What Questions Should We Ask John McAfee, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination?

McAfee_3434297b

The John McAfee campaign has graciously extended an offer for an interview to be posted here at IPR. This thread is so that I may solicit potential questions for the interview. Please post them here for consideration. Thank you Christopher Thrasher for this opportunity.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

116 thoughts on “What Questions Should We Ask John McAfee, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination?

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    What do you think the three most serious problems facing our country at this time?

    Which one of those would you address on your first day in the White House?

  2. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I have some questions as well, but I am hoping they are all covered by other IPR people.

  3. langa

    You recently made some major changes to the platform posted on your website. Why did you do so, and how can we be sure that this new platform, rather than the old one, is representative of the positions that you would actually campaign on, if you got the nomination?

  4. Michael H. Wilson

    What step will you take to improve the health care system in this country?

    Do you think that Bush and company should be charged for crimes related to the invasion of Iraq?

    What step will you take to end the deployment of U.S. troops abroad?

    How will you end the drug war?

  5. Bondurant

    The election season always brings out the less than stellar aspects of government, culture and the economy and puts all of our problems into focus. Is there anything going right? Anything to be proud of currently in these United States of America?

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    Your past public statements on the role of government straddle the line between “hardcore libertarian” and “outright anarchist.” You clearly understand that government does little or nothing well. And yet when it comes to your marquee campaign issue, cyber security, you call for the creation of a new government bureaucracy, the Office of Digital Transformation. What makes you think the government can run cyber security from Washington, DC as an authoritarian central planner any better or more efficiently than it runs anything else?

  7. Howard L. Salter

    Hello Mr. McAfee,

    I have 5 questions for you here.

    1. John, the National Debt infects the future earnings of children who can’t even vote yet like a BrutPOS virus to the tune of $19 Trillion. What is your plan to pay it off?

    2. For millions of Americans who have paid into the ponzy scheme known as social security even as the Congress for decades spent the money that should have been kept in trust, what do you propose as a solution to the future insolvency of this Federal program?

    3. John, what do you suggest we do to repeal and replace the ACA (Obamacare) with? Noting that many rural hospitals are now going bankrupt because many federal subsidies are reduced in rural America.

    4. Many Americans are unaware of the uncanny relationship the US maintains with OPEC. Most countries must buy oil with US dollars and this allows the US to maintain huge trade deficits with the rest of the world without producing value or wealth in a large welfare state. Something has to change in this equation to bring value and jobs (excess demand for products produced) back to the US. In terms of monetary policy do you advocate a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, embrace crypto-currencies, or another alternative?

    5. Most states run their education budgets off of grant money given by the Federal Government. What would you do to reform or eliminate this process to improve outcomes, reduce waste, and eliminate fraud such as Altanta Public School System in 2013?

    Sincerely,

    Howard L. Salter

  8. Mike K

    A few months ago , your website talked about a national jobs program. Now you seek the LP nomination for POTUS, and that has seemed to disappear. Why did you propose that then, and why is it removed now?

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mike K,

    A bit of clarification: The “jobs program” language did not disappear “now [that he is seeking] the LP nomination for POTUS.” It remained there for some time after he announced his LP candidacy.

  10. ATBAFT

    Knowing that your chance of winning the presidency is virtually zero, what can you tell the voters that will convince a substantial number of them to consider permanently ditching their support for the GOP, the Democrats, or so-called independency and join the LP?

  11. Dave Terry

    1. Have you signed the “Non-Agression Pledge”?
    2. Do you agree that one must sign the pledge
    to join the Libertarian Party?

  12. Chuck Moulton

    Although new to the Libertarian Party, you seem to have held libertarian positions on many issues for years. To avoid re-inventing the wheel and brush up on issues you are less familiar with, what books on libertarian philosophy, libertarian policies, and free market economics have you read recently and over your lifetime? Which of these books changed your views or influenced you the most?

  13. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Excellent question Chuck!

    I am probably going to keep soliciting for about a week and then pick the ones to send. I am really looking forward to the responses.

    Keep them coming.

  14. Chuck Moulton

    Btw, I am highly interested in Gary Johnson’s reading list too.

    During the 2012 campaign I asked him what libertarian books he had read (I also listed many as examples to see if he was familiar with them) and his answer was he didn’t have time on the campaign trail to read.

    Well, he’s had 3 years of downtime. If he still hasn’t bothered to brush up on libertarian philosophies, policies, and marketing, then delegates should recognize that he doesn’t actually care about presenting libertarian ideology effectively.

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    I haven’t heard back from Johnson’s campaign yet, but then I only wrote to him Friday regarding an interview, and he may have had other things going on Friday.

  16. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    From Facebook:

    If elected, what actions would you take on Day 1 of your presidency?

  17. Chuck Moulton

    Michael H. Wilson wrote:

    Crap Chuck! Do we have a marketing plan?

    No, but individual issues can be sold to the public well or poorly. Harry Browne and Michael Cloud among others have written books about libertarian messaging. There are many more books and policy papers covering narrower niches.

  18. Brian Irving

    Do you plan to physically campaign for the Libertarian nomination? By that I mean, do you plan to attend state conventions and the national convention to ask Libertarians to vote for you?

