Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

55% Positive

Analyzed from 7349 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#more#don#corruption#trump#power#world#president#https#corrupt#war

Discussion (214 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Toutouxcabout 4 hours ago
Insider trading as a service. No one is going to take the US seriously for the next 50 years.
Waterluvianabout 4 hours ago
Or possibly ever again. Eras like this one can be what kills an empire/great power.

I think one of the greater risks to a power like the U.S. is getting old enough where it's felt like things always were, and therefore always will be. When there is no-longer a grandparent at the dinner table who can even tell you when his grandparent at the dinner table spoke about the before times.

rubyfanabout 4 hours ago
Right, the fact that the current administration had a 4 year hiatus only extended this period. Think about all the young people that grew up with this as normal.
ben_wabout 2 hours ago
Grandparents telling about their grandparents is a very different timescale than two presidential terms with a gap of just one between them.

The "what changed in the 1970s?" meme graphs are the kinds of timescale for forgetting what is and isn't "normal" for your grandparents, and the Great Depression for your grandparents' grandparents.

Eternal growth? Nah.

Even the worst of times will be shortly followed by a recovery, soon enough you survive on savings? Pft.

The President surely wouldn't consider to order the removal of protesting veterans, with the Army Chief of Staff implementing this order with a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks, burning the belongings that the veterans had left behind after being cleared from where they had been protesting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Conscription? Concentration camps? These are also in the "grandparents' grandparents" timescale in the USA. Go back only a one more generation and you get lynching *postcards*.

reactordevabout 3 hours ago
Reinforced by the Parnas', Lambert's, Kirk's and Loomer's on TikTok. Ready to vote in the next midterms. Thinking 9/11 was an inside job...
browningstreetabout 1 hour ago
I remember tales of how backwards and corrupt the Berlusconi government in Italy was. There was a sense that “over there” it was another world, a bad and sad and incorrigible one.

Most Americans wouldn’t remember that, and yet we pulled, and continue to pull, an epic Hold My Beer in comparison.

What would it take to get a Million Man March again? One that occupied the lawn?

flosslyabout 2 hours ago
Sorry, as an outsider, I think it has been a clown show for much longer.

The whole Hunter corruption scandal in Ukraine + the laptop made it quite clear to me back then. And I can go on.

thmabout 3 hours ago
Great podcast on this: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0XqYCQT4PgD3axPy0w5Wcd He calls this category certainty.
jebarkerabout 4 hours ago
> Eras like this one can be what kills an empire/great power.

Is there actually any good analogue for this era that caused a previous empire or great power to collapse?

ceejayozabout 3 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...

> The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army (check), the health and numbers of the Roman population (check), the strength of the economy (check), the competence of the emperors (check), the internal struggles for power (check), the religious changes of the period (check), and the efficiency of the civil administration (check). Increasing pressure from invading peoples outside Roman culture (check) also contributed greatly to the collapse. Climatic changes (check) and both endemic and epidemic diseases (check) drove many of these immediate factors.

datsci_est_2015about 3 hours ago
I think the whole “empire collapsing” is a bit of a dramatized phrasing, though historians can correct me. I think it’s much more death by a thousand cuts, and the UK is a great analogue in that regard. Look at Brexit, for example. Or Black Wednesday, from which the US’s esteemed Treasury Secretary profited handsomely.

The UK’s decline has taken centuries, though, and there are many events that one can point to. I think I agree with the grandparent’s comment about grandparents, about the arrogance of how things will continue to be a certain way.

pjc50about 3 hours ago
Last time we discussed US collapse I wrote about the Chinese empire: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49211339

I would also deploy Adam Smith's "there is a lot of ruin in a nation". The US can withstand a few bad years provided it corrects.

gchamonliveabout 3 hours ago
In most areas (drug enforcement, basic education, healthcare, gun culture...) nobody should have been taking the US seriously maybe since Reagan. Finance, science and war were the only areas you could count on the US but now they went full Roman on the rest of the world not even that anymore. War is the only thing that's left I think.
gotaabout 3 hours ago
The US also arguably lost the Iran war. So far it can't claim any minor fraction of a victory, at least; seems to be the general consensus.

I like to read Bret Devereaux (from the frequently HN posted https://acoup.blog/) takes on this in his Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social)

gchamonliveabout 3 hours ago
It doesn't win wars, but it provides the necessary equipment for carnage and stalemates all over the globe. Remember war is just a pretext, the objective is always profit, so as long as a lost war is very profitable it's a success in their books.
dylan604about 3 hours ago
If everyone has the same conclusion, how is it an argument? Nobody thinks the US won in Iran except the morons that started it. Maybe bigOil feels like its a win as their profits are soaring???
dgellowabout 3 hours ago
> nobody should have been taking the US seriously maybe since Reagan. Finance, science and war were the only areas you could count on the US

That was plenty of reasons to take the country seriously! Also, the US has been the most powerful cultural exporter for a very long time. It’s still the case, whenever anything becomes huge in the US we get our local version in each European countries. Our far right parties are parroting American right politics, even copying the terminology as is

gchamonliveabout 3 hours ago
Have you seen the state of AAA gaming and blockbusters lately? Even music is being utterly destroyed by the streaming platforms and record labels greed, so yeah it might have been in the 80s up until the 2010s, but enshitification got the best of the US I'm afraid so not even culture anymore. It's just decacence.

It's not all US, but as you said things start in the US and trickles down across the rest of the world, so that's also true for its decadence.

realusernameabout 3 hours ago
> War is the only thing that's left I think

I would have agreed until the Iran war, the US used up so much of the missile stock that even the army isn't fully intact anymore

gchamonliveabout 3 hours ago
krzysabout 1 hour ago
You have Roman Empire at home...
jmyeetabout 3 hours ago
The US gained almost immeasurable power and influence by virtue of the 2 World Wars and being largely directly unaffected by those wars, whereas Europe was levelled, particularly by WW2. And that power came from selling weapons.

