Slashdot Mirror


John McAfee Pondering Presidential Bid

An anonymous reader writes: Since this U.S. presidential election cycle clearly isn't chaotic enough already, it seems John McAfee is now considering a campaign as well. Wired reports that McAfee hasn't decided for sure yet, and he's hoping to persuade somebody more charismatic to run with his backing. He said his advisors are pressing him to run, adding, "I have many thousands of emails saying please run for President. It's not something I would just choose to do on my own." What would his platform be? It actually sounds pretty simple: "It's clear that the leadership of our country is illiterate on the fundamental technology that supports everything in life for us now, that is cyber science, our smartphones, our military hardware, our communications." He'd be a strong proponent for privacy and autonomy. We should know in a few days whether McAfee is in or out — Wired says he "seems far more concerned with having his voice heard on one particular issue than with taking a seat in the Oval Office." Something seems to have changed his mind about politics: in a 2014 interview here, McAfee said. "I would never run for office, neither would I want to be in office, of any kind. I would rather drive a nail through my foot." According to the paperwork McAfee has filed, he is founding a new party (PDF).

184 comments

  1. Libertarian? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want to know which party he'd run under. Or if he would be independent.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know who he is. The antivirus guy?

    2. Re:Libertarian? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      I want to know who he is. The antivirus guy?

      Oh boy.

      At this point, I'm certain he would love to only be remembered for his bloatware, but his history is a bit more creative to say the least.

    3. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Libertarian? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      I want to know which party he'd run under.

      That would be the "Pants on Head" party. Not much different than the usual suspects, but with a little added bit of crazy.

    5. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's basically not a real party. You're either Anarchist, Republican or Tea Party... or you know, not a white male.

    6. Re: Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anarchist is the catch-all party for anyone who lost hope after "hope and change" (inevitably) failed. It's the "no-hope, change at any cost" party.

    7. Re:Libertarian? by stooo · · Score: 1

      Antivirus for all !!! Yay...

      --
      aaaaaaa
    8. Re: Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A murderer. He'd make a great politician.

    9. Re: Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and coke addict. There's already a precedent, so I'm thinking he's got a chance. Provided there's blackjack, hookers and beer....

    10. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the "Pants on Head" party. Not much different than the usual suspects, but with a little added bit of crazy.

      Indeed.

      *pulls up chair*

      I'm in. He has my vote.

    11. Re:Libertarian? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I want to know which party he'd run under. Or if he would be independent.

      The GOP field is too crowded. Run as a Libertarian or as a Democrat. Since Biden may not run, and Hilary is imploding, that's the best opportunity

    12. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What that's the john mcafee video you link to? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    13. Re:Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck, it really is? I was being sarcastic.

    14. Re:Libertarian? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      So... if I don't vote for him, would that make me an anti-vaccer? :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    15. Re: Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would want to know where he stands on issues, because I am not a partisan robot.

    16. Re: Libertarian? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      The Killer App ticket...

      McAfee/Reiser '16

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    17. Re: Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a real party by what definition?

  2. Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the President need a security clearance?

    Can someone who ran a drug lab get a security clearance? I think they ask specifically about drug use if you apply for a security clearance.

    1. Re:Security Clearance by JazzHarper · · Score: 2

      No, the President does not require a security clearance.
      He has access to virtually all information by virtue of his Constitutional office.

    2. Re:Security Clearance by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He has access to virtually all information by virtue of his Constitutional office.

      You'd think so, but there have been times when the President was removed from "need to know" on various bits of information.

      The cracking of the Japanese code in WWII was withheld from FDR for a time, and other information has been withheld from time to time.

      That being said, your statement is generally true.

    3. Re:Security Clearance by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the President does not require a security clearance. He has access to virtually all information by virtue of his Constitutional office.

      Yeah, something tells me the POTUS position kinda gets a pass on the whole background investigation thing.

      It certainly will have to if Hillary is somehow elected.

    4. Re:Security Clearance by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The background check is accomplished during the election campaign. People who oppose a candidate will delve into that persons background in depth looking for the slightest abnormality or perceived wrongdoing to gain electoral advantage. There is nothing the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, or any of the other state security services can discover that cannot be discovered by the general public. The closer a person gets to being elected the harder his opponents will look for any thing to derail that persons chances of being elected.

    5. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, The President and his staff *do* require a security clearance. These days, someone who was *truly* unable to acquire a TS/SCI clearance would *never* be permitted to become president.

    6. Re:Security Clearance by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      They ask about your drug usage over the past 7 years. I just went through the process. As long as you aren't currently doing them nor have done them recently, its usually a pass.

    7. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the ***ACTUAL LAW*** regarding this issue.

      All that's been posted about this issue sounds like speculation and conjecture from self-described "experts" (who can't post *any* reference to US law).

    8. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read that these things can be more about what people can try and blackmail you with. If everyone knows he ran a drug lab, and everyone knows he did drugs, then it can't be used for blackmail. Essentially, security clearances won't always care if you got a speeding ticket as long as you don't lie about it.

    9. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is nothing the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, or any of the other state security services can discover that cannot be discovered by the general public.

      Nothing except contents of Hillary's private mail server, not to mention anyone else's. The contents of private phone calls. The contents of everyone's SMS messages. The contents of our web traffic...

    10. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you think they give a shit if you do drugs? all they want to know is what you can be blackmailed for. If some agent can threaten to reveal your drug use and compel you to give up secrets, that is a huge liability. If you are upfront about your drug use then it can't be used as blackmail. Those checks are to catch you lying.

    11. Re:Security Clearance by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      There is nothing the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, Google, or Facebook can discover that cannot be discovered by the general public.

      there fixed it for you!