    If you the nominee, do you plan to physically campaign for the presidency? By that I mean will you visit states, meet people, and hold campaign events? Will you do media interviews?

  19. George Phillies

    Which people in your campaign operations will you pay on some basis?
    What do you view as a reasonable salary for the person running your campaign operation? Your accountant? Other key person(s)?
    Mindful the FEC filing compliance, bumper sticker and lawn sign distribution, and other activities are, as a practical matter, implausible or impossible without a physical office, where do you plan to have your base of operations?
    Based on recent history, a Libertarian Presidential campaign will raise 1-2 million dollars for the General election. What fraction of that amount do you view to be acceptable to spend on back-office operations?
    What will you do to increase the size and strength of the libertarian party?
    What will you do to recruit, train, and employ your volunteers?

  20. Andy Craig

    -Why did you switch from running as the Cyber Party, to seeking the Libertarian nomination?

    -You’ve answered, many times, questions about what happened in Belize, and other aspects about your life that might be controversial in a presidential candidate. To what degree would your general election campaign focus on, or not focus on, your personal life story? Related: to what degree do you think the media will focus on these things, as opposed to libertarian policy positions or the things you would plan to do as President?

    -Do you think that cyber-security should be the main focus of a 2016 Libertarian presidential campaign, as opposed to other issues more typically advocated by our candidates and found in the party’s platform?

    -What qualities would you be looking for in a running mate? Had you considered or asked any potential running mates to run under the Cyber Party banner, or since joining the Libertarian Party?

    -Do you have any thoughts on the future or governance of the LNC, or preferred strategy and goals for the party beyond the 2016 presidential campaign?

    -Short of winning outright, what would you consider a good result for the presidential ticket in 2016? What would you hope to accomplish as the nominee other than, of course, being elected president?

    – Do you support the national popular vote interstate compact, or would you prefer to keep the electoral college as it exists?

    -Are there any constitutional amendments which you would like to see adopted, or would push for if elected?

    -How would you conduct American foreign policy, including ongoing or possible military interventions?

  21. Michael H. Wilson

    Chuck I have read most of the books thank you. My question was more sarcasm than anything else and the lack of one is an issue that has bugged me since about 2006.

  22. Erin

    According to your campaign website you plan on ending TSA, is that TSA as a whole or are you referring to a restructuring to the agency as it currently exists?

  23. Pingback: What Questions Should We Ask John McAfee? | DAILY ADAMS

  24. Mark Axinn

    Brian wrote, in part:
    >Do you plan to physically campaign for the Libertarian nomination? By that I mean, do you plan to attend state conventions and the national convention to ask Libertarians to vote for you?

    John McAfee will be in Manhattan at the LPNY Convention on April 30. We intend to live-stream the candidates’ debate.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    He did the live LP event in Nevada, he’s attending the Mississippi/Louisiana convention and the LPNY convention. So there’s clearly been at least some departure from his early stated intention to run a “cyber campaign” without live in-person politicking.

  26. Mark Axinn

    Like many new candidates, Mr. McAfee has modified an initial position which did not work.

    Nothing wrong with that when it’s merely a matter of logistics and approach and not anything of substance on issues.

  27. natural born citizen

    Ask him where he gets off running for President considering he was born overseas.

  28. Matt Cholko

    I agree with Marc, in that it’s fine for a candidate to change positions occasionally. However, I also think it’s reasonable for people to ask for background info and/or an explanation as to why the change was made.

  29. George Phillies

    McAfee’s new campaign manager, Christopher Thrasher, has issued a letter announcing the campaign, incidentally saying

    “When John contacted me about getting involved with his campaign, I was skeptical; having read the original platform set up on a former website.

    “Come to find out, John had almost no input on the platform that was put up on his behalf, by consultants working for his former party. The ability to campaign on his actual positions was a huge motivating factor for him to join the Libertarian Party. ”

    For the full letter:
    http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=53617f6fe81022c90070df7a4&id=59c7efe824&e=a6c863e5db

  30. Fred

    Do you expect to have a realistic chance of winning the general election?
    — if so, how will you achieve this goal?
    — if not, what do you hope to achieve by running and how will it help libertarianism and the Libertarian Party?

  31. Stewart Flood

    Thrasher has taken a candidate to the convention before. Granted, it was Gravel in 2008, but I thought he did a good job. Now we should see McAfee starting to actually campaign for the nomination.

    The convention should be fun. Kerbel is toast, so it will be a three way race between Johnson, McAfee and Petersen. My reasoning for saying this is that Petersen, while unpopular on IPR, does know that you win by getting delegates. He’s campaigning to potential delegates, as Kerbel (pre-toasting) was. McAfee will be also, so it should be an interesting floor fight. Johnson knows he’s got to win on the first ballot, so his people are most likely counting delegates.

  32. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Petersen trying to get delegates. In response to a member offering advice that was actually helpful:

    Austin Petersen:If I wanted your opinion I would give it to you. Otherwise cram it.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    No, he didn’t say it to Caryn. That would almost be understandable since she has gone after him on the NAP thing and whatnot. He said it to someone else. I’ve seen the screen shot of the chat.