The world order was reset after 1945 and designed largely by the US for the benefit of the US, particularly the financial system. People will often mistake cause and effect. A common one is the petrodollar. The US dollar isn't strong because oil is traded in it. No. Oil is traded in the dollar because of demand fo the dollar. The world oil market could switch to Euros or RMB tomorrow and the net effect would be that people would hold USD and trade it for whatever currency as needed and convert any such currency immediately back to dollars.

But underpinning this has been the appearance of integrity in the US financial system and, in particular, the Federal Reserve and the SEC. That trust and that system is being rapidly destroyed for a few billion dollars in personal profit. All of this was enabled by an ideological Supreme Court who invented out of thin air the concept of presidential immunity to make the president a king in a country that rebelled against a monarchy.

We're living in times that will be written about in history books as the end of the post-1945 era, particularly with the Iran War. I, for one, called this the most disastrous US strategic defeat in the entire of US history and it's not even close back in April. And I stand by that.

There was a time when corrupt heads of state kept up appearances of not being corrupt. It was done in secret through layers of secrecy. That's gone now. The corruption is very much out in the open.

It's not to see this as anything other than China's rise to global prominence and the irony is they just had to do nothing while letting the US commit suicide.

ihumanableabout 2 hours ago
I think that's been the most baffling thing about the rise of MAGA.

It was a global order built by the US to place the US in positions of power and privilege in every way imaginable.

And the MAGA group looked at it and said "we are being taken advantage of! We have to spend a rounding error worth of money on food aid and Voice of America?! I don't want soft power, I want rock hard power!!!"

They looked at a game with unfair rules that were written by them to benefit them and said "this is unfair.... to me!" Then went about dismantling nearly a century of work that unfairly stacked the deck in America's favor.

The US-Israel-Iran War is an interesting inflection point. They pulled out of every soft-power play, putting every chip in on hard-power military strength and now they are getting wrecked by cheap drones and Iran just being willing to stick it out and not fold. Venezuela will probably go down as the point in which they believed their world view was winning, no need for any diplomacy, just go in and abduct the president and take the oil. Iran showed them the limits of that kind of thinking, if they were more introspective they could learn from it.

everforwardabout 2 hours ago
The outcome in Iran was obvious to anyone paying attention. We knew Iran would close the strait, but we also haven't truly won a guerrilla war yet. Vietnam went poorly, Afghanistan went poorly, we've only historically done well in the more economically-defined traditional wars where there's an obvious target to fling a billion dollars worth of arms at.

Iran isn't stupid, they know there's not much point in building massive arms factories to make complicated weapons. The factories will just get bombed, and the weapons will probably still be inferior. They can just sort of stand there, though. We don't have the appetite for a boots on the ground invasion, and even then they can just kind of wait til we leave and go right back to it. We don't really have a winning hand here without resorting to war crimes, and the costs of that vastly outweigh any successes. We'd be international pariahs to a degree that I don't think most Americans realize is possible.

micromacrofootabout 3 hours ago
The messed up part is that it's not even technically insider trading as long as they release the same information publicly shortly after... so they're not actually breaking any laws. So much of the way the US government has operated is based on some shared standard of moral sense that the current administration lacks completely.
DaiPlusPlusabout 3 hours ago
> it's not even technically insider trading as long as they release the same information publicly shortly after... so they're not actually breaking any laws

No, that’s a canonical example of insider trading: acting on pre-release inside information before it’s made public; it doesn’t matter if it’s days, hours, or even minutes before it goes public.

People have been convicted for executing trades when they saw or handled earnings reports in-person hours before they’re released[1].

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/employee-securities-fil...

micromacrofootabout 2 hours ago
Insider trading requires breach of duty, if you don't have fiduciary duty with who you're trading against it's not insider trading. The required chain in the link is someone inside a contractual agreement providing information.

It's right in your own link, the filing-agent employee was convicted because he stole information he was contractually obligated to protect. Remove that obligation and there's no case. Truth Social owns the posts and is selling them with the source's blessing, nobody's stealing anything.

As much as I hate to say it, what they're doing with Truth social is very likely legal. The president does not have any contractual financial obligation to these companies, if he posts "everyone sell Intel, I'm going to regulate out of existence" to a group of people who paid him for this post early... there's no breach of contract anywhere.

Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
> No one is going to take the US seriously for the next 50 years.

I hate this obvious pay-for-access thing as much as anyone, but this isn’t going to define the US for the next 50 years. The second the next president is in office every other country will adapt to working with them, just as been happening every 4-8 years.

ceejayozabout 3 hours ago
The American population has demonstrated that they'll nominate an insane criminal to power at random. Twice! I think that's gonna stick longer than the Bush to Clinton style transitions.
Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
I’m talking about the people with decision making power and the businesses working internationally. I have no doubt that certain individuals in other countries will be holding grudges against the United States for the rest of their lives long after the country has moved on, but it doesn’t really have any effect. If you’ve spent some time traveling the world every country has older generations who have some grudge against other countries for events that happened prior to most people being born and the younger generations don’t care. The world changes and most people move on.
CaptainZappabout 3 hours ago
> The second the next president is in office every other country will adapt to working with them, just as been happening every 4-8 years.

That may well be, with one big difference.

Nobody and no country will trust the US or their commitments ever again.

Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
> Nobody and no country will trust the US or their commitments ever again.

How do you explain all of the people and countries who are currently trusting the US and their commitments?

This is always a strange belief to hold when the current evidence is so overwhelming against it. The rest of the world and the people making decisions know that this administration will come to an end. Something about each new headline convinced a small number of people that this one event is actually the end of the entire country for the next 50 years, against all visible evidence

thisisitabout 1 hour ago
You are debating one hyperbole with another hyperbole.

