John McAfee Announces 2020 Presidential Bid

Businessman and crypto ICO advocate John McAfee has announced his intentions to run again for POTUS in 2020. In a twitter announcement, McAfee indicated he will give the Libertarian party first dibs for services but left open the possibility for the formation of a new party for his presidential campaign. In 2015, McAfee launched a presidential campaign for the newly formed Cyber party before switching to run for the 2016 libertarian nomination. McAfee finished second to Gary Johnson at the 2016 Libertarian national convention in Orlando, Florida.

40 thoughts on “John McAfee Announces 2020 Presidential Bid

  1. Fred Stein

    Any one but another REPUBLICAN……Run john run, unless Mark Cuban becomes more Libertarian and decides to run, or Penn jillette

  2. Fred Stein

    Please no more REPUBLICANs……Run john run, unless Mark Cuban becomes more Libertarian and decides to run, or Penn jillette

  3. Andy

    If Mark Cuban hasn’t figured out ideology by now, he is probably not a libertarian. It would be a mistake to nominate anyone just because they are very wealthy.

  4. Andy

    This is a very interesting development, and it could provide Adam Kokesh with some competition for the 2020 LP nomination. Note that Adam endorsed McAfee for the 2016 nomination.

  5. Andy

    If McAfee tries to start a new party, and/or go the independent route, he’d have to raise a lot of money for ballot access. He found that out the hard way last time with the Cyber Party (note that he found out how difficult ballot access is for a new party, and then decided to run for the LP nomination, but I know there were at least a couple of LP members who were actively trying to recruit McAfee into the LP back when McAfee was trying to go the Cyber Party route).

  6. Seebeck

    Apparently he hasn’t figured out how the political calendar works. By the time 2020 Austin rolls around, it will be far too late to form a new party and get enough ballot access across the nation to get on the ballots, let alone win.

    And his antivirus software still sucks.

  7. Andy

    I know somebody who knows ballot access well, and who is one of the Libertarians who urged John McAfee to run for the LP’s nomination, who explained the ballot access process to him in great detail. So I think that he is now aware of the considerable ballot access hurdles for new parties and/or independent candidates. He is also more aware of how the LP delegate process works if he decides to seek the LP’s nomination again. His raised level of awareness of these issues is probably why he is announcing his campaign this early.

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    “Apparently he hasn’t figured out how the political calendar works. By the time 2020 Austin rolls around, it will be far too late to form a new party and get enough ballot access across the nation to get on the ballots, let alone win.”

    I doubt he cares.

    He’s a self-aggrandizing con man that sees a party with 50-state ballot access for the highest profile public office on the planet and a substantial faction that views ANY experience in office as a disqualifying credential.

    For catastrophically unqualified grifters, the party is a dream come true.

  9. Andy

    As if Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, Wayne Root, and some others have not been grifters looking to use the LP for easier ballot access. I do not think that any of the names i just mentioned were really qualified to run as Libertarians either.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    Johnson is still actively involved in getting the two-party duopoly broken through his Our America Initiative. He’s doing that even though he very likely isn’t running for office again. He also had the common sense to hold a public office…an executive one, at that…before attempting to run for president.

    Weld was previously a governor. Did he go get a law degree, spend time as a federal attorney, then become governor of Massachusetts, all in an effort to eventually become the v.p. candidate on Johnson’s ticket? That’s a strange strategy for a grifter.

    Barr at least held office before.

    McAfee started his “presidential” campaign (having never held any office before) by starting a new party (Cyber Party) that advocated from significant infrastructure spending. He dropped that fruitless effort, and, six months before the Libertarian Convention, announced that he was running for the LP nomination. He got beat, whined about it, said he was leaving the party, and now says if WE ask HIM, he would run as a Libertarian, and if not, he will just start his own party to “best serve the crypto community…” a couple days after he announced he is releasing his own physical cryptocurrency.

    Its hard to be dumb enough not to see that as a completely transparent con job. He’s essentially saying his sole reason to run for president would be to prop up his business interests.

    Not surprised Andy would fall for it.

  11. Andy

    I have not endorsed McAfee for President. I might consider endorsing him depending upon what happens between now and 2020, but it is too early for me to endorse anyone, and as things stand, if I had to pick right now between McAfee and Kokesh, I would pick Kokesh.