    It’s not going to be a three-way race. It’s Johnson v. McAfee unless someone with big weight suddenly jumps in, and assuming Johnson doesn’t drop out.

    There’s a SLIGHT chance that Petersen could be enough of a factor to keep one or the other from winning on the first ballot, but I still don’t see him topping 10%.

    Yes, he’s been talking to delegates. But that hurts him at LEAST as much as it helps him. Cocky only gets you so far.

  34. Stewart Flood

    That is certainly surprising, and unfortunate. I’ve talked to him five or six times in the past few months, and he’s never been rude like that to me. Of course I’ve known him for years, and as an LNC member at the time I worked with him on projects when he worked for us.

    Of course that could be just one person getting that treatment, but I’m sure the chat has been spread around by now. One “aw shit” easily wipes out a couple of dozen “ata-boy’s”.

    But even if he gets 5-10%, and Kerbel retains that much of the support he had pre-toasting, and the others grab 1-2% each, that is enough to throw it into three or possibly four rounds if Johnson doesn’t have it at the outset.

    And he could also have supporters that neither you or I are aware of. I’m not in anyone’s “camp” at this point, and I don’t hear much about the backside of Petersen’s or any other campaign, so it is possible that he’s talked to a lot more people and not said things like that.

    We’ll find out in Orlando.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    Austin is commenting on a thread of Avens O’Brien’s right now on FB. Instead of logically talking to people who don’t say positive things about him, he posts a silly picture or makes a stupid smart crack. This just isn’t someone who’s serious about running for President.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thrasher knows how this is done. Trying to break through with Gravel in 2008 was a lost cause, but it wasn’t because the candidate was a bad candidate or because the campaign wasn’t well-run. Barr won because Steve Gordon was well-versed in both campaigns as such and LP campaigns specifically, and because while “GOP Lite” isn’t necessary a majority in the LP, it’s unfortunately at least a plurality that gave him a base to build on.

  37. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Jill that is what he did in CO to the point of ticking off our community there. Very juvenile.

  38. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom, Thrasher knows how to talk to people for sure, I was impressed speaking with him.

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Stewart, I have other examples .. this is a pattern. And you don’ t need to look for chats, he publicly does this. Such as his comment (though it was before he was nominated, but the young lady has seen fit to bring this to people’s attention) where he was speaking of the “attractiveness privilege” that some woman enjoy and insinuated that such female journalists don’t have to work to be successful. A lady objected that while there is certainly such a privilege, she still had to work hard, and he said to her something to the effect of “Oh I was talking about the pretty girls” and commenting that her body features distract from her “butter face.”

    Really classy.

  40. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    But I would add, that for me, the issue primarily is that he has openly repudiated the Statement of Principles and thus is disqualified to be a Libertarian Party candidate. My position on that is no secret.

  41. Joe Wendt

    “It’s not going to be a three-way race. It’s Johnson v. McAfee unless someone with big weight suddenly jumps in, and assuming Johnson doesn’t drop out.”

    I think there’s a strong possibility Feldman could be the strong dark horse in the race. He came in second in the Texas Straw poll, is a member of the LNC, and traveled extensively to a lot of State Conventions. I think it maybe a three way race, and Feldman is the one to watch out for; he may win in an upset like Badnarik in 2004.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    You’re not the only person I see throwing the word “disqualified” around about candidates, but you seem to be the only one using it legalistically, so you might want to be more explanatory vis a vis the allegation and your proposed remedy.

  43. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I will Tom but not in this thread… as I realized we are getting far afield of McAfee. As you know, I have detailed this out on FB, and am referring to post-nomination procedures in our Bylaws. I have been meaning to write on this more thoroughly.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    Joe,

    I happen to like Dr. Feldman both personally and in terms of some of his policy and strategy proposals. But I don’t see him as having a lot of dark horse potential. He’d have a real shot at the VP nomination if he switched tracks now, though.

  45. Stewart Flood

    Well…if that’s what he’s doing then he’ll be toasted by Memorial Day — if he isn’t already.

    Real shame to see that happening. Not sure why he’d run and then do that.

    So if we are down to two candidates, assuming Petersen’s and Kerbel’s campaigns have toasted and the other “contenders” have never gotten off the starting line, how will this play out?

    Thrasher does know the play book. Johnson does as well, and he’ll have the inside track with most (but obviously not) LNC members helping him in Orlando.

    Again, should be interesting. But the smart bet right now would be on Johnson taking it with 60% or more on the first round.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    Yes, I understand why you wouldn’t want to do it in this thread. But I’d like to see you do it somewhere besides Facebook soon. The quicker I shut you down on this, the less embarrassment you’ll suffer over it later.

  47. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    LOL Tom. You tried on FB and didn’t succeed:) but yes, I look forward to sparing with you on this.

    And I have gotten quite a bit of support on the idea. And that ultimately is something that matters.

    Note I said nothing about succeeding… but the effort would be made. And part of not succeeding has to do with the politics of the LNC rather than the brute fact that he repudiates the Party.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    If I had to bet money on anything right now, it would be that Johnson will drop out before the end of March.