After all not everyone has Trump as President who thinks the only way to work with allies is to bully them. Will this particular thing going to define US for next 50 years? Probably not. Will countries say fuck it and stop working with US? Definitely not.

But will they ever have same amount of fear or trust or reverence for the US? Absolutely no.

That is now lost. While Iraq and Afghan war wasn't exactly a win for the US, the Iranians have shown that Americans can be had if cards(hands) are right. They now know Americans are completely blind to a president who would sell his mother for the right price and still defend him because they feel invincible and instead of offering a seemingly innocuous job to President's son like Burisma they can now blatantly bribe a jet, pay for access openly and no one in America will care because they believe they are infallible.

whywhywhywhyabout 3 hours ago
If insider trading is your concern then the country hasn't been serious for a long time, everyone in government does it and it's never punished even when exploited to the levels of 9 figures of assets.

Should just be legalized at this point so we can all take advantage if they're all gonna get away with it.

chinathrowabout 3 hours ago
> Should just be legalized at this point so we can all take advantage if they're all gonna get away with it.

Is this satire?

stuaxoabout 3 hours ago
I fear not, look at which website we are on.
A_D_E_P_Tabout 3 hours ago
> everyone in government does it and it's never punished even when exploited to the levels of 9 figures of assets.

Statements like this are worthless without examples. Surely you can provide some? Hard mode: Don't mention Pelosi or Clinton.

Lendalabout 3 hours ago
If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit?

If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?

s_devabout 3 hours ago
Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. That said:

>If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit?

Like this really does read as: I still blame the Democrats for the crimes of the Republicans.

The ultimate authority here is the US voters and they have chosen poorly again and again. They are complicit for sure as they chose both to empower Republicans and tie the hands of the Democrats with impossible standards.

twister2920about 3 hours ago
> Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well?

yes, they were. the USA if the Unionists has followed through on reconstruction looks like a utopia compared to now

nemothekidabout 2 hours ago
>Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context.

I think the irony here is you are presenting this like a complicated choice, when I would argue many people agree that the way the Union handled reconstruction was extremely poor.

ComputerGuruabout 3 hours ago
We are still paying the price for that today, some of us a lot more than others. It was well-intentioned but with hindsight being what it is, historians pretty much agree that it was the cause of a lot of the problems we fight with today.
datsci_est_2015about 3 hours ago
It’s funny you bring up Union vs Confederacy, because Reconstruction should be a blueprint of what not to do. We’re still paying today for the failures of our forefathers to not have the bravery to stamp out the worst cultural elements of the Confederacy, let alone the extended century-long suffering of formerly enslaved peoples in what ranged from “separate but equal” to outright apartheid.

So yes, it was very much the Union’s fault for not properly cutting the many heads of the hydra with great prejudice.

Edit: the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though. And that’s what was missing after the Civil War. The sentences handed out at Nuremberg aren’t necessarily relevant to the crimes committed by those in power today, but the cultural shift that materialized in Germany post-war is the type of cultural shift needed to counteract the damage of the current administration: against corruption, grift, and executive overreach.

antisthenesabout 2 hours ago
> the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though.

Some would argue that the Nuremberg trials did not go nearly far enough, as there should also have been similar trials in all countries that collaborated with that regime during the course of the war.

That's why you see far-right parties nowadays spring up again and start to grain more influence. It could have been stomped out well enough.

BryantDabout 3 hours ago
Yes. That’s a great historical precedent — Reconstruction was a hotly debated topic and the more radical forms would have banned former Confederate soldiers for voting, for example. Many Southern states had military governors imposed by the Federal government.

Andrew Johnson pardoned almost all Confederate leaders, didn’t care about freeing slaves, and is one of the worst Presidents in history.

rf15about 3 hours ago
Doesn't that still feel shortsighted? The way you speak, you cannot even imagine a world without a political landscape that is Republican vs Democrats. I think both parties have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted steering the country.

Yes, that probably means that the US has to utterly break in its political system before it can get any better, considering that the current election process favours a two-party stalemate (or one party controlling everything)

arjieabout 2 hours ago
There’s no tool for them to do it with and I prefer that that remain the case. I would prefer that we take the pardon away from the President and certainly think the pre-emptive pardon is unacceptable but there is no mechanism to pursue the present government.

I’d prefer if the US doesn’t become like my native India where the previous government goes in jail when a new government takes power. Hopefully we just destroy the pardon and call the obvious self-enrichment here an abuse of government that we cannot fix with our devices and go forward.

threatofrainabout 2 hours ago
A robber isn't corrupt. A robber betrays no principle except to seize when hungry, and a robber has no institution to corrupt.
wildrhythmsabout 3 hours ago
Yes
lotsofpulpabout 3 hours ago
Rival party is not equivalent to the cops.

Even if the rival party were to somehow control all 3 branches of government (which they will not), the voting records show a full 1/3 of American adults outright support this corruption (many of the cops themselves), and another 1/3 are willing to ignore it.

If you are in the 1/3 that does care about it, you are not going to have a good time trying to fight the other 1/3, many of whom make up the “law and order” department.

So the answer to both questions is a resounding no, because the world is more complicated than a comic book superhero movie.

testing22321about 3 hours ago
The Police in the US have no legal requirement to help you. They are perfectly allowed to sit and do nothing while a gun man kills kids in a school.

This is well established in law.

https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-...

llm_nerdabout 3 hours ago
This is such an amazing take because it is a constant in US politics. Like how in the world did you think it appropriate to pivot like this?

The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection, regardless of the challenges.

The standards for the Republicans is...there are literally zero standards. Thieves, grifters, rapists, pedos, just the absolute worst human garbage imaginable, and somehow Americans convince themselves that if the Democrats don't (usually because they can't) do anything about it, clearly the Dems are the real problem, so it's time to vote Republicans. Just bizarre stuff.