  12. Andy

    Johnson, Weld, and Barr were not really libertarians. This made them unqualified to be LP candidates regards of whatever “Shiny Badge” credentials they had.

    I agree that a few of McAfee’s issues in his Cyber Party run were out of step with libertarianism (most of his views were libertarian though, as far as I could tell), but he changed those issues when he came to the LP, and I have not heard him backside on any of those issues since then. McAfee both pre-2016 Convention and post-2016 Convention sounded more libertarian than Gary Johnson. I will say that McAfee’s party hopping and issue flipping was part of why I did not vote for him in Orlando, although I might have voted for him if there had been a third ballot where Darryl W. Perry was eliminated.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Even as of the Orlando convention, McAfee had some positions I didn’t find very libertarian (like trying to centralize cyber-security by having the government hire all the hackers — that’s not just anti-libertarian, it’s anti-cybersecurity, since the best cybersecurity is decentralized multi-solution).

    But he was better with both ideology and media use than Johnson/Weld by a damn sight. Could he have tripled Johnson/Weld’s vote total? I don’t know. But at least he would have put up a fight instead of running a “two Republican governors who couldn’t top 1% in their own party” vanity campaign.

  14. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    [McAfee is] a self-aggrandizing con man that sees a party with 50-state ballot access for the highest profile public office on the planet and a substantial faction that views ANY experience in office as a disqualifying credential.

    I see Dlugos is peddling the same debunked strawman bullshit. At this point it is impossible to ascribe that dog and pony show to innocuous ignorance — instead, I am forced to assume he is consciously lying to further his anti-libertarian agenda.

    I can’t think of anyone anywhere in the LP who saw elected public office experience as a negative. But of course there are many libertarians who view elected public office experience as completely irrelevant if the candidate is not libertarian anyway. And there are also many libertarians who actually look at what officials did while in office, and hold them accoubtable for their actions when they take actions which shrink liberty and/or expand the state.

  15. Andy

    If a person who I could actually call a libertarian had a “Shiny Badge,” as in if they were, or had been, elected to a political office, I would see that as a good thing, assuming they had a record in office that I could call a libertarian record, but it would only be one criteria I would have for deciding who to vote for to be an LP nominee.

  16. Paul

    Even if McAfee’s primary intent is self-interest, his candidacy would likely benefit the LP as far as party donors, votes, and media attention.

    I wonder how Vermin Supreme is doing.

  17. dL Post author

    At this point it is impossible to ascribe that dog and pony show to innocuous ignorance — instead, I am forced to assume he is consciously lying to further his anti-libertarian agenda.

    He’s become a troll…

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    RIght.

    I’m a troll in the bizzaro political world of the NAPster/Radical/Gnostic libertarian, where experience in office is derided as a “shiny badge,” a murder suspect who faked a heart attack to avoid extradition is a better presidential candidate than an ex-governor vis a vi media relations, and “your guy is not a libertarian” is seen as a legitimate argument.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    “I can’t think of anyone anywhere in the LP who saw elected public office experience as a negative. But of course there are many libertarians who view elected public office experience as completely irrelevant if the candidate is not libertarian anyway. ”

    You want bizzaro world logic, I give you Chuck M.

    What a pointless argument “your candidate was not a libertarian is.” What exactly does this accomplish? Are you under some delusion that you get to decide who is and is not a libertarian, and furthermore that I am going to accept your pronouncements? Actually, given that you prefer a cult that you and your sect are in charge of rather than an actual political party, you would probably answer both in the affirmative.

    At a bare minimum, Chuck, you should look askance at any argument that the resident xenophobe, Troofer, and probable racist Andy uses on a regular basis.

    Anyway, you are what your record says it is, Chuck. If you and you’re NAPster/Radical/Gnostic fellows repeatedly attack candidates with previous experience (especially for the most powerful office on the planet) and their supporters as the “shiny badge” caucus, while regularly supporting the catastrophically unqualified, anyone looking at the situation objectively is going to come to the obvious conclusion that, by virtue of the fact that anyone with previous real world experience is not going to be perfect, your whole psychological edifice is one built in a fantasyland where experience in the job at hand is irrelevant and adherence to the NAP is all that matters.