    12. Re:Security Clearance by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And its cute that you think they use polygraphs, which means you haven't either.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two main political parties spend millions on private investigators. And they do not need "The contents of private phone calls. The contents of everyone's SMS messages". If you were conducting a criminal trial and required this information you would need a warrant. I am still waiting for one single US citizen to stand up and say they were harmed, railroaded, imprisoned, or tortured because of evidence collected by the NSA. A lot of the information released on the NSA and other foreign security services is vague and non-specific leaving a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. One example would be the claim the US was wire tapping Germanys leader. In reality the only piece of evidence was a list of people and their phones numbers. In other words it could have been a phone contact list. There was no evidence saying "we are spying on Germany's leader 24/7". And right around the time this information was released a taped phone call collected from the US Ambassador in the Ukraine was released. Someone was wire tapping the US Embassy. And I am sure the US returns the favor by spying on everyone else in the world. Food for thought. You hear a lot about Chinese hackers targeting the US government and US corporations. There is always a little evidence offered up but nothing 100% conclusive. You hear the same thing regarding Russia, You never hear those two countries whining about the US invading their systems which poses the question.

      Option 1: US system infiltration and cyber toolbox is so widespread, complex, and invisible that even a little bit of evidence is hard to come by.
      Option 2: The US not trying to infiltrate other countries systems so therefore there is nothing to find.

    14. Re:Security Clearance by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Of course they do - they love it. If you admit to using them, that gives the government the exclusive ability to blackmail you, through judicious discretion in the application of the law.

    15. Re: Security Clearance by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Option 3: it is politically advantageous to play up threats in the US because fear politics are effective but politically advantageous to play down threats in China and Russia because appearing invincible is effective.

      Never make the mistake of thinking what politicians focus on is correlated to how important it is. Cyber espionage is simply to powerful and easilly available an espionage weapon not to be stock in trade by every government against every government. Hell even tiny South Africa was caught spying on Germany (an ally) in late 90s.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Security Clearance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the President need a security clearance?

      Can someone who ran a drug lab get a security clearance? I think they ask specifically about drug use if you apply for a security clearance.

      That would be a pretty big deal if that were the case.
      If the President needed a security clearance before being elected then there would be no way for the people to vote in a president that thought current laws were unjust.
      Anyone who opposes the NSA is a security risk if you ask NSA. Anyone who wants to restrict FBI is a security risk to FBI.
      Anyone who wants to reduce the governments control over the people is a national security risk.

      Of course someone who runs a drug lab should be able to run for president. If the people wants it to be legal to run drug labs then voting for someone like that is the way to do it.

    17. Re:Security Clearance by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Damn right it is, because the military leadership doesn't' determine who the President is. This isn't Egypt or Thailand or Burma.

    18. Re:Security Clearance by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      There is nothing the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, Google, or Facebook can discover that cannot be discovered by the general public

      . there fixed it for you!

      I'd be a lot less worried about the last two than the first four, or any other alphabet agency for that matter. It's extraordinarily unlikely that Google or Facebook would ever send men with guns to your house or freeze your assets without explanation.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    19. Re:Security Clearance by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      What? Are you ignorant of the use of the polygraph? GP even specifically referred to the counterintelligence version of it. Which is kinder than the CIA's lifestyle polygraph. For example, you run into the CI-scope poly for anyone working for the NSA. But the poly gets invoked quite a bit. Have an inconsistency in your background? Some details that make the agency wibbly?

      Most of the people I know hit the CI-scope poly, but I also knew an ex-drug dealer who was given the poly so they could feel better about giving him a TS clearance. The poly is just a security blanket the government likes to clutch. And it is definitely used in clearances. Not all of them, true, but it is definitely employed.

    20. Re:Security Clearance by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Wrong. But of course I actually know something about the subject instead of imagining it or basing it on movies and TV shows.

      Getting a clearance is largely an exercise in paperwork, and everything has to line up. The problems occur when things don't line up or certain facts emerge. If you are a native American (born here, not naturalized), have done no international travel or had any concerning contact without a felony conviction it is a matter of filling out the forms and the background investigation matching what you put down. That can (and often does) include drug use. But if it is declared it is generally not a problem. When I was doing initial interviews I worked to make them comfortable declare anything that they had omitted. Which means reviewing what was submitted: not all omissions are intentional.

      The principle behind the process is, in part, to know anything that could be used to blackmail because -- if the government already knows it -- then it cannot be used for blackmail. The government has no need of blackmail material on people who voluntarily seek a job requiring a clearance because threat of losing the clearance -- and thus ending a career -- is all they need for control.

      But don't declare at your own risk. Smoking a joint without declaration can result in denial. Being an (ex) drug dealer will not necessarily preclude obtaining a clearance. Overseas travel doesn't preclude it, but it requires more paperwork, takes longer, and may not be resolvable (without having anything derogatory emerge). Same with overseas relatives, etc.

      For anyone seeking a clearance the rule is simple: declare everything and fill out the forms honestly. If you think its something "they could never find out" fine, but remember you are gambling with a job and career. Declare and practically anything can be forgiven. Omission will nearly always result in denial or revocation.

    21. Re:Security Clearance by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      In principle anyone can get a clearance. Yes, drug questions are involved. But it is a discovery, not an inquisition. Saying you did drugs does not preclude obtaining a clearance. Omitting drug use from the PSQ will almost certainly result in denial.

    22. Re: Security Clearance by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Everyone spies on everyone else it's just that some countries are better at it than others. When information on the NSA foreign activities was published a lot of people got all peevish and loudly shouted their indignation that a countries FOREIGN intelligence service actually had the nerve to conduct foreign intelligence operations. Making arguments that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights should apply to foreign citizens living on foreign soil. I'm sorry but the only law when conducting foreign surveillance and intelligence gathering actions is to not get caught. That's why half the staff of ever foreign embassy on the planet are intelligence operatives who can claim diplomatic immunity when caught red handed. And the people screaming the loudest totally ignored the fact that there are some powerful state intelligence agencies around the world who spend a large amount of time and even larger amounts of money spying on the US government, US corporations, and any thing else they find interesting in the US.