I could give infinite examples where the slightest thing is a massive story about Democrat action or inaction, while every day is a new low in what the shit-pile that the modern Republican party gets away with. Benghazi is still constantly cited by the right, while Trump...Jesus Christ, every day is a thousand times worse. Astonishing levels of corruption and stupidity is just another Tuesday now.

It's amazing. Every framing somehow shifts like this.

swed420about 3 hours ago
> The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection

How do you figure? The previous Dem president literally promised, "nothing will fundamentally change" and that's exactly what happened.

We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other.

rightwardRatchet++;

llm_nerdabout 3 hours ago
> How do you figure?

Biden was speaking to the people who ended up bankrolling Trump when threatened with slightly increased taxes, and who are going to dump billions into the midterms. When you're in a country that wavers around 50/50 every election (even when the choice is between competent government or a spectacularly incompetent shitshow of grifters, pedos and thieves), yes, there are limits to what you can realistically do in one election cycle.

In any case, it's actually hilarious that rhetoric like this "oh well actually the Dems are to blame because they haven't stopped them yet" is precisely why Republicans are gung ho in fighting against ranked choice ballots. A secret they've learned is to field some fringe bullshit candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Kanye, and so on, and they need the sort of idiots that vote for idiots like that to be throwing away their votes because "it's a uniparty of capital". Ranked choice ballots -- real democracy -- would threaten that.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-ma...

Trump has repeatedly claimed ranked choice ballots are "corrupt", and House Republicans have repeatedly tried to ban it. Do you want to know why? Protip - it's because they rely on incredibly stupid voters.

HumblyTossedabout 2 hours ago
> The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection

No, the standard for Dems is "don't rock the boat". The Right moves things further to the right, the Dems don't let them go back to the left.

lotsofpulp34 minutes ago
How are they supposed to do that while being outnumbered in Congress?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...

Note that Repubs have a more solid group than Dems in the Senate, because Dems have to win states with more compromising candidates like Sinema/Manchin/Lieberman/Fetterman/etc, whereas the Repub states are solidly Republican.

Just see how Repubs were able to stymie Democrat Supreme Court Justices, and how many they were able to install.

listlessabout 2 hours ago
> Thieves, grifters, rapists, pedos, just the absolute worst human garbage imaginable.

I would urge you strongly not to let yourself be this consumed by this kind of thinking. This is a distorted view of your fellow man - however accurate _some_ of it may be about _some_ people - regardless of their political affiliation. This kind of thinking is exactly how we got to where we are now and persisting in it will almost certainly get us more extreme reactions.

that said, the Republican establishment has proven itself unworthy of the office and should be shown the door in the next election cycle - in decimating fashion. So much so that it should cause a complete recalibration of that party.

lotsofpulpabout 2 hours ago
>This kind of thinking is exactly how we got to where we are now and persisting in it will almost certainly get us more extreme reactions.

It was seeing a black guy, and then possibly a woman, and then possibly a black woman get to the top that got us where we are now. The message is clear, don’t disrupt up our image of the hierarchy, or else we will support the worst of the worst, as long as they maintain the order.

newfriendabout 1 hour ago
The fact that this comment hasn't been flagged goes to show how ridiculous hn has become. I know we are not supposed to say "hn has become reddit", but hn has become reddit.
llm_nerd3 minutes ago
The guy with 5 karma after 8 years has thoughts about the problems with HN. Amazing.

My comment is undeniable fact. That it offends some people like you is not something you have the right to be protected from.

RicoElectricoabout 3 hours ago
Same in Poland, sadly. Conservatives or rather "conservatives" can get away with way more...
Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
When I first heard saw headlines about this I thought it was so outlandish that it couldn’t possibly be real. Yet here we are.

It’s amazing how much corruption is occurring for so little money. A million dollars a month is peanuts for such clear graft.

arjieabout 2 hours ago
I, too, was surprised at this but widespread corruption actually has this effect. As prosecutability goes down, you just move further down the market. In the limit, you pay the President $50 to get out of a $80 parking ticket. He can’t exactly charge you $100k for that privilege. It’s not the market clearing price. Previously he was limited by the enforcement side so the ask price was nowhere near the bid price.

Now, prosecution immune, he can access the remainder of the market.

I think this is one big reason why bribes are commonplace in India at all levels while they are reserved only for the most profitable of endeavours in the US - enforcement. Consequently, the relative pricing matches that.

I suppose one realization is that a corruption index could look at the price of the cheapest government corruption as a proxy for how widespread it is.

AnimalMuppet22 minutes ago
Trump Media lost $239 million (IIRC) last year. A million a month isn't going to save them.
koe123about 3 hours ago
Curious: are there any republicans left on HN? I have no concept of how you can defend this
jazzypantsabout 3 hours ago
You're not going to get a real response. They're here. They literally just ignore it. It's too inconvenient of a truth. It's much easier to just point fingers at poor immigrants than to actually give a shit about the corruption of rich people.
TheMiddleManabout 2 hours ago
They've also been primed to ignore it, citing "fake news". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Eueudhsbsj32about 3 hours ago
> You're not going to get a real response. They're here. They literally just ignore it.

But that is the real response. All politicians do some things that you disagree with, so even if you hate some of their behavior, you can still end up supporting them if on balance their policy decisions are more aligned with your interests.

jazzypantsabout 3 hours ago
I see what you're saying, but ignoring something is withholding a response by definition.

Generally, I accept slight dissonance with politicians on matters of policy. I don't think it's okay to accept politicians blatantly breaking the law and sneering in the face of culpability.

