John McAfee Denied Libertarian Party Nomination For President (reason.com) 245
SonicSpike quotes an article at Reason: In a decisive rout for pragmatism over purity, the Libertarian Party has nominated former New Mexico Republican Governor and 2012 nominee Gary Johnson for president. Johnson came within an eyelash of winning on the first ballot, pulling 49.5 percent of the vote, just short of the required majority. (Libertarian activist Austin Petersen and software magnate John McAfee came in second and third, respectively, with 21.3 percent and 14.1 percent.) With sixth-place finisher Kevin McCormick (and his 0.973 percent of the vote) booted from the second ballot, Johnson sailed through with 55.8 percent.
John Mcafee answered questions here on Slashdot in 2013. Reason's article includes a video of their interview this weekend with the party's official nominee Gary Johnson, who hopes to qualify for the nationally-televised presidential debates by drawing 15% of the support in national opinion polls.
John Mcafee answered questions here on Slashdot in 2013. Reason's article includes a video of their interview this weekend with the party's official nominee Gary Johnson, who hopes to qualify for the nationally-televised presidential debates by drawing 15% of the support in national opinion polls.
Purity? (Score:5, Funny)
Lost, not 'denied' (Score:4, Insightful)
He wasn't denied, he just plain lost. Theres a difference.
Denied is a sensationalist headline trying to get clicks.
Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.
The real story here is that he got any votes at all.
The only question though ... is WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?
Don't care when he shits either, just for reference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.
*crickets*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LMFTFY
Lost is the reality of a not sufficiently batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.
Re:Lost, not 'denied' (Score:5, Funny)
I momentarily forgot about the two front runner candidates when I was making that post :(
Re:Lost, not 'denied' (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's such a thing as "hive mind" here, John is aligned with it very closely.
Take any of the political issues (Snowden, NDAA, DMCA, TPP, etc.) or any of the technocratic issues (copyrighting API's, backdooring NIST standards, etc.) and McAfee was the Slashdot candidate.
I see no evidence at all that Trump or Clinton are any more sane than McAfee.
I see no evidence that Obama is any more moral than McAfee.
He likes to portray the "bad boy" image, and he seems to have some wild ideas, but show me a man without an ego problem and I'll show you somebody who isn't running for POTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no evidence at all that Trump or Clinton are any more sane than McAfee.
Then you should have watched the debates they just showed on CSPAN. 3 of the 5 (including McAfee) were clearly batshit crazy. And I'm saying that as someone who tends to lean toward libertarian beliefs. This was the first Libertarian debate I'd seen, and while many valid points were raised, it looked more like a circus than something that most normal adults would wish to be associated with. Gary Johnson at least came across as a reasonable person, as did Petersen. The other three should have been dragg
Re: (Score:3)
The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected.
I know, McAfee is always going on about building a two-thousand mile wall and making the people it would hurt pay for it...
I see no evidence of the opposite, either.
Wow, you can't count the bodies?
Show me a man without a drug problem, and whose wife didn't die under mysterious circumstances. Even if he's innocent, he'd never win.
Nor
Re: (Score:2)
For Trump and McAffee, holding back their opinions was never professionally necessary, so it wasn't "insane" for them to behave the way they did. And saying stupid things and not holding back seems to be working for Trump.
You're right that
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone actively attempting to be President of the United States should be dragged off for a psych eval.
And left there.
Re:Lost, not 'denied' (Score:4, Insightful)
As Friedman put it, "Government is the delusion in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men."
Nevertheless, even among selfish and greedy men, there are gradations of ruthlessness and incompetence.
Re: Lost, not 'denied' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By that standard, Trump, who appears to have no filter, is clinical. Clinton, who appears to have almost nothing but filter, is sane. I would reject that analysis. Trump is too over-the-top with his speech, and Clinton is too reserved.
T
Thank You (Score:2)
That is all I had to say to you other than, "well said."