    23. Re:Security Clearance by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      I had a CA Prop 215 card (Medical pot license) for the longest time when I was young, and I had a ticket for possession of pot. I just threw that on my form, absolutely no issue getting secret clearance. I asked the contracting company if I should include it, and they said "They already know. If you lie, you wont get the job. Just list everything, but make sure to let them know if you stopped."

      As I had stopped around 6 years ago, I had no questions about it when I got a call back for clarification on certain things. I only have Secret (provisional right now, as it wasn't required for my job when I started, but is now), but I know that TS is a bit more ruthless.

    24. Re:Security Clearance by goarilla · · Score: 1

      This isn't Egypt or Thailand or Burma.

      Myanmar ! :D

  3. Peak Slashdot by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2

    This is a front page story.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  4. I guess it makes sense.... by DougOtto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the other candidates are batshiat crazy, why not throw John into that mix?

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    1. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, like we can do any worse than a former Tech CEO whose product is mostly known for slowing systems that use it to a crawl. I mean, I guess it could be worse - you could have someone who ruined one of the iconic tech companies of Silicon Valley by pushing a buyout of an increasingly unprofitable hardware company against the advice of pretty much everyone and their dog, nevermind laying off tens of thousands of workers, who's now running for president claiming that as part of their qualifying experience.

      Oh, wait...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...

    2. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by dpidcoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, he's completely disowned the product that has his name on it and has made slashdot news a few times when he's gone on rants about how terrible of an antivirus it's become.

    3. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      do I really have to go for the obvious joke?

      ok. you forced me.

      the reason we do not want him to be president is: once he's installed, he'll be impossible to be removed!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      become??? I dont ever recall a time when it was good

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once he's installed, he'll be impossible to be removed!

      J.F.K.

    6. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1
      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    7. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm voting for Trump. He's the only candidate who doesn't talk like a fag.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The entertainment factor will double. If this keeps going on, the US presidential coverage will get the highest ratings of any show in the last decade.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I think the more batshit crazy candidates in the election, the better. And it leads to some interesting revelations.

      It's quite frightening, when you can't tell if an election soundbite came from Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton or John McAfee. They all, in fact do, start to sound like they are all batshit crazy.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    10. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      He's already proved himself to be an inconsistent hypocrite, so he is probably well qualified for politics.

    11. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 1

      There may have been an instant of time, long ago in the legends, when it was an excellent anti-virus. But as they say, the moment was fleeting.

    12. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      He stopped having anything to do with antivirus since the early Windows 98 days. That is, Windows ME wasn't a thing, and neither was Windows XP for that matter.

      During those days it wasn't any slower than any other antivirus software that I recall, and it was actually easy to remove if you wanted to do so. It wasn't until about 2004 that both McAfee and Norton became the dread of many a computer user.

    13. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your one of those people that never saw idiocracy.

    14. Re: I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely thank you for the first chuckle i'be had in awhile.

      -depressed

    15. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with America are people who know how to use sarcasm and irony?

    16. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who don't feign outrage for literally everything are the problem.

    17. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      And... you're what's wrong with USA these days. Congratulations.

      I'm pretty sure he was sarcastically paraphrasing one of the characters in the movie Idiocracy.

      Then again, you never know.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    18. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      There's that fag talk again. Don't worry scrote! There's plenty of 'tards out there living reeeeeally kick-ass lives.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    19. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      Logged in just to see if I had points to help pull you out of that flamebait mod.

      :(

    20. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least when he runs, he is really running!

    21. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      In 2012, when asked if he personally uses McAfee anti-virus he replied by saying "I take it off," and that "It's too annoying." - Wikipedia

      "Hackers see hacking me as a badge of honor". He added that for his own security he has other people buy his computer equipment for him, uses pseudonyms for setting up computers and logging in, and changes his IP address several times a day. - Wikipedia

      So he goes through extraordinary efforts to keep using Windows for no proffitable reason. Seems presidential to me.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    22. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      become??? I dont ever recall a time when it was good

      Then you have a poor memory. There was a time when MBR and TSR viruses for MS-DOS could be removed either by a format or by using McAfee. Norton came soon after, IIRC. But for a while McAfee reigned king in the AV space.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    23. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by St.Creed · · Score: 0

      Then again, you never know [wikipedia.org].

      That's indeed the issue.

      "We should kill every Jew we can find, starting with you, you faggot" might *seem* like an insult, but it is actually a great contribution to this discussion and a pretty funny post-modern comment on the rise of fascism, as interpreted in the original Icelandic comedy of 1969 called "Harakkur Bloddegrorn rakka te vikka!" (*). However, it's highly likely to be misinterpreted as an anti-semitic comment. How sad.

      *) Yeah I made that up.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    24. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There may have been an instant of time, long ago in the legends, when it was an excellent anti-virus. But as they say, the moment was fleeting.

      That time was in the DOS era, when every minute felt like hours, so the moment was less fleeting than you might imagine. Mcafee was the antivirus for DOS. And ISTR it was still relevant into the Win3.1 era, but I repeat myself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks pal. :)

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    26. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then there were better products - like thunderbyte or f-prot.
      McAfee has always suffered from poor detection rates, and terrible heuristics.
      But then again, not that many AV products were stellar back then, and it was middle of the pack back then for a while, before it gradually became the malware it currently is.

    27. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I guess it could be worse - you could have someone who ruined one of the iconic tech companies of Silicon Valley by pushing a buyout of an increasingly unprofitable hardware company against the advice of pretty much everyone and their dog

      Larry Ellison is running?