Eueudhsbsj32about 3 hours ago
If most were being honest, they would probably admit that the corrupt behavior like this is bad, but that the overall balance of good vs bad policy decisions still favor having Republicans in power vs Democrats.
antiloperabout 3 hours ago
Why shouldn't there be? Depending on the poll you look at, republicans are polling around 40%: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/ge...
0xcde4c3dbabout 3 hours ago
I doubt there are many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans as such, but I'll bet there are many who still identify strongly enough with the old-school Republican messaging around rugged individualism and supply-side economics that they view the median Democrat as actively destructive by comparison to the merely flawed median Republican.

I'm far from being one of those myself, but I imagine the argument would be that any regulation one could propose to address this is bound to be worse than the problem itself, in terms of chilling effects on legitimate speech and commercial activity.

AnimalMuppet1 minute ago
Well, I mostly lean Republican. I'm still registered as one, so I can vote in their primaries.

I have never voted for Trump, either in a primary or general election. I disagree with him strongly on much of what he does. I would describe myself as conservative, but definitely not MAGA. I'm what was Republican 10 or 30 or 50 years ago, not what they've turned into.

How can I defend this? I don't. I oppose it.

OsrsNeedsf2Pabout 3 hours ago
Not a Republican, but I support this behavior because I can't wait for more talent to leave the US
muglugabout 3 hours ago
Not a Republican by any stretch of any imagination, but here’s my attempt at a steelman argument:

I imagine these companies were already spending some amount on crawlers that would poll every N milliseconds to get an edge on some market-moving post. In turn I imagine Truth Social were also spending more serving this bot traffic.

Truth Social making $1M a month from it — a rounding error in Trump’s fortunes — doesn’t seem like a world-ending catastrophe.

Trump has done many bad things to erode trust in our institutions and government. When compared to him trying to overturn the results of an election, this too seems like a rounding error.

mikestewabout 1 hour ago
Sometimes there isn’t a steelman argument for outright corruption, especially when the argument is, “meh, could be worse.”
program_whizabout 3 hours ago
(not a repub) I don't defend it, its outright fraud, but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ongoing forever.

Those who seek power seek it to: 1. Enrich themselves and their family 2. Wield it to achieve their means

The "pay to play" is rife everywhere. The contractors who get a sweet deal from local / fed government, the competition is stifled. The senators who make 10's of millions on insider information. The imminent domain cases where property is seized so corporation / donor can make millions. The "futures market" where insiders use their knowledge of product release date to swindle money for ordinary folks. The crypto scams, lotteries, casinos, street vendors, telemarketers, info-mercials, self-help gurus, snake oil sales, lemon peddlers, and more.

The truth is that the human system has not deviated far from the imposed hierarchy of feudalism / monarchy, we have only become better at concealing it, making it more potent in some ways. Power, corruption, opportunism, and greed are part of our nature. In an extremely large population with a democratic veneer, the levers of power become diffuse an ineffable, until they are blatantly shoved into our face.

In some ways I'm glad because its only through a constant vigilance and resetting the public vigilance that these kind of things can be controlled to any degree. Its an entropic force, seeping into the system at all times, only kept at bay by the disdain of the populace and fear in the hearts of the ruling elites.

Its definitely not a Republicans only phenomenon, the list on both sides of the aisle is embarrassingly long. But due to how our political system is setup, and human psychology, little will change by voting. People are tribal, and only have two choices in the matter, both of which are usually power-seeking corrupted. The prisoner's dilemma is giving the US a life-sentence.

317070about 3 hours ago
> but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ongoing forever

Thanks for sharing this. It's a deep insight for me. I did not understand how the same people that were deeply skeptical about the state, ended up being so quiet when the state's corruption became flagrant and blatant. But this line of thinking makes a lot of sense.

lotsofpulpabout 2 hours ago
It sounds like equivocating nonsense to me. No one expects a society to be completely free of corruption, but there is a difference between at least putting up a veneer of working towards transparency, and unabashed pay to play corruption.

In fact, the corruption is what the voters want, to show that they prioritize their group (white, men, rural, rich, benefactors, whatever helps you identify with the “winner” etc) at the expense of others.

meetingthrowerabout 2 hours ago
Nice writing man.
spiderfarmerabout 3 hours ago
What will you vote in the midterms?
thisisit38 minutes ago
There are republicans left and most will devolve to equivocating talking about corruption under Biden (Hunter Laptop), Clinton etc and maybe say "everyone is corrupt and this is just slightly more corrupt maybe more in the open" why are you making a scene about it? Not realizing that steps like these mean that society as a whole will become overtly corrupt instead of covertly corrupt.

If a President is so corrupt that he is selling access for what is loose change for him - I mean what is $100k when he is getting $400million jet - their local offices will also feel comfortable nickel and diming them for small access. A trip to DMV will turn into "You want your driving license? That'll be $50 extra for me on top of the administrative fees". This is the reality of life in some low trust third world countries. Now coming to America!

But in the meantime lets celebrate equivocating and whataboutism.

swordsith17 minutes ago
ragebait used to be hard to identify
uramsabout 3 hours ago
Were you similarly upset when Trump was only on Twitter and Twitter had an API?
ok123456about 3 hours ago
The API was free then
jazzypantsabout 3 hours ago
How are you even pretending this a real argument? What is the implied slam dunk here?
toomuchtodoabout 3 hours ago
https://www.daynaemcraig.com/narcissistsprayer/

“That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did You deserved it.”

