperate anarchism.
He’s agorist last I heard which is anticapitalist.
It has mostly been co-opted by capitalists these days because they can’t read and counter economics sounds cool.
But it wasn’t like that before he was jailed.
Releasing someone who made an extremely successful drug distribution ring while also threatening tariffs under the guise of a fentanyl crackdown.
Predictable behavior from someone who’s only consistent action is his golf schedule.
Honestly after most of the worst shit was highly questionable … Dude ran a drug trafficking site and served 8 years I’m fine with it. Don’t think we needed orange dip shit to ruin America to get one ok pardon tho.
Wow. Just fucking… Wow. There really are no normal rules at all here anymore.
Actually this is probably the least questionable pardon he’s dealt. There was strong evidence that Ulbricht didn’t engage in the violent crimes he was accused of (soliciting hitmen). Multiple FBI agents involved with his arrest were found to be extremely corrupt; stealing millions of dollars in bitcoin from him. Despite this, a “tough on crime” conservative judge still gave him life in prison.
The war on drugs is a 5 decade abject failure. The drugs won, and so-called “Liberals” need to stop promoting conservative failures, and treating non-violent drug use as anything but a public health issue.
OTOH, he did run what amounts to a illicit drug distribution ring, even if he didn’t distribute the drugs himself. So while the life sentence was excessive, I personally feel a full pardon is also excessive. The fairest thing would have been to commute his sentence, now that he has served (almost?) 10 years. That would have left the conviction in place, but also recognized that it is bonkers to put anyone away for life for a non-violent crime (especially when there is clear evidence that the FBI agents involved were crooks, too.)
His name is Ross Ulbricht. He served 8 years.
Huh.
But it’s the immigrants causing all the nations problems, right? /s
Honestly, this one I can understand. They threw the book at this guy because he showed how privacy technologies can circumvent government control. He got 2 life sentences without possibility of parole for a non-violent crime.
What he did was illegal, but he’s been in prison for 10 years. He’s served his time