    28. Re:I guess it makes sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that. You've just inspired me to make an antivirus named Harper.

  5. Stability by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

    Yep, I know I'd want a guy who's voluntarily played Russian Roulette to occupy the presidency. No wonder he wants to emphasize who he'd run with, or who'd run in his place.

    --
    "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    1. Re:Stability by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm thinking Charlie Sheen. Together, they've probably done more drugs than half the country combined. It'd certainly be entertaining!

    2. Re:Stability by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Most of the other candidates are batshiat crazy, why not throw John into that mix?"

      Here's how I would do it: In every election, place McAfee by default onto both the Republican and Democratic candidate list. The parties would have to go to special trouble to delete him from the list each time before someone better could be run. Deleting him would not be tat easy, either; it would take a special "removal tool."

    3. Re:Stability by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Charlie Sheen is overrated. How about Lynette Fromme?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Stability by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Charlie Sheen. Together, they've probably done more drugs than half the country combined. It'd certainly be entertaining!

      I also immediately thought of Charlie Sheen...and Ted Nugent. ;-)

    5. Re:Stability by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Yep, I know I'd want a guy who's voluntarily played Russian Roulette to occupy the presidency.

      two reasons:

      1) he's not a pansy

      2) he does not scare easily

      being somewhat serious, for a moment, we have 'leaders' who continue to play the "be afraid! all the fucking time!" card. they now govern by fear and we lose rights more and more as those jerks continue to screw us over for their own good.

      I'd like to have someone in office say 'life is hard, its unsafe by definition and by nature and we are not going to legislate you into a 100% safe society.'

      not saying HE would be the guy, but someone who takes a few risks is more trustable, to me, than some think-of-the-children perl-clutcher. (oops, I mean pearl.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Stability by draftmonkey2016 · · Score: 1

      dsi2016.org Sheen in Sixteen!

      --
      In 2016 Let's Put Career Politicians on the Unemployment Line
    7. Re:Stability by adndgamer · · Score: 1
      You did not read the article in question. The gun had its firing pin removed or was otherwise modified to not fire. Excerpt from the article:

      With the gun still to his head, he starts pulling the trigger incessantly. "I can do this all day long,â he says to the sound of the hammer clicking. âoeI can do this a thousand times. Ten thousand times. Nothing will ever happen. Why? Because you have missed something. You are operating on an assumption about reality that is wrong."

    8. Re:Stability by draftmonkey2016 · · Score: 1

      Certainly. That would be much worse than electing someone determined and committed to continue the rape and pillage of the American Dream. Let's keep electing "safe" people that will not only never promote meaningful change, but who are actually committed through their affiliations to work against it. Yes. Stable, predictable people have worked very well so far. Let's keep electing them. - Mothers Against Real Change

      --
      In 2016 Let's Put Career Politicians on the Unemployment Line
    9. Re:Stability by draftmonkey2016 · · Score: 1

      Amen and hallelujah!! If nothing else, his election would give people like cold_fjord brain seizures. That alone would be worth it.

      --
      In 2016 Let's Put Career Politicians on the Unemployment Line
    10. Re:Stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose voters forget to uncheck the McAfee box and accidentally elect him. Guess what? We already know that he will immediately resign and quarrantine himself after taking the oath of office. Just hope that his running mate isn't Donald Trump.

    11. Re:Stability by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you'd get behind the Gary Busey/Mickey Rourke ticket?

    12. Re:Stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most of the other candidates are batshiat crazy, why not throw John into that mix?"

      Here's how I would do it: In every election, place McAfee by default onto both the Republican and Democratic candidate list. The parties would have to go to special trouble to delete him from the list each time before someone better could be run. Deleting him would not be tat easy, either; it would take a special "removal tool."

      Don't bother. It already sounds like he's got himself into an infinite reboot loop.

    13. Re:Stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking Charlie Sheen. Together, they've probably done more drugs than half the country combined.

      Hardly. When they started Ozzy had already been going for quite a while.

  6. Public Service Experience by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Business leaders should spend at least 4 years as a representative in Congress or a state governor in my opinion, and show aptitude there. Running government and dealing with politics is too different from the private sector. You have to learn how to compromise and persuade, not just order around underlings to carry out your vision your way.

    This also applies to Trump, Carly, and Carson.

    1. Re:Public Service Experience by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Not true. Those politicians owe a lot of favors. They take their orders from the private sector.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Public Service Experience by swillden · · Score: 1

      You have to learn how to compromise and persuade, not just order around underlings to carry out your vision your way.

      You have a very skewed vision of how business leadership works. It's definitely different from politics, but it's impossible to be a successful executive without being good at compromise and persuasion. At the CEO level this is perhaps a little less important with respect to your own company, but it's still relevant to relationships with shareholders, partners, suppliers, and even large customers. And as executives rise through the ranks, or start companies, those skills are essential as well.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Public Service Experience by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. I want someone in government who isnt in government for the single reason that they are not in government.

      we have gone how long electing governors and senators and we end up with bush and obama??? yeah we can do much much better if we open the pool to those not beholden to the whims of government

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Public Service Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise career politicians, community organizers, etc. should spend at least 4 years working your standard 8-5 job to understand basic economics and how small and large businesses work.

    5. Re:Public Service Experience by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what you mean. A specific situation may help illustrate your view. Bush did have business experience (although his co's were lackluster). Perhaps its part of the reason for his bullheaded Iraq gamble. In business you often have to gamble a bit to try to get an edge on the competition or avoid stagnation. But, we don't want the USA filing bankruptcy if gambles fail to pay off.

      Experience in an environment usually helps in that environment. Biden was chosen for his experience and skill in dealing with Congress and foreign policy. One could argue that the ACA or the "nuke" inspection deal wouldn't have gotten as far without him. Many administrations of the past had failed to get health insurance through, including the Clintons. (Lessons from that failure were applied, meaning "experience".) I doubt a newbie would have better chances.