    In that case, you’re better off just owning your fantasies. Just stand unabashedly for a platform that specifically excludes experience in office and explicitly requires only one qualification for anyone running for any office: NAP adherence.

    Or did I just describe the radical platform anyway?

  20. dL Post author

    At a bare minimum, Chuck, you should look askance at any argument that the resident xenophobe, Troofer, and probable racist Andy uses on a regular basis.

    um, perhaps you should take you own advice RE: your mentor Bob Capozzi, another one of the resident xenophobes on this board, and a crypto HoppeBot, to boot. Perhaps you can join your mentor over at Stefan Molyneux’s Youtube channel to catch up on the latest RE: the communist subversion of america, race and IQ, the plague of diversity hiring and the islamification of Europe

    Most of us “LOLlibertarians”(i.e, Napster) hit back hard on authoritarian white identity politics expropriation of libertarianism. But you got a mentor-protege thing going on ,brah…

  21. Andy

    Anthony, the name of the party 8n question is the Libertarian Party. If a candidate can’t meet the basic requirements of being considered to be a libertarian by most libertarians, then this candidate is not qualified to run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate regardless of whatever qualifications or “Shiney Badges” they have on their resume.

    I don’t think that anyone here is demanding perfection in who can be an LP candidate. I think that all of the regular posters here have conceded that we are willing to support candidates that have some flaws, as there is probably no such thing as a perfect candidate, and/or who may deviate from where one of us stands on an issue, or even more than one issue. Having said this, one has to draw a line at some point between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Guys like Johnson and Weld didn’t just have a few things wrong with them, there was a long list of things wrong with them. They did not just deviate on a few issues. they deviated from and/or watered down the LP’s platform to the point where it sounded like they were running for office under a different party’s banner. The Moderate Independent Republican Party would have been a better label for them.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    “um, perhaps you should take you own advice RE: your mentor Bob Capozzi, another one of the resident xenophobes on this board, and a crypto HoppeBot, to boot. Perhaps you can join your mentor over at Stefan Molyneux’s Youtube channel to catch up on the latest RE: the communist subversion of america, race and IQ, the plague of diversity hiring and the islamification of Europe.”

    dL,

    The fact that you can’t draw a distinction between the raving lunacy of Hoppbot/Troofer/Xenophobe/probable racist Andy and the opinions on immigration policy that a classical liberal and reasonable person like RCapozzi holds (positions that I find a little too conservative myself) only demonstrates one thing: how effectively radicals marginalize THEMSELVES in the political arena. You deal yourself out of EVERY hand by not only denying there is a difference between Andy and RCapozzi, but by holding up such a denial as the ultimate political ideal.

    The irony is that I get why you do that. Politics is just an infinite regress for you: its force all the way down. That is eminently logical from the radical perspective. But I’ll tell you again that means you are in the wrong arena. You end up marginalizing yourself in an industry where you need to work with other people finding common ground. What possible reason would any non-Libertarian have for forging political connections with the Libertarian Party you envision? There’s no political bargain there. Its the radical Libertarian saying how things are going to be, and its everyone else just accepting their superiority.

    There is no problem in principle with such an uncompromising stance. Go start a blog or a podcast. But in the political arena, you’re just dealing yourself out permanently.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    “If a candidate can’t meet the basic requirements of being considered to be a libertarian by most libertarians…”

    By virtue of the fact that Johnson and Weld won their respective nominations in 2016, each with more than 50% of the delegates, it means MOST libertarians did indeed believe they met the “basic requirements.”

    Cue the Andy troofer beliefs that republican plants were bussed in by the J-W campaign…

  24. Andy

    dL, how come you never show any concern about leftist subversion of libertarianism? Could it be because you are one of the people doing it?

    I have never advocated that libertarianism move to the right or to the left. I have always said that libertarianism, as properly defined, is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, and therefore should transcend left vs right arguments in politics. The philosophy is broad enough to encompass a wide variety of life style/social preferences.