    I’m tempted to say the LP isn’t stupid enough to nominate him again if he doesn’t drop out, but I’ve been around long enough to know just how stupid the LP can get.

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas, Gary did just correspond with the CA convention planners that he would attend our convention April 1 through 3. He could still drop out, but he did RSVP ‘yes’.

  50. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom, I want to clarify something…. I use the term legalistically and ideologically. And I mean those two separately. I really wasn’t using it legalistically in my first comment. I meant that, for me, clearly, he is disqualified. Not that he could be formally disqualified (though I believe that as well, that wasn’t the referent for my thoughts). If he were simply rude and insulting he would be personally disqualified but not on ideological grounds. And there would be no grounds for believing he could be formally if that was all there was.

    THIS could be a tremendous opportunity for McAfee if he openly and vigorously defended the principles.

  51. Steven Wilson

    John,

    1. Who would you prefer as your VP?
    2. Would you accept the VP slot?
    3. Do you support Industrial Hemp Farming?
    4. If a bill passed both senate and house which included several items you agree with, but also had funds earmarked for Military spending and aid to foreign countries…would you veto the bill?
    5. Should the US remain a member of the United Nations?

  52. langa

    I think Johnson will win again, but I expect it to take him at least 2, or maybe even 3, ballots. Aside from a small band of sycophants, there doesn’t seem to be nearly as much enthusiasm for him this time around.

    In fairness to Johnson, though, that’s not all his fault. In politics, as in movies, the sequel is almost never as popular as the original.

  53. langa

    Another question for McAfee: If you don’t get the nomination, or if you do and lose in the general, do you intend to remain an active member of the LP? Specifically, would you seek a leadership position within the party and/or consider running for a lower office in the future? In short, are you in this for the long haul?

  54. Robert Capozzi

    cah: …for me, clearly, [AP] is disqualified

    me: I believe yer using the world “disqualified” in a non-standard way.

    def:
    – pronounce (someone) ineligible for an office or activity because of an offense or infringement.
    – eliminate (someone) from a competition because of an infringement of the rules.
    – (of a feature or characteristic) make (someone) unsuitable for an office or activity.

    I’d think you mean something like because AP has questioned the NAP, I find him unsupportable as the L standardbearer, even if he is technically eligible. Or perhaps a non-starter for you.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    What she means is that since Petersen has specifically denounced the Libertarian Party’s statement of principles, his nomination should be ruled out of order by the chair and/or, should he receive the nomination, that act of the convention should appealed to the Judicial Committee.

  56. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom or alternatively request the LNC to hear a disqualification Motion and if it fails, appeal the ruling of the LNC to the JC via the process outlined in the bylaws. As far whether or not this is *possible,* I asked Sarwark about this in a Google hang-outs and he stated it was possible but that the LNC would likely respect the decisions of the delegates. It was a theoretical discussion that I would not put too much weight on, but he did not immediately say I was saying something completely ludicrous. I think it would get to a JC ruling.

    (I also mean he is personally disqualified for me as well… but that is a separate issue from the Party governance issue)

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn,

    Yes, it would be possible to push it to a Judicial Committee ruling.

    It’s just that doing so would be so completely goddamn dumb as to defy description.

  58. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom, I don’t doubt your powers of description. I am sure you can describe it. And feel free to email me all those descriptions 🙂

    But I obviously disagree, and I keep it as an option. And I have support. Whether or not I would have the energy or desire or believe it worthwhile at the time is another matter. Others may no matter what I think. I am not the only one on this line of thinking. Options need to be on the table. Whether they get taken up is an entirely speculative matter. I don’t think the Party base will take the repudiation of the principles that they have every reason to count on as being the foundation of this party lightly. I find this highly preferable to the threats I hear from other that they are going to leave. I am not going to leave.

    I know *I* certainly am not giving of my time and money based upon a representation of what this Party is supposedly built upon as its primary objective and foundation to be repudiated. I would not have spent the past time and resources the way I have. Though my health is improving (cough remains bad…)

    Take heart though… my health has been so bad, and the pre-convention work so draining, that I likely will be too beaten down and tired to have the energy.

  59. langa

    – (of a feature or characteristic) make (someone) unsuitable for an office or activity.

    It seems to me that someone who is an outspoken opponent of a particular idea would, in fact, be quite unsuitable to publicly represent an organization dedicated to promoting such an idea. Don’t you agree?

  60. langa

    As for the hypothetical motion to disqualify Petersen, I can’t imagine it succeeding. However, it’s really a purely academic question, as there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Petersen actually gets nominated.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    Langa: It seems to me that someone who is an outspoken opponent of a particular idea would, in fact, be quite unsuitable to publicly represent an organization dedicated to promoting such an idea. Don’t you agree?

    me: No. When most think of something like disqualification, we think of tangible, measurable things. Age. Place of birth. Member in good standing. Things like that.

    Since we are going into tortured-language land, what if a NAP-adherent plumbliner were on record as saying that s/he did not believe that there is a CotOS, and find it to be wacky, histrionic, and poor poetry?

    Disqualifying?

    If so, then it is one fascist-albeit-voluntary organization!