    6. Re:Public Service Experience by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It really depends on if you want the leader to merely administrate things competently, or if you want her to pass 'great laws and make great changes.'
      At this point, I mainly think, "Please don't mess things up too badly."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Public Service Experience by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      what i mean is that obama never had a real job, he was a politician his whole life and while you look at the ACA as a good thing, i dont. There is a reason it never passed before, and thats because it isnt any good.

      what i am saying is that career politicians are probably the worst people to elect because they are so out of touch with reality its sad.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Public Service Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could, *gasp*, allow a "foreigner" to run for president!

    9. Re:Public Service Experience by draftmonkey2016 · · Score: 1

      You're not the only person to think this way... http://draft-back-america.org/ is determined to put a candidate for The People on the firing line this year. McAffee will do. If there is any future to speak of it can only be at the expense of the Career Politicians. Put them on the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE in 2016!!!

      --
      In 2016 Let's Put Career Politicians on the Unemployment Line
    10. Re:Public Service Experience by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I want someone in government who was dragged kicking and screaming into the position. If you really want the position, I don't trust you.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Public Service Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who aren't in government, but enter government from the side of business, tend to fleece the government for all the business they can get.

      It's like getting access to someone else's checkbook. Very few of them have any concept of restraint as they write checks to themselves.

      That's why I really don't want business people in government. People like Bush start wars to satisfy his oil company connections (Bush is oil) and buddies like his VP flush out no-bid contracts guaranteeing a 10% profit over whatever they spend to companies they previously held positions in (and retire to reap the rewards).

      Barring business people from government at least force them to lobby for their government handouts. Electing them is a bad idea, because it removes the middle man.

    12. Re:Public Service Experience by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I want someone in government who isnt in government for the single reason that they are not in government.

      But then they'd be in government, and you'd have to impeach them to replace them with someone who isn't in government.

    13. Re:Public Service Experience by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      While I agree ACA needs tuning*, every other industrialized country created some form of pooled/public medical insurance program. Is every other industrialized country "stupid"? Is your wisdom beyond theirs? There's no evidence it derailed their economies overall.

      You may not personally want to see it enacted per your policy preferences, but he deserves credit for succeeding at a task that many other presidents tried and failed at.

      It's comparable to reaching the top of Everest where others failed. You may not personally want people stomping around on Everest, but that's a different issue than being able to perform.

      Similarly, I don't condone what Germany did in WWII, but they were masterful at their craft of invading from an ability standpoint. You cannot say they were "not skilled". (Their tactical error was biting off more than they could chew, which is probably greed and ego at play more than lack of skill.)

      * Prior "big" programs were legislatively tuned over time, but GOP congress won't tune it this time because they want to sabotage it by keeping it "raw".

    14. Re:Public Service Experience by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Addendum

      How about we agree to this: BOTH public and private service experience matter. Ideally, a candidate has both, and demonstrated competence in both before running for prez.

    15. Re:Public Service Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out! Your support for the values of Enlightenment is showing and the attacks dogs of materialism are sensing the blood and readying for a pile-over.

    16. Re:Public Service Experience by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Evolving positions over time by steveha · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if he has also reconsidered his position on driving a nail through his foot?

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Evolving positions over time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, a large percentage of the Republican base is enamored with a guy who's had nails driven through his feet.

  8. Well this is the future, why not? by cyranix · · Score: 1

    What the hell. I'd vote for McAfee before I vote for Trump. If Trump can run, why not McAfee?

    --
    Its only illegal if you don't get caught
    1. Re:Well this is the future, why not? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What the hell. I'd vote for McAfee before I vote for Trump. If Trump can run, why not McAfee?

      McAfee has experience with the "running" part. How long did he avoid extradition?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Must be a joke? by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wasn't he a fugitive from murder charges, and also not born in the US. Only slightly better presidential option than Trump.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:Must be a joke? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be born IN the territory of the United States to be a "Natural born citizen". There are several other ways to qualify (such as having a US citizen parent and having your birth registered with the US in a sufficiently timely fashion.)

      Fugitive from (foreign) murder charges? Doesn't disqualify him from being president. Being a CONVICTED FIRST-DEGREE MURDERER IN THE US wouldn't disqualify him. (The only judicial process that disqualifies from future office-holding is conviction on a federal impeachment.)

      With very few exceptions it's the right of the PEOPLE of the US, via their delegates to the Electoral College, to elect whomever they want.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Must be a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be born IN the territory of the United States to be a "Natural born citizen". There are several other ways to qualify (such as having a US citizen parent and having your birth registered with the US in a sufficiently timely fashion.)

      Completely wrong. This has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

      But citizenship by descent absolutely does not meet the requirement.

      Hence the whole thing about John McCain and where exactly inside (or not) in the US Panama Canal zone his birth took place.

    3. Re:Must be a joke? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Completely wrong. This has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

      To the extent that it hasn't been resolved the candidate can play it any way he wants to. The assumption is that he IS qualified until somebody - with standing - gets a court to rule he is not.

      Even getting such a challenge heard, let alone heard in a timely fashion and obtaining a remedy that would eject the candidate from an ongoing electoral process or a seat in office, is a very difficult thing. (Look at the sideshow with the claims about Obama for an example.) The courts don't like to meddle with the operation of the high levels of the other branches and the selections of the electorate.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  10. Who cares? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Who cares if anyone runs without backing from either side of The Party? It's not like anyone who wasn't part of the DemReps was elected president in the past century and a half.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. POTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President of the United States: Serious Business

  12. Not elgible? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    I thought that felons were ineligible to run for the US Presidency.

    ?

    1. Re:Not elgible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think felons can still run for president, but they are not able to vote (or own a gun).