ratelimitsteveabout 3 hours ago
i suspect that, much like the rest of the world, HN has had a sharp increase in people who "don't do politics"
spiderfarmerabout 3 hours ago
In my experience only people from the US are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech when conversing with friends, family and colleagues.
ekjhgkejhgkabout 1 hour ago
I find all these people disgusting, but if you're curious I can repeat for you one of their dishonest responses. They said it's not really insider trading, because the people that benefit from this are already hitting the HTTP GETs over and over to get the news fast, instead what they're paying for is for getting the push notifications which is a good business practice from truth social, because serving push notifications when news exist is cheaper than responding to HTTP gets over and over.
kubafuabout 4 hours ago
Official "insider-knowledge-as-a-service". No surprise who the first clients are.
beams_of_lightabout 3 hours ago
I think most of us who have lived through many presidents understood that there was a decency required of the holder of the office that acted as the only true limit on their corruption. It's confounding that so many people in the US can't see it for what it is.
micwabout 4 hours ago
Why is this not being stopped by us jurisdiction? Or at least why does the rest of the world does not decouple from those markets?
jasonjayrabout 3 hours ago
Hint: You will never see the folks enforcing action against this platform and the folks using and posting on the platform in the same room.
owebmasterabout 3 hours ago
The answer is simple: the US is corrupt.
bamboozledabout 3 hours ago
They are decoupling, it's just if you just do it quietly.
maptabout 3 hours ago
A video has been going around pointing out one of the consequences of the Strait of Hormuz closure.

Over the past few years, China has quietly purchased more than a billion barrels of oil from Russia and Iran at a discount in CNY rather than USD, pushing it into newly created strategic stockpiles that would be necessary for closure of a different Strait. After putting a strategic foot on the neck of refined product exports, they are now functionally acting as the largest part of the world's crude reserves, smoothing demand so that the global price does not spike and crash the global economy & global trade. If China was to keep up its normal buying cycle over the past few months, we would have easily seen >$200 oil. Instead, oil is a third that, and it's not even the limiting factor - refinery output drops on diesel from Ukraine's Kinetic Sanctions campaign are having a more significant bottleneck on petrochemicals right now than Hormuz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkA0bkb6ZO0

Say what you like about the motivation, this is a form of global leadership of the sort that America used to specialize in, and every drop of oil traded in CNY rather than "The Petrodollar" weakens the USD as the anchor currency.

tho23u434079about 3 hours ago
I'm surprised this isn't an impeachable offence.
usefulcatabout 2 hours ago
The US political system is now so deeply divided along partisan lines that it's increasingly difficult to imagine what "an impeachable offense" would look like. Impeachment requires that many members of Congress are willing to go against a President of their own party, and that doesn't really happen any more, at least not at the scale needed for impeachment.

The founders seem to have imagined that Congress (as a whole) would have an adversarial relationship with the President. But they failed to foresee the levels of partisanship we have today which have resulted in ~half of Congress being very closely allied with the President.

When the US was less divided, things like ethics or morals or even just not openly breaking the law mattered a lot more. Now, people (at least, the people who vote the most) care more about "is my party in power", and either don't know about or disregard everything else. I include "don't know" because if all you listen to is Fox news and social networks feeding you ideas that you already agree with then you can easily be completely unaware of things like this.

Micrococonutabout 2 hours ago
Republicans don't even try to put on an appearance of lawfulness anymore. Their supporters revel in the criminality. They worship it.
ceejayozabout 1 hour ago
Of course it's an impeachable offense. We see several new ones every week.

There's just no one with the power plus willingness to do so.

pjc50about 3 hours ago
Impeachment requires a Democrat majority.

(for some reason this attracted a downvote? Obviously Republicans are never going to impeach a Republican President? I cannot imagine why you would think they would?)

spiderfarmerabout 3 hours ago
It is.

The US is over.

zparkyabout 3 hours ago
not like that impacts anything anymore, apparently.
doleabout 3 hours ago
I remember when we gave a shit about "emoluments."
goatloverabout 3 hours ago
The Republicans still control Congress at least until the new Congress is seated in January. At which point the House may impeach Trump for one of many crimes. But it's unlikely the Senate will have enough votes to convict, even if Democrats also take it back.
Arubisabout 3 hours ago
Everyone involved should have their ankles broken so we can know them by their walk.
ratelimitsteveabout 3 hours ago
we've reached the "yes, we're cheating, do something about it" stage of corruption
dayvidabout 3 hours ago
It's not even that much money for the reputational damage. Wild.
someguynamedqabout 3 hours ago
Reputational damage has not been relevant in US politics for a decade. It simply is not a thing anymore
Carrokabout 3 hours ago
What reputation?
baggachipzabout 3 hours ago
Yes because Truth Social and its owner/head troll both had a stellar reputation to begin with.
Advertisement
morkalorkabout 4 hours ago
$100k seems cheap for the potential front running
criddellabout 3 hours ago
Even if the front running fails, it's a cheap way to raise your profile with the president. I bet if you are paying $100k / month, your chances of the president taking your call go way up.
InsideOutSantaabout 3 hours ago
The amount of money you can make with this only depends on how much money you already have.
TrackerFFabout 4 hours ago
Why would anyone want to pay that much for something, unless it gives them some edge.

I don't know if it is still a thing, but in the world of penny stocks and crypto there used to be subscription pump and dump channels, where influencers would charge $x / month, and coordinate pumps. "Signal" channels, as they were named.

This can't be too different. If not even more straight forward insider stuff.

Either that, or it is just another way to bribe your way closer to Trump.

Business idea for Trump: Sell access to his Truth Social posts, but bake in some latency. Those that pay most, will get to see the posts first (via API). Then after X minutes of posting the posts will go live for everyone to see. How fast you want to see the post between publishing and public access, depends on how much you want to pay. The less latency, the more you need to pay.

davidmurdochabout 3 hours ago
On paper, this is just standard enterprise API access most social media services offer. Isn't it?
Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
I think you’re missing the point. The payment is for early access. The posts don’t go live for everyone else until after a delay.

This isn’t some penny stock group. It’s the president of the USA who has command of the largest army in the world and signals his intentions to make governmental moves with a large impact on the markets via these posts.

HolyLampshadeabout 3 hours ago
If I had to venture a guess (and full disclosure I’m not currently working in the space, and am not privy to conversations about actually buying this product), the 100k/m for whatever the contract duration is relatively low stakes to see if there’s utility in the data. Since there is no historical data the only real option is to buy, see if it makes a difference, and dump the product at the end of the contract if it doesn’t move the needle.