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to start a bot Slashdot account that posts, "Why is this story on Slashdot" in the comments section of every single story. It would be sort of like the "cows say moo" guy, except with "BUT HOW IS THIS NEWS FOR NERDS?"
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason this is on Slashdot is that he once had an impact on the world of technology. At least he made a real contribution once instead of being one of many members of a committee that approved funding for ARPANet.
Re: (Score:2)
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
https://entertainment.slashdot... [slashdot.org]
https://it.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
https://features.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
etc....
Re: (Score:2)
Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.
Well there's already one batshit crazy nut job running for president. McAfee should have campaigned from the drug fueled maniac platform.
Thank you! Lost, not "denied". "Foiled" is ok. (Score:2)
"Denied" would be the party not accepting him because he's not a member or didn't file the right paperwork or whatever. Dude lost, not only because he didn't have the credibility with most of the party that Gary Johnson has, but also because he's too crazy and embarrassing even for us.
"Foiled" would be ok :-)
Denied? (Score:5, Interesting)
You make it sound like the party was colluding against him in dark rooms filled with cigar smoke.
The way I see it, the Libertarian party wasn't being pragmatic at all. You see, there's significant portion of the Republican party that is very, very libertarian leaning. They're concerned about the constitution, the rule of law, and the size of government. When Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, these people had nowhere to go - until Austin Petersen started to court them.
Mr. Petersen started to win these people over in droves. The Blaze, the television network owned by Glenn Beck, even carried the last Libertarian party debate, with several re-run to ensure that many of the conservatives left in the cold could see what was going on, offering them a potential option.
The Libertarians had a chance - a once in a lifetime chance - to grow their party by leaps and bounds with Austin Petersen. He's bright, articulate, extremely dedicated to the rule of law, dedicated to the free exercise of religion, and not doing everything by executive fiat. But the Libertarians decided to puff-puff-pass on him and run Gary, again.
And then there's the whole strip naked on stage thing.
At this point I'm convinced that the Libertarian party isn't serious about electing a president. You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage. It's embarrassing.
On the (R) side we have a crony capitalist progressive who wants to "open up libel laws" so that he can sue people he doesn't like, and on the (D) side we have a marxist criminal progressive who wants to shred the second amendment. What do the Libertarians offer in 2016? Dancing naked and marijuana.
I still think a third party is the answer, but the Libertarian party obviously is not it. They're not serious.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I still think a third party is the answer"
No, it is not the answer. Because no third party ever has any real chance of winning important elections. It is essentially impossible because of the way the system is designed.
The answer is to get rid of the electoral college and change the voting system. Only then can people vote how they want and only then will there be real alternatives to the "rupublicrats".
http://www.fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Denied? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is not the answer. Because no third party ever has any real chance of winning important elections. It is essentially impossible because of the way the system is designed.
Tell that to the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs, and the Federalists.
Its always been a 2 party system, but it hasn't always been these two parties.
The real collusion against it happening again is the requirement that a candidate get 15% in polling before being allowed in the presidential debates. Most polls dont include 3rd party candidates, therefore a third party candidate cannot get 15% in polls.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about just presidential elections. The President holds no more power than Congress (in theory, anyway). But your observation is still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you change the voting system by A) voting for either of the two parties which the current voting system benefits or B) not voting? Or is there another non-third party voting option that will magically bring change to the current broken political process?
Ted Cruz isn't libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Being anti abortion (to an extent) is not anti-libertarian. Being against gay marriage certainly is. But if libertarians believe in personal liberties and freedoms - the rights of the individual, then it comes down to when you consider a fetus an individual. You can rail on about how it's not a "person" until it's born, but having the belief that a second or third trimester fetus (or, in extreme cases, at conception) deserves the same rights to life you have is certainly not against libertarian principle
Re: (Score:3)
Abortion isn't about whether a fetus "has a right to life", it is about whether a fetus "has a right to live using someone else's body for survival against their will".