    2. Re:Not elgible? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      1. No, they're not ineligible.
      2. John McAfee isn't a felon.

      No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Not elgible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think felons can still run for president, but they are not able to vote (or own a gun).

      Ollie North can.

    4. Re:Not elgible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for the Supreme Court so I am really getting a kick out of some of these replies. You slashdotters think you know what you are talking about but in reality, you don't. Trust me. This is how bad information gets around, because some slashdotters will believe anything they read.

  13. Nominations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going with the theme of April Fools for this election cycle, I would like to nominate J.R. "Bob" Dobbs with his running mate, Micky Mouse.

  14. Can a person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wanted for questioning, with a history of major drug abuse and possibly paranoia, contend with Trump?

    1. Re:Can a person by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "Compete" and not "Contend".

      --
      Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  15. McAfee Presidential Suite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's free, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to install it.

  16. McAfee Joke in 3..2.. by otaku244 · · Score: 1, Funny

    If McAfee is installed in the White House, do we havet/get to renew his subscription every year?
    Time to fight fire with fire, McAfee is the only bloated slow unusable solution for our governments problems
    I don't believe John McAfee is running for president. He's so tripped out from the bath salts that he probably thinks he's ordering Thai food from an Irish pub on a dare his talking gorillacorn (yes, that's half gorilla, half unicorn) made.

    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:McAfee Joke in 3..2.. by otaku244 · · Score: 0

      OK...OK... I have a few more....
      If McAfee becomes president, all government shutdowns will instantly be his fault.
      After McAfee ruins the government, will it find and remove all the spyware?

      --
      Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
    2. Re:McAfee Joke in 3..2.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took you 22 minutes to come up with that? :P

  17. This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kanye West has announced he is running for President in 2020, now John is pondering it too? Give me strength...

    1. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      They need a lot of prep time to have a hope of challenging President Trump in 2020.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re: This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, Trump will likely be in bankruptcy again in 2020. Then it'll be a few years before his worth gets back up to $24 trillion or whatever it is he's claiming these days.

  18. He'd get my vote... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: He's intelligent enough & has accomplished things in his life I respect - plus, he's "in tune" enough w/ how "the REAL world REALLY works" on levels most of us probably will never understand (hopefully, we'll never have to).

    * Plus I love his sense of humor (his "how to remove McAfee AntiVirus" video on youtube says it all, lol!).

    APK

    P.S.=> I know 1 thing for sure: The "career politicians" aren't doing such a 'great job', so instead, I'd say we get somebody somewhat educated & logical in there instead - Mr. McAfee fits that bill imo & what harm could it do? Nothing worse than what we've already seen from these "career politicians" already I wager... apk

    1. Re:He'd get my vote... why? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      McAfee as president? This isn't even funny. McAfee is just about certifiable, In fact about all that keeps him out of a publicly funded mental institution is his money. Should he run out of money, he would be locked up in pretty short order for either breaking the law or being a danger to himself and others.

      Where I understand the general "we hate politicians" bent in this country right now, can we please stick with supporting people who are something more than just bombastic loudmouths who say outrageous things, even if we think they generally give lip service to our pet issues? What this country needs is a bit of carefully thought out leadership by somebody who isn't beholden to either their ego or the people who fund their campaigns. An outsider perhaps, but one who isn't going to drive us headlong into stuff by being driven by their egos to say stupid things and act rashly. This ISN'T McAfee...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:He'd get my vote... why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      McAfee is just about certifiable, In fact about all that keeps him out of a publicly funded mental institution is his money.

      You mean like Trump?

      That's how money is. That's how presidential candidates are. The last decent man of a president we had was Carter. Since then it's been career politicians who lie to you as easy as they look at you. If we somehow end up with Trump then we get the first obviously insane president since the later Reagan years, that would be entertaining. I actually bothered to register to vote so I could support Bernie, though. I don't know if he has a chance to win, or change anything substantive if he does, but it didn't cost me anything.

      I did, however, register as a member of the Scorched Earth party. Because fuck the democrap party as much as the republiscams. Yeah, I said that immature shit. Fuck 'em both anyway. I'd rather make a statement than align myself with either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:He'd get my vote... why? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What? Now I have coffee all over my desk.... Carter? Where you even alive then? I remember the national speed limit, gas rationing and the brain dead energy policies he put in place.

      Until the current administration, Carter was the worst president in history and was a career politician like the rest since then. His foreign policy was a disaster (curiously with Iran and the middle east in tatters by the time he left office) and his economic policy a total failure during his term in office (curiously like we have now) which prolonged the recession we fell into as he took office. He may have been too little of a politician actually, who was prone to say stupid things which just shouldn't have been said.

      Carter may have been a nice guy, but he was a horrible president... I salute him for his activities since leaving office, but IN office he was a disaster.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:He'd get my vote... why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The last decent man of a president we had was Carter.

      Carter may have been a nice guy, but he was a horrible president...

      Thanks for agreeing with me. You could have done it with a shorter comment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:He'd get my vote... why? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Still, you made me wipe my desk down this morning...

      Being a "nice guy" does not preclude one from doing stupid stuff and in Carter's case one could argue his "nice guy" image was actually a problem for him as a leader. Personally, I don't believe leaders can be like Carter and be effective.

      Also, I think you are discounting the last Bush... He seemed like a nice guy to me... Don't get me started on Romney, who was a *really* nice guy, who got pillaged by the press for being a mean rich white guy when it really wasn't true. Yes he had made a lot of money, yes he was white, but he wasn't what the press and his opponent portrayed him as.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  19. At this rate by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the US should just consider picking someone at random. Just write a program that takes all adults that meet the criteria for president (age, born in the US, etc) and select one. Can't be worse than what's going on now. And as a added bonus US carbon emissions will plummet since there won't be all of the campaigning.

