Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John McAfee Denied Libertarian Party Nomination For President

Comments Filter:
  • Purity? (Score:5, Funny)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @07:56AM (#52209947)
    McAfee? Purity? They must be talking about his drugs.
  • Lost, not 'denied' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @07:57AM (#52209953)

    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)

      by tpgp ( 48001 )

      Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

      *crickets*

    • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday May 30, 2016 @08:43AM (#52210125) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        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

    • That is all I had to say to you other than, "well said."

    • The only question though ... is WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?

      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?"

    • 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.

    • Maybe he should his own dedicated topic
      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....
    • by DrXym ( 126579 )

      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.

    • "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)

    by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @08:10AM (#52210009) Homepage

    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.

    • >"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)

        by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @09:59AM (#52210409)

        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.

        • 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.

      • 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?

    • by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @09:09AM (#52210235)
      He wants to deprive gays of the right to marry, and wants to make abortion illegal. These two items are massive infringements on civil liberties and about as far from libertarian ideals as one can get. People like Cruz and Santorum cater to the religious crazy wing of the Republican party and are one of the main reasons the GOP is in such disarray.
      • by gfxguy ( 98788 )

        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

        • 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 principles ... because it all comes down to when you believe a fetus has that right to life.

          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)

            by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 )

            a right of one person to use another person's body for survival against their will.

            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

            • by Alomex ( 148003 )

              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.

              • 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

                • 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.

                  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".

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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.

              • 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...

            • 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.

              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

        • Being against gay marriage certainly is

          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, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "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)

        by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @11:42AM (#52210871)

        To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

        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.

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          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

          • Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.

            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

            • by skam240 ( 789197 )

              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

              • As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a debate about Liberals being racist, classist or similiar nonsense

                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.

                You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.

                I suspect that what you are trying to say is that Clinton and Sanders are not "Marxist-Len [wikipedia.org]

        • To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

          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

          • 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 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

    • the Libertarian party

      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

    • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      Let's see:

      1. Cruz was the libertarian's last hope?
      2. Trump is progressive??
      3. Hillary is a Marxist???

      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)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      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

      Neither Trump nor Clinton are progressive, except in the definition you'd find on a drunken Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

    • You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage.

      The Republicans seem to be trying this tactic.

    • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      marxist

      Nope.

      criminal

      Wrong again.

      progressive

      Hahahhahaha no.

    • 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?

  • Muderer (Score:2, Insightful)

    Is that like a person being denied life by a murderer? I'm not saying that McAfee is a nutjob murderer who didn't get caught, but if he was it would be just like that.
  • by johanw ( 1001493 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @08:27AM (#52210075)

    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?

    • 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.

    • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday May 30, 2016 @08:51AM (#52210167)

      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.

      • 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.

        • by skam240 ( 789197 )

          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

          • 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

    • For a party's candidate to appear on a state's ballot, they need to jump through some hoops first (usually gather enough signatures of people saying they support that party - has to be completed far enough in advance of the election for the state to "verify" the signatures are authentic). The Libertarian party is the only 3rd party which has qualified in all 50 states, so is the only 3rd party whose candidates will show up on every state's ballot. Other 3rd party candidates start the election effectively
  • John McAfee? Really? I thought he was banned from the planet?
  • The overwhelming majority of American "Libertarians" are just Republicans with a couple gripes. Their underlying sense of duty to the GOP will come through and they will vote for Trump as they are trained to see nothing worse for the world than anyone named Clinton. They know that they cannot block a Clinton presidency by voting for a third party.
    • The overwhelming majority of American "Libertarians" are just Republicans with a couple gripes.

      The overwhelming majority of Americans is either Republican or independent.

      They know that they cannot block a Clinton presidency by voting for a third party.

      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.

    • by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      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

      • 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)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Monday May 30, 2016 @10:16AM (#52210483) Homepage Journal

    There shouldn't be a libertarian party. Everybody should be his own candidate.

    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields

Working...