If you base your argument for the use of government power to force women t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you start transporting a person across a dangerous river, one in which the odds are overwhelming they'll die if not for your boat, then yes, you have an obligation to them to do what you can (without giving up your own life) to transport them to safety.
The time to decide you didn't want to do that was before the trip began, not in the middle of the river crossing when they'll likely die if you suddenly decide they can't "u
Re: (Score:3)
right to life for a person
There's your problem. A clump of cells otherwise known as a cygote is not a person. Go back to square one and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to keep up. The poster I was responding to said that even if you considered a fetus an individual person, he couldn't see how it having a right to life being compatible with libertarianism.
Assuming you meant Zygote in your comment, perhaps you could also consider learning some science? [invitra.com] Then maybe you'll be able to respond to the conversation we were having, rather than the one solely in your head?
Are you trolling? You seem to have too low of a user id to be as young and ignorant as your comment makes yo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I responded that your reasoning doesn't reduce to a "right to life" (which libertarianism doesn't recognize anyway) but the "enforcement of an implied contract".
Re: (Score:2)
According to you and the aforementioned late doctor, these people are apparently no longer human and can be disposed of. No matter that many people who are comatose and on life support eventually recover from their injuries/illnesses and resume their lives.
Indeed current practice is to disconnect those people when there are no signs of brain activity. And no, despite what Hollywood tells you not "many people" recover from Vegetative state (VS). Very, very few ever do, and this is often attributed to misdiagnosis of VS.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing, somewhere between zero and 40 weeks the fetus becomes a person. I'm equally sure that this is not zero neither its 40. Prochoice people for the most part acknowledge the later (there are heavy restrictions for abortions past week 18 in most prochoice countries), pro-life reject the former on dubious religious grounds which apply only to certain JudeoChristian branches (eg in some Jewish traditions life doesn't start until 24hours after birth).
Additionally, whatever number we agree to (eg
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a moral or rational argument, it's a religious one. It all rests on the foetus having rights the same or similar to a what it has after being born. Science gives us some information on things like brain activity and ability to feel pain, but wanting to completely ban abortion requires assigning those rights from pretty much the moment of conception, for which there is no supporting medical evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the original post I was responding to, the discussion was about what rights a fetus might or might not have (consistent with libertarian views), once you already consider them a person.
We can discuss the various arguments around at what point they should be considered a person, but that _is_ a different discussion. One which I haven't given a viewpoint on and which doesn't directly relate to the one we were having...
Re: (Score:3)
My obligation to you is determined based on whatever terms for transport we agree on. You are welcome to try to argue that conception implies a contract between a fetus and the mother, and hence confers particular legal obligations on the mother, but that
Re: (Score:3)
The libertarian position against gay marriage: Government doesn't need to be in the marriage business and shouldn't be requiring a license for marriage (among many other things), gay or otherwise. Let people make their own contracts, recognize or not recognize what associations they want to and stop deciding it all based on what's popular politically at the time. That way you can contract for whatever special relationship you want, but you stop forcing others to become
Re: (Score:2)
There is none. However, we live in the real world where thousands of laws reference "marriage" and where the legal environment ensures that you cannot substitute private agreements for government-sanctioned marriage. So, what we are talking about is not what marriage should look like ideally, but what a reasonable and just policy is in the short term, a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Marxist".
To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.
Re:Denied? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ignorance there is yours. The feminist and racial ideas promoted by Hillary and Sanders are rooted in a mix of progressivism and critical theory, and critical theory is simply another term for "neo-Marxism". [wikipedia.org] That's not an accusation or an interpretation, that's how the people who developed this theory actually understand themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
When one refers to another as a Marxist I'm pretty sure it's a given that they would elaborate more if it wasn't about the other's economic policy. Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.