  62. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    I’d think that IF the plumbline were to be enforced on either candidates, officers, or members, there would have to be EXPLICIT language that said something to the effect that “to be a member/officer/candidate, a person would have to 100% agree with the SoP. Anyone who says otherwise publicly or to two or more witnesses privately can be challenged. The Judicial Committee would be empowered to ex-communicate any such member/officer/candidate, and his or her membership dues will be refunded to him or her on a pro-rata basis.”

    And, oy vey if it ever came to that.

  63. langa

    No. When most think of something like disqualification, we think of tangible, measurable things. Age. Place of birth. Member in good standing. Things like that.

    So, being an outspoken atheist would not “disqualify” someone from being named Pope? It wouldn’t make them “unsuitable” for that position?

    I’d think that IF the plumbline were to be enforced on either candidates, officers, or members, there would have to be EXPLICIT language that said something to the effect that “to be a member/officer/candidate, a person would have to 100% agree with the SoP. Anyone who says otherwise publicly or to two or more witnesses privately can be challenged. The Judicial Committee would be empowered to ex-communicate any such member/officer/candidate, and his or her membership dues will be refunded to him or her on a pro-rata basis.”

    Straw man. No one has said anything about having to agree with 100% of the Platform. No one has said Petersen should be disqualified because he had expressed some minor disagreement with details. Caryn said that he should be disqualified because he has repeatedly expressed wholesale disagreement with, and even mocked, the defining principle of the Party (the NAP). That may not be quite the same as an atheist seeking to become Pope, but it’s pretty close, maybe like someone who mocks and ridicules the divinity of Christ seeking to become the Pope.

  64. Caryn Ann Harlos

    It seems we have a good selection of questions here.

    But will keep this open for questions for McAfee until Friday with the intention of sending to over on Saturday morning.

  65. Robert Capozzi

    L: So, being an outspoken atheist would not “disqualify” someone from being named Pope? It wouldn’t make them “unsuitable” for that position?

    me: Thanks for the candor. You equilibrate one’s political views with one’s religious views. Kinda disturbing, frankly.

    But, as a fallen Catholic myself, if a priest, bishop or cardinal ever became an outspoken atheist, I’m pretty sure he would be defrocked well before ever being considered for the Papacy. And the Congress of Cardinals surely wouldn’t consider an atheist. The flock don’t get a say in who is Pope.

    Unlike the Church, the LP convention of members picks the prez candidate, iirc.

    L: Straw man. No one has said anything about having to agree with 100% of the Platform.

    me: Great. Thanks for making that explicit.

    L: No one has said Petersen should be disqualified because he had expressed some minor disagreement with details. Caryn said that he should be disqualified because he has repeatedly expressed wholesale disagreement with, and even mocked, the defining principle of the Party (the NAP). That may not be quite the same as an atheist seeking to become Pope, but it’s pretty close, maybe like someone who mocks and ridicules the divinity of Christ seeking to become the Pope.

    me: Are you walking back your own analogy? 😉 Excellent!

    It’s very difficult to NOT mock the NAP as a rigid rule; it’s obviously a mere construct, a nice sentiment. While I don’t support AP’s communications technique and timing, speaking the truth should always be supported.

    Strikes me that AP seeks a world of liberty, is eligible to serve as president, is apparently a member in good standing. CAH is overplaying her hand and undermining her credibility with a rookie mistake.

  66. Jill Pyeatt

    Capozzi, since you don’t do Facebook, you haven’t seen how childish, rude and insulting Petersen is to many long-time activists. Whether that fact alone should disqualify him, I won’t discuss. It definitely shows he’s not a serious candidate, in my view.

  67. George Phillies

    Petersen has probably offended enough people that he will not win. Kerbel seems to be invisible. McAfee is getting organized within the last few days; not clear where that will go.

  68. George Phillies

    I have heard from the McAfee campaign. The letter has graphical elements that will not copy.

    John McAfee 2016: Libertarian For President
    View this email in your browser
    http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=53617f6fe81022c90070df7a4&id=59c7efe824&e=a6c863e5db

    Good Day Libertarians,

    I write to you with good news:

    The announcement of a truly LIBERTARIAN campaign for President!

    To those who I have not yet met in person, please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Christopher Thrasher, and I am a longtime Libertarian who has recently taken the reins of the John McAfee 2016 Presidential Campaign.

    When John contacted me about getting involved with his campaign, I was skeptical; having read the original platform set up on a former website.

    Come to find out, John had almost no input on the platform that was put up on his behalf, by consultants working for his former party. The ability to campaign on his actual positions was a huge motivating factor for him to join the Libertarian Party.

    I believe at our first meeting, John planned to interview me…instead, I ended up interviewing him.

    What I heard left me convinced; John McAfee has the true heart of a Libertarian.

    You can see the proof at McAfee2016.com/issues.

    Today, I want to reach out to you all, the leadership of the Libertarian Party, to drop a line and provide my contact information. We are in the process of finalizing John’s state convention tour schedule, and expect to announce it shortly.

    Please feel free to share this e-mail and my contact information with your convention planning committees. While John will physically be unable to be at all the state conventions, we plan to be at as many as possible.

    We also plan to have a presence at all the state conventions, regardless of where John happens to be on a given weekend.