The seller is trying to push upfront sales by suggesting “These guys are doing it, and if you want to keep an edge you need to too”, (and journalists wanting to write about how corrupt this shit is are eagerly picking this up and boosting the signal by writing these sorts of articles).

In 5-6 months I suspect the consumer number to be down to 1-2 from the original batch, and those who are still paying will probably be doing so because the fact that the contract exists will probably slip through the cracks.

badatnamesabout 3 hours ago
There is plenty of historical data, $100k is a steal for as long as situations like Iran persist. And now he is incentivised to ensure they do persist. Our fearless leader, ladies and gentlemen.
HolyLampshadeabout 3 hours ago
That is only if there’s a direct correlation to price movements starting after he opens his yap on Truth Social (which, within this administration there is plenty of insider trading so the movement may pre-date the social media post).

I suspect, having worked in this space for quite a while, that this specific data, faster, is useless and that there are other signals that indicate something is coming before it ends up on social media (esp TS).

Yes, there is historical data about prices moving after TS posts, but what I’m arguing is paying to get it ‘faster’ may not be worth anything if you can achieve that same end (knowing something is happening) through previously established channels.

owebmasterabout 3 hours ago
> $100k is a steal

Literally

TheDongabout 3 hours ago
Even if it doesn't give any edge in terms of using the data, just paying money into Trump in more ways (i.e. a quasi-legal bribe) is enough of a benefit that I doubt many will drop it.

This is a lot cheaper of a bribe than i.e. the gold plaque Tim Apple gave to Trump too.

HolyLampshadeabout 3 hours ago
The trading firms don’t really get anything from bribing Trump. That’s not to say hedge funds don’t want to tickle the big guy’s ego, but they don’t need “faster data” in most cases.

It’s less directly beneficial than most people think it will be.

fragmedeabout 3 hours ago
That thing probably only cost like $50K, so more than that.
DougN7about 3 hours ago
I’m sure you could make a ton of money on oil if you had a 30 minute heads up about whether Trump was going to bomb Iran or not on any given day.
101008about 3 hours ago
Completely ignorant here, and I don't want to ask an AI (I don't trust them on these issues). Could you give me an example how you can make money with this information?

Again, question as someone who doens't live in the US so I am not used how you can profit from this. I guess it may be because a war may impact the market and you can invest (or the opposite) with this, but in my mind bombing Iran wouldn't move the market by much (the consequences would, but by then everyone is on the same page).

Thank you!

Aurornisabout 3 hours ago
Iran controls the straight of Hormuz, which is a key shipping channel for the world. It being open or not has an impact on all businesses which have to ship through it, which is a lot of them. Therefore it impacts the entire economy. The entire stock market goes up or down based on signals about the status of the war.
ceejayozabout 3 hours ago
> Completely ignorant here, and I don't want to ask an AI (I don't trust them on these issues). Could you give me an example how you can make money with this information?

Place a Kalshi bet on the outcome of something that a Truth Social post just settled?

Short a company he's about to bash?

dana-sabout 3 hours ago
I'm also not the most smart there but there's this market thing of "futures", where I can say I'll buy 10 barrels for 10$ next month, then I can sell the "10 barrels for 10$" to others, if I know offer will be lower due wars, one can buy now and sell once it's lower, if it's going to have higher availability(or expectation of so), then there's those future things.
owebmasterabout 3 hours ago
The answer is so obvious that you should try to figure it out by yourself as an exercise to avoid cognitive decline in the age of AI. Seriously.
tstennerabout 3 hours ago
Trump bombs Iran -> oil price goes up. You buy oil futures before the bombing and get the price difference paid out.
pjc50about 3 hours ago
Aren't all the Iran announcements/bombings on weekends while the peace deals are announced before the markets open again? Or is that too much of a meme?
salomonk_murabout 3 hours ago
A 1 second head start is good enough.
high_na_euvabout 3 hours ago
Trumps posts and actions have orders of magnitude more impact than random influencers with userbase of 5k
mrweaselabout 3 hours ago
Functionally I suppose it's the same thing, but are they paying for access to Truth Social, or early access to Trumps posts?

Are there anything else of "value" on Truth Social. I haven't signed up for Truth Social, but is there actually anything else going on, besides Trumps post. Would any company have any reason to be on the platform, if Trump wasn't?

maptabout 3 hours ago
They are paying for early access to Trump's posts.

The first post they received after this system was turned on, was Trump literally posting "GREEN CANDLES. BEAUTIFUL GREEN CANDLES!!!"

This is an informal stock market term for asset values having a good day (or good minute, for that matter), with stock movements measured on a "Candlestick chart". This is a... not an admission, but a brag, that this is in fact an insider trading service, and that people who follow this insider trading service are going to make a lot of money. This is Trump announcing that he has rigged the stock market and you need to buy in right this moment if you want to remain competitive.

I am cautiously optimistic about this in some ways? Historically, the one thing you do not do in America is touch the money. There's now a hundred trillion dollars of capital that have an incentive for the lights to go out in the White House and to turn back on with JD Vance in a different seat.

guywithahatabout 3 hours ago
I mean there are a number of politicians on there, as well as a few million active users. Honestly though this all makes sense? Like why wouldn't X do the same thing, it seems like a no brainer. Certain people want the first access to information, and sites like these are where things are posted first. This seems like a logical product to sell if you own a large enough social media site
grey-areaabout 3 hours ago
Corruption.
podgietaruabout 4 hours ago
A bribe.
baggachipzabout 2 hours ago
Now that this has proven successful and without recourse, I fully expect Musk to do the same for his tweets on Twitter.
amazingamazingabout 3 hours ago
Even before this insiders had access to the prez. I am glad this presidency is making very apparent the inherent flaws with the US government.
acomjeanabout 3 hours ago
A teleprompter operator was making bets on what the president would say..