In othet words, calling a candidate like Hilary (who in regards to the economy is a moderate) a Marxist without further elaboration like the above post did is obsurd. It's like calling someone a Nazi because they felt certain points of the Nazi's economic policy had merit
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's an incorrect interpretation. Marxism is primarily about analyzing history and society in terms of class relations and conflict. Marxism is not a synonym for central planning or Soviet-style communism. In fact, from a Marxist point of view, the class struggle is the real issue, and whether it is ended via increasingly tight regulation of a market economy or via a centrally planned economy is a secondary que
Re: (Score:2)
Of course class was primarily defined by wealth and ones place in the capitalistic economic system so economic issues are key to his philosophies. The proletariat, the bourgeoisie; defined by their place in their current economic system. Of course he does branch off a bit be it's all based off this dominant theme.
You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.
As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a deb
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't call them "racist" or "classist"; quite to the contrary: both Clinton and Sanders clearly make fighting racism and classism a key part of their politics.
I suspect that what you are trying to say is that Clinton and Sanders are not "Marxist-Len [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The ignorance there is yours. The feminist and racial ideas promoted by Hillary and Sanders are rooted in a mix of progressivism and critical theory, and critical theory is simply another term for "neo-Marxism". [wikipedia.org] That's not an accusation or an interpretation, that's how the people who developed this theory actually understand themselves.
While that's true, it's misleading because the word "Marxism" has very nasty connotations that the academic, theoretical aspects of Marx's work don't deserve. I'm not saying Marx's economics was right[*], but Marx himself would have been horrified to see what vicious and power-hungry people were able to do by exploiting his high-minded, if technically erroneous, ideas, and it's the work of those people which Americans associate with his name. Also, it's misleading because the "neo-" is guaranteed to be over
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what aspects of Marxism you think there are besides "academic, theoretical". Marxism is, and has always been, a "method of socioeconomic analysis [wikipedia.org]". The root problem wasn't that it was wrong, it was that it lacked scientific rigor, falsifiability, and empirical verification. It is that root problem that allowed "vicious and power-hungry peop
Re: (Score:2)
What makes me "gag" is your inability to follow a link and accept simple, basic facts about political science.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite part of the convention was when Johnson mentioned that he was OK with the idea of people having to take a test to get a drivers license and the audience started booing and screaming, "BULLSHIT!" When he said he supported the Civil Rights Act - sorta- I thought he was gonna be run out of the venue on a rail.
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/4... [nmpoliticalreport.com]
It's a good thing Big-L Libertarians are too high to ever amount to anything, or we'd all be in trouble. But I do like the fact that the
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see:
You, sir, are a complete and utter idiot. I thought that roman_mir calling the genocide on the Native Americans 'a win in the marketplace' was bad, but you are edging pretty damn close to that line.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither Trump nor Clinton are progressive, except in the definition you'd find on a drunken Glenn Beck's chalkboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just ask her!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we all have assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage.
The Republicans seem to be trying this tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
marxist
Nope.
criminal
Wrong again.
progressive
Hahahhahaha no.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is Gary Johnson not a competitive candidate but Austin Petersen is? A former governor who won a general election and then a re-election and then went on to get a record number of general election presidential votes in 2012 vs a guy who owns a website and isn't even notable enough to have his own wikipedia page.
If Gary got 1% of the vote between a moderate republican and an incumbent president, imagine what he can do against the two most reviled candidates in modern times?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Oh look, a gun nutjob "Libertarian". How original."
Troll much?
Re: (Score:2)
After your belated realization that libertarians are against gun regulations, I'm afraid you're still about a million political insights short of being an informed voter.
Re:Denied? (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarian is the belief that I'm great, and fuck you. I'm goddamned glad that they have no chance to win, because if anything could be more terrifying than the current one-party system, it's some Randian libertarian seizing the reins and... who knows what they might do? Nothing sensible.