    In addition, please note John McAfee will be campaigning as a LIBERTARIAN.

    That means spreading the message of Liberty far and wide, AND encouraging people to join and get involved with the Libertarian Party.

    We also are always interested in having John participate in affiliate events, whether in-person, or through online means.

    Please feel free to send any requests to myself, or LP@mcafee2016.com (a special direct address for state party chairs and other party leadership).

    I look forward to meeting each of you as the campaign kicks into high gear.

    Thank you for your time, and take care!

    Cheers,

    Christopher S. Thrasher
    National Campaign Director
    McAfee’16

    (office) 336-897-9371
    (direct) 702-901-1483
    (alternate) 702-763-1133
    (fax) 336-922-5299

    christopher@mcafee2016.com
    McAfee2016.com
    PAID FOR BY MCAFEE16

    This email was sent to phillies@4liberty.net
    why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
    McAfee16 · 3590 Yadkinville Road · STE 100 · Winston-Salem, NC 27106 · USA

    Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

  69. Robert Capozzi

    jp: Capozzi, since you don’t do Facebook, you haven’t seen how childish, rude and insulting Petersen is to many long-time activists.

    me: Actually, I do do FB. And I’ve indicated that I find some of AP’s “communications technique and timing” inappropriate, as indicated above.

  70. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    If I had to bet money on anything right now, it would be that Johnson will drop out before the end of March.

    I hope you’re right.

    But hope doesn’t pay the bills, so I’m willing to take the other side of that bet. Please name your dollar amount and we can book it with plenty of witnesses.

  71. Chuck Moulton

    Jill Pyeatt wrote:

    Capozzi, since you don’t do Facebook, you haven’t seen how childish, rude and insulting Petersen is to many long-time activists. Whether that fact alone should disqualify him, I won’t discuss. It definitely shows he’s not a serious candidate, in my view.

    I haven’t done Facebook recently either. Such behavior by Austin doesn’t surprise me in the least bit though based on my observations of him in other forums and having known him and seen him on Facebook for years before he entered the race.

    When he called me and asked for my delegate support months ago I told him he should knock off such antics if he wanted to have any chance of earning the LP nomination (as I’m sure many others have as well). There’s no convincing him.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    I’m sorry. I specified “if I had to bet.” I don’t have to bet, and the odds aren’t the kind I voluntarily do so on (I generally bet small amounts on long shots when it comes to sports or politics — cards are a different story).

  73. Stewart Flood

    I worked with Austin eight years ago when he was on staff, but hadn’t had any contact with him since then until the fall when he called me and told me he was running. I’m sorry to see that he’s acting this way. It will not get him the nomination.

  74. Jeremy

    I think it’s weird that McAfee is claiming he couldn’t run on his “real positions” when running as the only candidate of a party he founded. I think it’s more likely that, like a lot of LP converts, he is a real libertarian but is not well versed in libertarian theory, and is blaming that on consultants rather than admitting his ignorance. (Note to Christopher Thrasher: a candidate who blames his prior miscues on “consultants” will probably blame his subsequent missteps on you!)

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jeremy,

    McAfee was the only CANDIDATE OF the “Cyber Party,” but he was not the only PERSON INVOLVED IN that “party.” I don’t know all the identities of the initial core group, but there was such a group and it’s not unreasonable to expect that that group’s members wanted input on their “party’s” platform, or that after laying out a quick line on the issues he really cared about and wanted to focus on, McAfee let them have their fun.

    I’ve worked with more than one candidate who have very firm ideas about, and a great deal of interest in, two or three issues — and on everything else it was like “write something up and I’ll have a look at it.” Which can be dangerous if you don’t know for sure that whoever you have doing the writing is very much on the same page as you on things.

    I’ve also worked with one candidate who said on a radio appearance I booked for him in 1995 (before he was a candidate) that he was OK with the draft in case of a major war, after which I had a come to Jesus talk with him and he instantly “got it.” By the time he came within one ballot of being the LP’s presidential nominee nine years later, being against a return of the draft under any circumstances was one of his top talking points.

  76. Dave Terry

    “It’s very difficult to NOT mock the NAP as a rigid rule; it’s obviously a mere construct, a nice sentiment. While I don’t support AP’s communications technique and timing, speaking the truth should always be supported.”

    ,,,,,,,IF, it’s the truth!!!.

    But, The truth IS, we don’t live in a BLACK & WHITE world. NOR do we live in a totally GREY world.
    The FACT is there are many ‘issues’ that ARE simple black & white issues. OTOH, there are many
    complex issue that are various shades of GREY, which is simply a combination or blend of black and white elements!

    The solution is to simply breakdown the grey into it’s component black and white elements.

    .

  77. Robert Capozzi

    dt, interesting. I’m not sure what’s b/w and what’s gray, as you see it, but it may be a useful way to look at the world from a political perspective.

    From my perspective, it’s pretty clear that, say, Social Security is an ill conceived program. But I would also say that it would be unpeaceful to abolish it overnight. IOW, there are black, white, and gray matters in theory and then there are matters which require timing and optical considerations.

  78. Dave Terry

    RC: >”From my perspective, it’s pretty clear that, say, Social Security is an ill conceived program.