And thats just one that got called out. Grift is kind of the new normal sadly.

https://arstechnica.com/culture/2026/07/trump-teleprompter-a...

I remember someone getting into trouble for taking a trips in government vehicles. A time when scandal would cause people to stop being in politics...Seems quaint.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-23-mn-2062-s...

spiderfarmerabout 3 hours ago
What is your point exactly?
coreyh14444about 4 hours ago
The most corrupt US administration in history and it isn't even close.
etermabout 4 hours ago
It is completely unimaginable in comparison to previous administrations. Pre-trump, even just pre-2025 Trump, this would read like a parody of corruption.
jdw64about 4 hours ago
Who knows? Maybe we'll see a new 'worst in history' every year from now on
HumblyTossedabout 3 hours ago
It's possible. The ultra-wealthy now have a blue print to follow.
raincoleabout 3 hours ago
And the least corrupt US administration from now on.
AndrewAndrewsenabout 3 hours ago
Capitalism implodes on itself, just as predicted..
patrickmayabout 3 hours ago
This isn't capitalism, it's pure corruption.
Planktonneabout 1 hour ago
Very much a "true communism has never been tried" way of thinking.
senectus1about 3 hours ago
thats how capitalism implodes... its lives and breathes might makes right and the way to be mightier is to eat competitors and when you run out of competitors you use your might to change the rules. Corruption.
cassepipeabout 3 hours ago
if everything is capitalism, then nothing is capitalism

"But one should not succumb to the illusion that with an analysis of the fundamentals of the capitalist mode of production that everything decisive has already been said about capitalist societies"

Michael Heinrich, Introduction to the three volumes of Capital

arjieabout 2 hours ago
People have announced the implosion of capitalism many times and each time living standards have improved. In a purely correlationary sense, it seems like civilization progresses one capitalistic implosion at a time.
spiderfarmerabout 3 hours ago
Capitalism prescribes a limited role of government, to protect the rights of private citizens and maintain an orderly environment that facilitates proper functioning of markets.

This isn’t capitalism, it’s pure unfettered and uncontrolled greed.

nancyminusoneabout 3 hours ago
"that wasn't real capitalism" hmm, where have I heard that before?
ImHereToVoteabout 4 hours ago
I don't think anyone would have predicted that Karl Marx would ever end up being as vindicated as he turned out to be.
cassepipeabout 3 hours ago
Reducing everything to a few sets of variables that you can keep in your mind is quite reassuring. Ask me how I know. Do take the time to assimilate this sentence though:

"But one should not succumb to the illusion that with an analysis of the fundamentals of the capitalist mode of production that everything decisive has already been said about capitalist societies"

Michael Heinrich, Introduction to the three volumes of Capital

groundzeros2015about 3 hours ago
Can you break down the participants in this story in Marxist terms?
ImHereToVoteabout 3 hours ago
Sure. The bourgeoisie in search of more and more profit have nowhere left to go but ransack the heartland. Outward expansion has stalled at a wall called Iran.
cassepipeabout 3 hours ago
That sentence is extremely unspecific to anything capitalistic. Were it not for the word "bourgeoisie", it could apply to the Mongols for all I know.
Levitzabout 3 hours ago
The degree to which his works have been dragged through the mud by a bunch of people who insist on calling everything they don't like "capitalism" can't be overstated. The majority of people complaining about capitalism don't even have a coherent definition of it, it's a disgrace.
pjc50about 3 hours ago
Balanced out by a group of people who call everything they don't like "socialism". It's a very poor discourse environment.
yonaguskaabout 3 hours ago
huh?
AndrewAndrewsenabout 3 hours ago
Read Marx, he predicted so many things that would happen during the late stage capitalism phase.
cassepipeabout 3 hours ago
And yet he gave us nothing in terms of what alternative economic would look like apart from a "a free association of workers" or something. Turns out it's a hard problem.
guywithahatabout 3 hours ago
Too bad he couldn't predict what would happen in late-stage socialism (mass starvation and inequality)
free652about 3 hours ago
>late stage capitalism

That period is defined as starting about 100 years ago, after WW1. 100 years later the "late stage" capitalism outlived communism in USSR and China.

stochastic-parrabout 3 hours ago
Except most marxists.
Advertisement
usefulcatabout 3 hours ago
> The group is expanding into areas including cryptocurrency holdings and clean-energy investments.

Wait, what? Clean energy investments, from the Trump admin? Sounds like a protection racket.

rvzabout 3 hours ago
The signs of rampant insider trading in the US were there since congress allowed it indirectly with no-one caught, leading to this.

Where was the outrage when Pelosi and several members of congress were buying and selling stocks and front-running key legislation being passed that directly affected certain stocks in question? That sort of corruption was largely (and deliberately) ignored.

Now we have lead it to the point where corruption like this is allowed because no one was caught in the first place.

To quote what Pelosi said herself when asked about this conflict of interest: "We’re a free market economy, They (law makers) should be able to participate in that.” [0]

Essentially she has green-lighted said corruption, which she and others (except for AOC) have zero integrity even when both Trump and them are just as corrupt.

[0 ]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/16/nancy-pelosi-federal-lawmake...

jdw64about 4 hours ago
I pay a dollar here and there to promote my homepage so people will actually see it. I guess being a president really helps. I wish people would just pay a dollar to read my posts someday
yourusernameabout 4 hours ago
If your posts induce wild swings in the stock market i'll pay a dollar to read them a minute early.
jdw64about 4 hours ago
I can't swings the stock market, but maybe I could change people's values...? That's too bad. It's a little sad to think my writing isn't even worth a dollar, haha.
pixel_poppingabout 3 hours ago
Then improve it :)