No. Despite the politically sophomoric typical slashdotter's opinion, libertarianism is about personal rights and freedoms. It's NOT objectivism. Libertarians don't believe in slavery, or subjugating people "below" them. The misconception about libertarians here is amazing... I realize a few tea partiers and "what's good for me" republicans have used the party name to misrepresent what they really are - the problem is that because you are "libertarian" on one topic doesn't make you a libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would also contest the idea that Molyneux is "one of the most popular". He is one of the most visible, there is a difference. He
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, I'm pretty sure the list of most popular libertarians on the planet doesn't include that guy I've never heard of because I AM A LIBERTARIAN. After doing a google search for him, he seems like much more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Also, he's not even an American, so throwing him into a discussion on American politics is a bit of a non-sequitur...
Speaking of non-libertarians, I'm pretty sure they've heard of some famous people who identify themselves as libertarians including:
Penn and Teller (bot
Re: (Score:3)
>"Libertarian is the belief that I'm great, and fuck you."
Sorry, but that is just about as narrow-minded as saying Democrat is the belief that people are too stupid to manage themselves and need the government to do it for them.
Libertarianism is a leaning, just like all other political leanings... it is not an absolute. Its general belief is that people can take care of themselves better than a government can, so government should be no larger than absolutely necessary.
>" if anything could be more te
Muderer (Score:2, Insightful)
Other party than the republicrats? (Score:3)
You mean the US CAN vote for someone else than Trump or Hillary? So the people ARE to blame if one of the former becomes president and does something stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the US CAN vote for someone else than Trump or Hillary? So the people ARE to blame if one of the former becomes president and does something stupid?
Blaming is the illusive game the citizens who have a voting voice are allowed to play.
Every eight years or so, the country's continued downward spiral is blamed on the Party holding executive power, and there's a movement to vote for change.
The modern difference seems to be that the candidates bear little resemblance to competent, intelligent leaders.
Re:Other party than the republicrats? (Score:4, Informative)
Technically the choice exists, but because first-past-the-post voting creates a kind of prisoners' dilemma it's unreasonable to expect people to make that choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically the choice exists, but because first-past-the-post voting creates a kind of prisoners' dilemma it's unreasonable to expect people to make that choice.
Land of privatized prisons, home of people too cowardly to vote for a candidate who cares about them. I'm writing in Bernie, and I don't give a fuck. And yes, I expect to have to write him in. Clinton is obviously in the script.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong Bernie is my favored candidate for the nomination but this "the system is rigged" stuff being blamed for Bernie's loss has got to go.
Sure, the Democratic nomination system could certainly be better but with Hillary ahead in the popular vote by over three million votes ( http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com] ) it's pretty clear she has the popular mandate. Not only did Bernie not get enough votes, he's so far behind that he was cleary not the prefered candidate for the voters. There shouldnt b
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Sanders has fewer votes is itself entirely due to the fact that the system is rigged. If it weren't for the (establishment) media deceitfully portraying him as if he had no chance from the beginning, and if it weren't for the fact that the DNC convention schedule was designed to favor Clinton, Sanders would have been getting a lot more votes in the early races. The rigged system wasn't enough to shut Sanders out of the race entirely, but it was certainly enough to give Clinton a gigantic head
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The overwhelming majority of Americans is either Republican or independent.
You bet that blocking a Clinton presidency may end up being high on the agenda for a lot of people, because Clinton is a lying, incompetent crook, regardless of her party affiliation, or what political goals she pretends to stand for today.
Re: (Score:3)
The term "independent" refers to party registration.
She is incompetent at government, not at lying. And without Bill Clinton to back her up, she would be a non-entity.
No, I "foed" you because you are a partisan idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how you define "Independent".
The term "independent" refers to party registration.
Which means that your claim of the overwhelming majority is crap. Even the states with the highest rates of "independent" voters still have that as a small part of their total voting population. Even more so, as the difference in the count between D and R is so razor thin, your statement of "R+I" is no more valid than to say the same of "D+I".
In other words you failed at basic math. You were upvoted because you are preaching to the choir here, who also can't be bothered to handle simple math when it c
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means that your claim of "the overwhelming majority is crap". You just reasoned through the steps yourself:
Now:
He may not have expected her to be as incompetent as she turned out to be. Or he may simply not have cared and hired her just out
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that your claim of the overwhelming majority is crap.
No, it means that your claim of "the overwhelming majority is crap".
So you can't handle reading, writing, or arithmetic. And your demeanor is oh so pleasant... You must be a real hit at your school.
He may not have expected her to be as incompetent as she turned out to be.
That is the closest you have come to a non-partisan claim of Clinton's "incompetence". Care to tell us why you think she was "incompetent" as SoS? What did she do that showed her to be unfit for the job?
having her in his administration and control was preferable to the alternatives.
You're diving into a rabbit hole, there. If Clinton and Obama were as partisan as you seem to be trying to imply, then leaving her in the US Senate - rather than hiring he
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of American libertarians have what I'd call "a couple BIG gripes", actually. Among them is the idea that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve as manager/manipulator of our currency. I don't think there's almost anyone on the Republican ticket who is really ready to fight that battle.
Until it's taken serious though, it allows Federal government to print more currency "on demand", to cover expenses for initiatives it can't actually afford -- and THAT means there's no real possibility for a
Re: (Score:2)
the idea that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve as manager/manipulator of our currency. I don't think there's almost anyone on the Republican ticket who is really ready to fight that battle.
You must be new here. Slashdot conservatives seldom pass at a chance to sing the praises (or worship at the altar) of Ron Paul and his holy son Rand. Sure neither has managed to win the GOP endorsement for president but no other candidate has ever attracted such rabid support here as the two of them.
All wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
There shouldn't be a libertarian party. Everybody should be his own candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
There shouldn't be a libertarian party. Everybody should be his own candidate.
Exactly. The very concept of a "libertarian party" is an oxymoron.
Political parties are about coalition-building, structure, organization, compromise, and incremental, collaborative progress.
The vast majority of modern libertarians--at least the American strain--are all about independence, personal control, certitude, and a fundamental aversion to the organization and structuring of power. A party of this nature looks like...well, it looks exactly like what we saw this week--from the overhead-projected Exce
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians will never be more than a fringe force on American politics, simply because they're intrinsically unwilling to build kind of structured organization that makes it possible to win tens of millions of votes.
This is true, and it creates an interesting bias in American politics (and perhaps in democratic politics in general). It means that the laws and government structures we define through the system are inherently biased towards interference and imposition because the people who are most effective at pushing their views are those who think in terms of structure and control. Building a party requires leaders who are willing to impose controls on party members and members who are willing to accept them.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes beyond politics. In pretty much any human endeavor, odds will heavily favor groups that are well-organized and have clear structures of authority over those that are lacking these things. The larger the group, the more pronounced this becomes.
Humans have gotten as far as we have in very large part because we've successfully exploited the overwhelming power of coordination. Without hierarchy, authority, and structure, coordination is difficult--and becomes increasingly so with each new person you add
Re: (Score:2)
Could individuals recognize this and establish such coordination on a temporary basis as needed?
Sure--but as with so many things, it takes time, resources, and expertise to do so. In a crisis, all three of those things will be in short supply.
The fact that the individuals in question are all accustomed to being their own leader will likely exacerbate things, as well.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The U.S. is the biggest circus and political clown-force-farcical there is, and in their own minds they matter more than anyone else, and thus deserve the most attention. Who said you can't campaign for 48 months before the actual voting begins?
Re: Why do we need US political topics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, you're posting to a US based website, hence it is going to focus more on events in the US, just like any other domestic website in any other country would do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or the fact that the head of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party just stated that he thinks that Russia should obliterate the Faroe Islands as a show of force?