    1. Re:At this rate by godrik · · Score: 2

      I always thought that picking congress for a year out of the citizen on the jury duty list would be better than whatever we have right now.

    2. Re:At this rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that why not implement a system that votes people OUT of the office, not in.

    3. Re:At this rate by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      Arthur C Clarke's novel "Imperial Earth" does this: The future USA have decided that anyone who wants to be in the Whitehouse should never be allowed to be there. They make a list of people who are competent and would need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Whitehouse, but once there will do their best. Then they just choose their president by lottery from that list.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  20. He'd get my vote... but what party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly if he wants to have ANY hope of winning he has to pick a party to run under, and that can only be the 'REPUBs or the DEM's. Sad but true, you have literally NO HOPE of winning as an independent. In fact, given that independent for PREZ are rare, at worst, you'd enable a vote split in one of the major parties, and thus you'd cause the other party to win.

    If he really wants a chance, he should run as a DEM, and choose Neil DeGrasse Tyson as his running mate.

    1. Re:He'd get my vote... but what party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...If he really wants a chance, he should run as a DEM, and choose Neil DeGrasse Tyson as his running mate.

      Neil is awesome, but I would not vote for him -- my guess is he'd have a single platform: increase funding for NASA and try to push through human space exploration missions to Mars.

      This country is much too fscked up to invest more in NASA -- there are higher priority items we need to address first, #1 being: get back to a balanced budget and re-institute PAYGO (which means drastically reducing spending, while at the same time drastically increasing taxes/revenue).

  21. He should join Lessig by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Larry Lessig is looking for a running mate, so that he can resign in favor of the VP after reforming the electoral system.

    --
    I'm gonna need a spec.
    1. Re:He should join Lessig by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Even if Larry Lessig didn't stipulate it, I'm sure he'd prefer if his running mate was sane.

    2. Re:He should join Lessig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should go for Tony Krvaric

      He is already an established politician and have some first hand experience with copyright infringement.

  22. Turd Sandwich ... or Giant Douche by gavron · · Score: 1

    He meets all of the qualifications to run.... ...and he could even pardon himself for that murder in Belize... ...but lacks all the skills necessary to represent 319 million US Citizens.

    Still... it would be the quickest way to get the Executive (including the DoJ)
    to lay off pot... and he's not as loony as Donald Trump.

    E

  23. McAfee vs. Trump by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

    As insane as this sounds, I would love to watch a debate between McAfee and Trump. I think it would be some form of epic.

    --
    Nevermore.
    1. Re:McAfee vs. Trump by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      As insane as this sounds, I would love to watch a debate between McAfee and Trump.

      Make it a duel instead of a debate. The weapons? Airsoft AEGs, Paintball and Star Wars Laser swords. It's high time that we get some dynamics back into American politics!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:McAfee vs. Trump by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary used to have debates (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-12/entertainment/ca-3542_1_timothy-leary)

      I'm sure McAfee can match Leary for consumption of mind altering substances.

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  24. it's pretty sad when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    john mcafee would be the best choice we have.........

  25. Well, tell you what... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what to say other than something different needs to be done & perhaps we need a "different kind of somebody" to be doing it is all.

    * I was trying to convey that in my initial post, but I haven't been expressing myself well enough today I guess is all...

    APK

    P.S.=> You have a point but then again, politicians galore (career ones) get caught in ALL KINDS of "bs" too - only they tend to "get out of it" due to being connected @ those 'higher' levels (lower levels imo, of "secret handshaking scumbags") OR, look no farther than Ted Bundy himself (who was on the 'fast track' in politics himself iirc)... apk

  26. Re:Natural born citizen? by J053 · · Score: 0

    Would you damn birthers just STFU already? Furrfu.

  27. I like John... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    I like John... but my vote would hinge on his selection of a VP.

    Sadly the VP selection is so late in the game that I cannot convince myself
    that knowing what I need to know when I need to know it is very much
    in doubt.

    I would like to keep the Electoral College and change primary laws to
    address a team from the get go.

    The EC may prove to to be out best check and balance in this upcoming popularity poll.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  28. Don't be so fast to report on those FEC filings by SofiKadaj · · Score: 1

    Also on the form are some other very interesting names, including... http://www.fec.gov/press/resou... Harry Potter MLG Jesus Dog Lord Lord Freiza Jeffrey Dahmer Forrest Gump

  29. Two cars in every garage by sjames · · Score: 1

    And a gram up every backside!

  30. Re:Natural born citizen? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Since we know for a fact that Obama came to earth from Krypton, any birth certificate is ipso facto a forgery.

  31. Vice President Pee-wee Herman .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Pee-wee Herman for Vice President ...

  32. I'd Vote for Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Between him and Trump, we really do need to see the pendulum swing the other way. Government has gotten huge under Bush and even worse under Obama. We need a man that is politically incorrect, someone who innately understands that demagoguery is evil. That politicians are just evil businessmen with a thin veneer of manners. Anyone would be better than Hilary. Seriously. I'd vote for anyone before Hilary, even a bum off the street. If America elects Hilary, which is unlikely, I will seriously consider leaving. America is damaged badly because of the last two presidents. We need someone big, bad and bold. We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt or John Wayne -- a straight-talking, no-BSD kinda guy. We don't need someone that's feminist, pushes a pro-homosexual agenda, or does everything possible to avoid calling islamic terrorists what they are -- islamic terrorist. We need someone to slam shut the border, remove all illegals we know about, bring manufacturing back to America, drop bombs on terrorists -- you get the picture. We need a real man. Where are the men like Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt when you need them? Surely America has some real men ready to run for office that are not so fracking corrupt.

    1. Re:I'd Vote for Him by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Why? We need a real man...

      Says the guy posting as an AC

    2. Re:I'd Vote for Him by serbanp · · Score: 0

      Ugh, I'm pretty sure no one needs another Winston Churchill, that pompous asshole who got lucky exactly once.

  33. That's a limit on the electorate. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Business leaders should spend at least 4 years as a representative in Congress or a state governor in my opinion, and show aptitude there. Running government and dealing with politics is too different from the private sector. You have to learn how to compromise and persuade, not just order around underlings to carry out your vision your way.

    That's a bunch of "nice to have"s. But making it a requirement would be an arbitrary limit on the citizens' ability to elect a candidate of their choice. Sorry, I can't support it.

    Between the constitutional limits on who can be president (natural-born, 14-year resident, 35 years or more of age, hasn't held the office for two terms already, and hasn't been convicted in a federal impeachment), and the de facto arbitrary limits by the two major parties' lock on the electoral process, we already have enough limits, thank you.

    (Additionally, a requirement that someone has already succeeded in running the congressional-election gauntlet, twice, in the party-dominated electoral process, would give the established parties yet another lock on their control of the government. It would make reform movements nearly impossible, delay them by four to six years, and give the parties four years notice who the potential candidate(s) were and four years opportunity to spike them.)

    If the people are convinced that congressional service, or other political officeholding, is a requirement, they are free not to vote for anyone who "doesn't qualify". On the other hand, they are also free to elect anyone they want, even a convicted crook (or some anti-establishent figure convicted of some trumped-up bull-bleep in an attempt to keep him from bothering the current power structure), as long as they pass the handful of constitutional qualifications.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  34. Obvious running mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder what Peter Norton is up to these days?

  35. Always room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always room for another candidate in the clown car.

  36. Lessig/Sanders by tepples · · Score: 1

    Run as a Libertarian or as a Democrat. Since Biden may not run, and Hilary is imploding, that's the best opportunity

    Among people who understand what McAfee software was intended to do, the Lessig/Sanders ticket probably has that demographic tied up.

    1. Re:Lessig/Sanders by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Among people who understand what McAfee software was intended to do, the Lessig/Sanders ticket probably has that demographic tied up.

      Did you mean Lessig/Sanders as an either-or, or do you think there's a possibility of a Lessig for president and Sanders as his VP? Don't think that would ever be a possibility. If McAfee decides to run, his new party can be called the Vanity party, and Lessig can join him.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  37. Gambling with a toy gun by tepples · · Score: 1

    I know I'd want a guy who's voluntarily played Russian Roulette to occupy the presidency.

    What's wrong with a little bit of gambling with a toy gun?

  38. Bob Iger by tepples · · Score: 1

    A vote for Mickey Mouse is a vote for Bob Iger, and a vote for Bob Iger is a vote for copyright maximalist idiocy.

  39. 2012 Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no truth to the rumor that John McAfee murdered a man in 2012. No truth what so ever to that rumor that John McAfee shot and killed his neighbor on the Island of Ambergris Caye on November 11th, 2012. So I really wish you would all just stop repeating that John McAfee shot and killed his neighbor on the Island of Ambergris Caye on November 11th, 2012.

    1. Re:2012 Murder by PPH · · Score: 1

      For someone with a proven track record, we could always nominate Hans Reiser.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Carly Fiorina, think of her... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carly Fiorina, think of her next time you shell out $10,000* and ounce for printer ink.

    Full disclosure, I have an HP printer. An older model. HP no longer used to sell two black ink-jet cartridge, one with about 4 times the ink of the other one. They dropped the more-ink cartridge after a few years. Then there is the time stamp and 'expiration' issue of perfectly fine cartridges...

    *$10,000 was chosen out of thin air to make a point. But it is damn expensive.

  41. Many thousands of emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell are all these people begging him to run? Or is it one person? Or a spambot? Demand.to see the emails now. If tbere really are 'thousands' of people, God help America

  42. After watching this... by kuzb · · Score: 1
    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  43. Shaking my head in sadness.... by jandersen · · Score: 1

    It's clear that the leadership of our country is illiterate on the fundamental technology ...

    Yes, there is no doubt that most politicians in most countries know pretty little about technology, science, maths, medicine etc. Being a successful politician - and even more, being a successful president - requires skills that are very far removed from what it takes to be a good engineer. They may not be skills that we as engineers appreciate or admire, but that is to some degree because we simply don't have those skills. And of course, in recognition of that, they have advisors to help them make decisions in those areas. A good politician or president is not necessarily someone who knows everything, but somebody who knows how little he understands, who is able to find good advisors and listens to them.

    The same thing can be said about business leaders - just because you have been able to build up a big company and made a lot of money, it doesn't mean that you have any of the skills that would make you a good politician. In a democracy, you need to be able to make people believe that you are the right person for the job and that you will be able to unite the nation and work for the benefit of everybody, even your opponents.

  44. Well he's no less nuts than many of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He probably saw what trump gets away with and figures that if he runs for president with coke up his ass, he'll garner support and it'll be harder to arrest him for drug abuse.

    He's certainly no less a narcissistic nutcase than Trump. Any differences can easily be covered by drugs.

  45. A murderous drug-addicted fugitive for President? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the bar really been set this low?

    The man has a taste for blood, wasted his genius on mindless drug abuse for decades, and is profoundly weird in every way imaginable. You wouldn't trust him with anything, let alone the fate of the nation.

  46. His stance on drugs by mgessner · · Score: 1

    Would be WIIIIIDE OPEN! Free pot to the disadvantaged, so he'd have the poor vote and the tech vote.
    Free birth control of all kinds, so he'd have the women's vote.
    Sounds like he could win!

    --
    "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  47. McAfee said by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    McAfee said. "I would never run for office, neither would I want to be in office, of any kind. I would rather drive a nail through my foot."

    But... I could actaully see him doing that. Just once to experience the sensation of it.