    It is another of those grey issues because; 1. encouraging people to put a portion of their earnings into an account that will be there when the time comes that they can’t work anymore, is as about as WHITE, as an issue can be. 2. On the other hand, making such savings mandatory, not to mention having your savings held and controlled by the government is a about as BLACK as it gets.

    You are correct that abolishing it “overnight’, as you noted, is a fairly deep shade of grey. This is why we Libertarians are ‘right on’ when we advise government that compulsory participation in any program of this type is a bag of worms.

  79. Pingback: What Questions Should We Ask Darryl Perry, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Nomination? | Independent Political Report

  80. Dave Terry

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Joe Hunter
    Media@GaryJohnson2016.com

    (801) 303-7922

    Gov. Gary Johnson Campaign Announces that Plans are Underway for
    LP Debate on STOSSEL

    February 16, 2016, Salt Lake City, UT — In a statement released today, the Gary Johnson 2016 campaign confirmed that plans are underway to schedule a nationally-televised Libertarian Party presidential debate on the popular “Stossel” show on the Fox Business Network. While details are pending, Gov. Johnson’s campaign indicated that dates in March are being discussed.

    A statement from the campaign stated, “The Gary Johnson 2016 campaign has confirmed with Fox Business’s Stossel that Gov. Johnson will be delighted to participate in a televised debate among Libertarian Party presidential candidates, hopefully in March. We will of course leave the formal announcement of the debate details and date to the Stossel show, but want to express our gratitude to Mr. Stossel for working to find a date for this important event that will not disrupt any planned Libertarian Party activities and that is actually doable for all the candidates who are involved.”

    Gary Johnson was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003. A successful businessman before running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, Gary Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown that business into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico, with more than 1,000 employees. Johnson is best known for his veto record, having vetoed more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined. His use of the veto pen earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003. An avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist, he has summited the highest peak on each of the seven continents, including Mt. Everest. In the 2012 presidential election, Johnson placed third and garnered more votes than any other Libertarian candidate in history. He has two grown children, a daughter Seah and a son Erik, and currently resides in a house he built himself in Taos, New Mexico.

    For more information, visit GaryJohnson2016.com.
    Paid for by Gary Johnson 2016.

  81. langa

    You equilibrate one’s political views with one’s religious views.

    I did no such thing. I drew an analogy between a political party and a church. In fact, the analogy is quite a strong one, as the two things are essentially the same, except one deals with religion, while the other deals with politics. They are both organizations comprised of people who (ostensibly) share a common set of beliefs. They are both dedicated to, among other things, spreading those beliefs and converting as many people to their cause as possible. And they both have a large number of guiding principles, some of which are more important than others.

    Specifically, the divinity of Christ is the defining principle of Catholicism (and of Christianity in general). It is the principle from which all of the other beliefs flow, and hence, it is non-negotiable. Debate over minor aspects of theological doctrine may be tolerated, or even encouraged, but someone who rejects the divinity of Christ is unlikely to be welcome in the church, and would certainly never be considered for a position of leadership. The same holds true for the LP. The defining principle of libertarianism is the NAP. Again, it is the principle from which all the others are derived, and hence, it is non-negotiable. True, certain aspects (such as the application of the NAP to “tough” cases) are open to debate. But the wholesale rejection of the NAP itself ought to disqualify someone from even being an LP member, let alone a public representative of the party. This is the whole reason why the pledge exists. A political party without principles is like a church without any religious doctrine — what’s the point?

  82. Robert Capozzi

    langa: someone who rejects the divinity of Christ is unlikely to be welcome in the church, and would certainly never be considered for a position of leadership. The same holds true for the LP.

    me: As I understand it, Unity considers itself Christian but they consider JC a wayshower, and that we are all “divine” in a sense.

    Personally, I don’t know what “divine” is. Define divinity.

    Myself, if there was a JC and if after all the machinations, translations, and edits that we call THE HOLY BIBLE is reasonably accurate, I’d say Jeshua was one cool dude and probably the most insightful philosopher ever. Whether he did all the parlor tricks…dunno. Apparently there are some Indian gurus who do similar tricks.

    L: The defining principle of libertarianism is the NAP. Again, it is the principle from which all the others are derived, and hence, it is non-negotiable.

    me: For you and the 89 20-something Founders. For others, not so much.

    Non-negotiable seems false to me. 7/8ths can change the LP’s Bible known as the SoP, so that tells me negotiation is possible. How’s about you?

  83. langa

    Non-negotiable seems false to me. 7/8ths can change the LP’s Bible known as the SoP, so that tells me negotiation is possible. How’s about you?

    Sure, the LP could theoretically ditch the NAP. But if they did so, then the “Libertarian” Party would have nothing to do with libertarianism, just like the American “Freedom” Party has nothing to do with freedom.

  84. Robert Capozzi

    Langa, glad to see you are so agreeable with an obvious truth!

    If you acknowledge that the LP can change it mission, why can’t the definition of L-ism change, too?

    Why can’t L-ism be defined as the belief that the political ideal is for individual liberty to be maximized?

    For you, that might be a rigid, inflexible application of the NAP.

    For me, that might be to opportunistically roll back the State until doing so is clearly dysfunctional and domestic tranquility degrades.

    For a constitutionalist L, it might be to strictly adhere to the text of the Constitution.

    Etc.

    Why is YOUR definition of L-ism superior, and those of us who don’t buy into your theory somehow lesser Ls? Let me stipulate that I don’t find your approach to be lesser than mine; I just find it different and, admittedly, unrealistic.

  85. Dave Terry

    RC wrote: “Why can’t L-ism be defined as the belief that the political ideal is for individual liberty to be maximized?

    Duh? As a Libertarian for over 46 years, I am absolutely certain that your definition is, by far, the most common and universal definition of all. All the OTHER ‘definitions’ are simply variations of that central theme!

  86. Robert Capozzi

    DT, Langa and some of the Plumbline Cadre feel otherwise.

    Generally, when I question a Plumbliner more deeply, and we get down to the fundamentals, they have a tendency to scurry, deflect, and/or avoid the inquiry. My sense is that — deep down — they recognize that plumblinery doesn’t work, but they like the NAP’s simplicity, limited consistency, and — mostly — its extremist implications.

  87. Dave Terry

    Robert Capozzi, Feb. 17,
    “Personally, I don’t know what “divine” is. Define divinity.”

    divinity; “a fluffy, creamy candy made with stiffly beaten egg whites”

  88. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    The questions I select will be sent to the campaign tomorrow. Get any others in before then.

  89. Dave Terry

    Robert Capozzi
    Feb 19
    ‘ but they like the NAP’s simplicity, limited consistency, and — mostly — its extremist implications.”

    “Personally, I don’t know what ‘extremist’ is. Define extremist.”

  90. Robert Capozzi

    dt, I’d say extremist is a position or an overall stance that garners less than 5-10% public support.

    L candidates sometimes take some position edgy positions, sometimes outright fringe positions. Because Ls are neither left nor right, the amalgamated L position is generally extremist. The right to tote bazookas + late-term abortions + an overnight 50% cut in spending + Civil War revisionism + immediate closure of all military bases and the breaking of all treaties = an extremist stance

  91. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    From Facebook

    Would you help citizens surveillance the government? A live camera in every government bureaucracy? How to protect citizens against government intrusions?

    How long have you been Libertarian? Why did you come to this Party?

  92. Dave Terry

    Robert Capozzi; Feb 19
    “I’d say extremist is a position or an overall stance that garners less than 5-10% public support.”

    1. First I’d suggest that, if the truth (fact) is considered, the above statement should reversed.
    (ie. a position adhered to by less than 10% of the population could be considered “extreme”)
    2. However, the truth of an issue or proposition is NOT determined by popular vote. The number
    of adherents of a particular position is irrelevant to it’s truth or accuracy.
    3. This being the case, the popular tendency to equate “extreme” or unpopular positions to irrational or dangerous motives is absolutely NOT justified.

    Otherwise, it is simply a minority opinion; no more, no less.
    unpopular

  93. Paul D.

    Mr. McAfee,

    Apple Inc. is currently in a dispute with the FBI over iPhone encryption. The government is trying to force a company to comply with their wishes to weaken the security inherently built into their devices. You have volunteered to hack the iPhone in question yourself:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

    1.). How, as a libertarian, do you justify the government’s stance that “national security” trumps the 4th amendment rights of every American?

    2.). How will you prevent the government from taking advantage of your hacking iOS, to limit it to just the single iPhone that the FBI claims they need access to and not any iPhone they choose, assuming you can indeed break the encryption?

  94. Robert Capozzi

    DT: Otherwise, it is simply a minority opinion; no more, no less.

    ME: Sure. That’s a PC way of putting it, and I’m pretty freakin’ PC!

    Truth is a tricky thing, though, especially when it comes to public policy. Plumbliners might say that open borders is the One True Way. And for Plumbliners, that may well be their truth.

    Politics, however, is a numbers game. Opening border would be winning the game of politics; closing borders would be losing it. Plumbliners are at the moment losing the game. Most Plumbliners don’t really care about the game. They often instead posit that they have “derived” the Truth, and anyone who disagrees with them are idiots, evil, or both. This makes for exceedingly poor politics, I submit. Sub 1% politics at that.

  95. Dave Terry

    Plumbliners might say that open borders is the One True Way. And for Plumbliners, that may well be their truth.

    Although I OWN a ‘plumb line’, when I use it I don’t look at myself as a “plumbliner”, when I use it.
    I’m not familiar with that term. Can you define it more clearly?

  96. John Machurek

    Gary Johnson why do you appear absent from the party other than when you are running for president?

  97. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Questions are now closed, and I am selecting ones to propose and will send them to the campaign tonight.

    I hope readers will be happy with the ones I select.

  98. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I spoke with the campaign this AM, and McAfee is of course running around like all this candidates right now, but he has started on the questions, and I expect them in the near future.

  99. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m looking forward to reading your interview!

    Caryn, do you mind if I ask how many questions you sent to McAfee? I’m sending Darryl’s questions over tonight. It would be nice to have some sort of consistency.

    I sent 13 to Austin, although he overlooked one of them.

Leave a Reply

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