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is a US based site. Take your euro (or whatever) supremacist attitude somewhere else. There's no reason we can't cover both.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If TTIP gets through, the US's broken system will be exported. By "broken" I mean the way that wealthy lobbying groups bribe/finance politicians to get them to pass the laws they want. Simple corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
If - taking a country pretty much at random - Nigeria is corrupt, it does not affect me. If lobbyists in the US get to write their own laws and those laws are then exported to a country I live in via TTIP, that affects me personally. Capito?
Re:Why do we need US political topics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in any other country is corrupt like they are here.
This is true. No other country is corrupt in the way that America is corrupt. In other countries, corruption is illegal. Only in America are our most corrupt practices fully legal and right out in the open. Hillary didn't take under the table bribes from Wall Street bankers. Nope, they donated millions to her super-PAC and paid her over $600k in "speaking fees". This was all above board, and reported to the FEC and IRS.
Re: (Score:3)
Your facts are wrong. The laws were followed including the time limits to certify the results of the election. Florida certainly did send legitimate electors.
Oh, and international law only applies to a country if that country accepts it's application by treaty or if it is imposed by subjugation of their sovereignty. So if you want to cite international law, you must show where we are subject to it. But the supreme court case specifically dealt with this already and said you could not change the rules mid pr
Re:"software magnate" (Score:5, Funny)
They didn't want the campaign slogan to be "Uninstall McAfee" and they especially didn't want Hillary to call herself, "America's Security Essentials."
Re:"software magnate" (Score:5, Interesting)
There are at least four choices available for president. The voter is the only limiting factor.
Also, third parties do not need to win to matter. The Green Party campaign in 2000 cost the Democrats the election, and sent a clear message that they could lose more votes on the left than they were gaining in the center. Likewise, the Libertarians show that there is a constituency for free market economics without the intolerant social conservatism. Someday the Republicans may stop worrying about toilets and go after those votes. Or maybe the Democrats will start focusing on growing the pie instead of how to slice it up.
The purpose of 3rd parties is to push new ideas into the Overton Window [wikipedia.org], and get the major parties to adopt them. If you look at American party platfoms in 1900, the most successful political party over the next 100 years was the Socialist Workers Party. They advocated public pensions, welfare, unemployment pay, and free healthcare for the elderly. They didn't win many elections, but all of those policies were adopted, and are now the law of the land.
If you want to make a difference, vote 3rd party, and send a message. This is especially true if you live in non-swing state, as most Americans do, where your vote is otherwise meaningless.
Re:"software magnate" (Score:5, Interesting)
No, an intentionally 'weak' candidate that presented no real opposition cost the democrats the elections in 2000 (Re, 1968). And this is the intention now. This whole "spoiler" angle is a fraud. A guilt trip brought on by the loser's voters who believe they are entitled to our votes and try to blame us for everything that went wrong.
The Overton Window needs to be smashed. In fact the wall containing it needs to be demolished.
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a myth. Al Gore gave up on Florida recounts where he actually won, and also he couldn't even win his home state - which would have put him over the top anyhow.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet here we are just four presidential elections later, and the Democrats are leaning towards former Secretary Clinton. You can send a clear message all that you want to, but that doesn't make any difference if the people on the other end don't even bother to read the message.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet here we are just four presidential elections later, and the Democrats are leaning towards former Secretary Clinton.
But now the leftist insurgency that Ralph Nader headed in 2000 is happening inside the Democratic party, and instead of getting 1% of the vote, Bernie Sanders has 40%. He isn't winning, but he is doing way better than Ralph did.
Meanwhile, Trump is dragging the Republican Party away from hardline social conservatism (he isn't anti-gay, doesn't care which toilet people use, and is no ideologue about abortion) and focusing instead on economic issues that people (apparently) care about far more.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the result is the same, whether the left votes for somebody else or doesn't bother to show up on election day. They failed to learn the real lesson, which was that a centrist Democrat can only win if that candidate is popular and energetic and enthusiastic (like Bill Cli