    I have posted a link here before to a speech that Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a few years ago titled “Right-Libertarianism is Realistic Libertarianism,” (or something close to that). I think that Hoppe made a lot of good points in that speech, and I am sure that the leftist elements in the Libertarian Party and movement who know of Hoppe and this speech do not like him for this, however, here is what these people are missing. Hoppe is not saying that people can’t have, or try to establish, a left leaning libertarian society. He just does not believe that such as a society would have as realistic a chance of being established, or of being as successful, as a right leaning libertarian society. However, for those who want to attempt to build a libertarian society which promotes Cultural Marxism, radical feminism, and open borders. Hoppe’s attitude is that those who think that these things are good ideas should be able to go for it. He just thinks that you will fail.

  25. Andy

    Anthony, the delegates assembled at the 2016 LP National Convention in Orlanda was hardly reflective of the broader libertarian movement in this country, not do I even believe that it was a true reflection of the Libertarian Party. Yes, the Johnson/Weld campaign did in fact bring in some delegates who were only there to vote for Johnson/Weld, and who basically had no interest in the LP beyond that, or in libertarianism in general. The Johnson/Weld campaign spent 10 times as much money on the nomination campaign as all of the other candidates for nomination combined, yet they still barely won, and it has since come out that a lot of their donors were not even libertarians, and were people who only donated because they were hoping to sway the result of the presidential election.

  26. Anthony Dlugos

    “Anthony, the delegates assembled at the 2016 LP National Convention in Orlanda was hardly reflective of the broader libertarian movement in this country, not do I even believe that it was a true reflection of the Libertarian Party.”

    you’re entitled to your own LSD-fueled delusions.

  27. dL Post author

    the opinions on immigration policy that a classical liberal and reasonable person like RCapozzi holds

    well, the alt right calls itself “classical liberal,” so you might be correct that your position is consistent with the classical modifier. However, “the tax payer’s association” or the “condo homeowners association” is not the liberal or libertarian position. It’s not even the status quo(the status quo==need permission from your origin, not your destination, to travel…i.e, passport).

    how effectively radicals marginalize THEMSELVES in the political arena.

    ah, the apparent burden of being able to read and write

    You end up marginalizing yourself in an industry where you need to work with other people finding common ground.

    There is no common ground w/ ethno state nationalists, neo-McCarthyite red baiters, xenophobes, white identity politics peddlers, ICE suckers, cult of personality idolaters, patriot prayer warriors, spooks, J. Edgar Hoover toadies, junior anti-sex leaguers, murderers and sociopaths. And that is the American “mainstream” political arena.

    What possible reason would any non-Libertarian have for forging political connections with the Libertarian Party you envision?

    Anyone who is not a sociopath. Anyone who has a modicum of human decency. Anyone with enough foresight to realize that what is done to them by the heimatschutz security state will eventually done to you.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    “There is no common ground w/ ethno state nationalists, neo-McCarthyite red baiters, xenophobes, white identity politics peddlers, ICE suckers, cult of personality idolaters, patriot prayer warriors, spooks, J. Edgar Hoover toadies, junior anti-sex leaguers, murderers and sociopaths. And that is the American “mainstream” political arena.

    Anyone who is not a sociopath. Anyone who has a modicum of human decency. Anyone with enough foresight to realize that what is done to them by the heimatschutz security state will eventually done to you.”

    lol.

    You’re in the political arena and the whole world is your enemy.

    Good luck!

  29. dL Post author

    You’re in the political arena and the whole world is your enemy.

    The American political mainstream is not the entire world…However, <clears-throat>white identity politics masquerading as pragmatism and “classical liberal” </clears-throat> certainly qualifies as my enemy.

  30. Andy

    dL keeps perpetrating a myth that if one opposes so called “open borders” (which is an anti-property right staist construct), that this means that one supports a big police state. This is a lie, and I have already debunked this lie here by pointing out that Liechtenstein, Luxumbourgh, and Switzerland, all of which are in Europe, are not being overrun with hordes of destructive foreign migrants, unlike other countries in Europe, such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany. Is it because Liechtenstein, Luxembourgh, and Switzerland have erected big police states? No, it is because they do not invite in hordes of destructive migrants, nor do they entice them with government welfare programs or an easy path to citizenship. Defending property against aggressors, which includes trespassers, is a basic function of government, and it is a function that would still exist in a free market society (see my Disney World private city example in past threads here). If one thinks that anyone should be able to go onto any property with no questions asked, and regardless of what other factors are at play, I fail to see how this view is at all consistent with property norms, or is even workable in the real world, as such a view as anyone can go anywhere, when taken to its logical conclusion, means that I could set up a tent in your backyard without your consent, or that people infected with Ebola could waltz across the US border, no questions asked, or a division of Chinese or Russian tanks could roll across the US border with no questions asked. Asserting that everyone on the planet should have full access to all resources leads to conflict, and is at odds with property rights.

