John McAfee Denied Libertarian Party Nomination For President (reason.com)

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.

Comments

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

If TTIP gets through, the US's broken system will be exported. By "broken" I mean the way that wealthy lobbying groups bribe/finance politicians to get them to pass the laws they want. Simple corruption.

Denied?

[KermodeBear]

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.

LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

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.

All wrong

[Hognoxious]

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

Re:"software magnate"

[ShanghaiBill]

There are at least four choices available for president. The voter is the only limiting factor.

Also, third parties do not need to win to matter. The Green Party campaign in 2000 cost the Democrats the election, and sent a clear message that they could lose more votes on the left than they were gaining in the center. Likewise, the Libertarians show that there is a constituency for free market economics without the intolerant social conservatism. Someday the Republicans may stop worrying about toilets and go after those votes. Or maybe the Democrats will start focusing on growing the pie instead of how to slice it up.

The purpose of 3rd parties is to push new ideas into the Overton Window, and get the major parties to adopt them. If you look at American party platfoms in 1900, the most successful political party over the next 100 years was the Socialist Workers Party. They advocated public pensions, welfare, unemployment pay, and free healthcare for the elderly. They didn't win many elections, but all of those policies were adopted, and are now the law of the land.

If you want to make a difference, vote 3rd party, and send a message. This is especially true if you live in non-swing state, as most Americans do, where your vote is otherwise meaningless.

Re:"software magnate"

[fustakrakich]

No, an intentionally 'weak' candidate that presented no real opposition cost the democrats the elections in 2000 (Re, 1968). And this is the intention now. This whole "spoiler" angle is a fraud. A guilt trip brought on by the loser's voters who believe they are entitled to our votes and try to blame us for everything that went wrong.

The Overton Window needs to be smashed. In fact the wall containing it needs to be demolished.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

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 "use your body" to drive your boat to safety.

So while you might be able to make a case for abortion situations where the life of the mother is in actual danger, or when they didn't have any choice about starting the trip (which isn't the responsibility of the baby, either), in the case of consensual sex and no danger to the mother's life, I'm amazed you can't see how a right to life for a person could be compatible with libertarianism.