Slashdot Mirror


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.

4 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"software magnate" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    They didn't want the campaign slogan to be "Uninstall McAfee" and they especially didn't want Hillary to call herself, "America's Security Essentials."

  2. Re:Why do we need US political topics? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody in any other country is corrupt like they are here.

    This is true. No other country is corrupt in the way that America is corrupt. In other countries, corruption is illegal. Only in America are our most corrupt practices fully legal and right out in the open. Hillary didn't take under the table bribes from Wall Street bankers. Nope, they donated millions to her super-PAC and paid her over $600k in "speaking fees". This was all above board, and reported to the FEC and IRS.

  3. Re:"software magnate" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

    The purpose of 3rd parties is to push new ideas into the Overton Window, 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.

  4. Re:"software magnate" by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”