    I have said numerous times that the solution to the migration/immigration issue us to privatize everything, abolish all taxes, and abolish the state itself, and to leave the issue to property owners. Considering that this option is not on the table, in the interim, I advocate barring migrants/immigrants from receiving government welfare programs, and making the citizenship process more difficult. Foreigners who are criminals and/or who are living off of government welfare programs should be deported (ie-“physically removed”) from the country (no different than Disney World Security kicking out somebody who sneaked in the park, or who overstaid past their ticket time, or who violated the rules of the park). Beyond kicking out criminal thugs and people living off of welfare, I do not think that it is necessary for the government to expend lots of resources chasing down illegal immigrants. If they are simply cut off from government welfare programs, and other government services (I would consider making an exception for emergency healthcare, but this would be followed by deportation), and if the citizenship process were made more difficult to the point were anyone who sneaks in the country us barred from gaining citizenship, and if any offspring they had while here was also barred from citizenship, which means they could never vote, and therefore not gain any political power, a lot of these people would leave on their own, or simply not come here. I do support a reasonable immigration policy which does not threaten or overwhelm the existing population. Foreigners who love freedom, and who are productive, should be able to come here, and should have a chance at gaining citizenship, but this process should be made more difficult in order to weed out the socialists, communists, theocrats, criminal thugs, welfare seekers, and people with communicable diseases. I also support foreign tourism and foreign workers (in some cases/I question the necessity of foreign farm workers or other manual laborers when there are plenty of Americans sitting around collecting welfare, who, if kicked off of welfare, could be doing these jobs, and there is also emerging robot technology that could be doing these jobs, but even so, if these foreign laborers come in it does not mean that they should be eligible to receive government services or be granted American citizenship, they can work, and them leave when the job ends). So my interim policy, which is assuming that eliminating the state in favor of any ancap society is not a realistic option on the table, would still have immigration, and it would still have foreign tourists, and foreign workers. I would simply remove the perverse set of incentives that draw people to this country who are destructive to liberty, and mynptopsals do not increase the size of government, as they would actually decrease the size of government from present levels.

  31. Andy

    Anthony, I have never used LSD in my life. Also, what I said ago the Johnson/Weld delegates in Orlando is not an opinion, it is a fact.

  32. Paul

    What about a Supreme/McAfee ticket? They would be both more entertaining and less evil than Trump/Pence, by a huge margin.

  33. robert capozzi

    AD: …a classical liberal and reasonable person like RCapozzi holds (positions that I find a little too conservative myself) …

    Me: I generally have 2 positions. First, my near-term position is what positive developments can I support And, second, what is the right and serviceable way to look at an issue on a theoretical plane.

    I bracket viewpoints. Completely open borders is a non-starter in the near term. Racist exclusion is a non-starter for me as well, and I suspect for most. Is there a more intelligent and virtuous setup that can be sold in the near term? I suspect, yes, there is. There are several salient considerations for near-term advocacy, several of which are workable and reasonably virtuous.

    Could completely open borders be the right theoretical solution long term? Perhaps. It really depends on how the socio-political scene unfolds. I’m for maximum freedom of movement SO LONG AS it does not jeopardize domestic tranquility.

    I simply reject MNR’s no-particular-orderism.

  34. Rev. James W. Clifton

    Oh my, another loser who would actually turn off most voters. The ONLY LP candidate who could do well, in my opinion, is Carla Howell.

  35. Andy

    Robert,. I am not so sure that Murray N. Rothbard endorsed no particular orderism later in his life. Remember his Nations By Consent article,. which I have posted here before,. where he rejected so called “open borders” arguments because he recognized that it led to an increase in the level of force and fraud,. and was not truly inline with private property anarcho-capitalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *