Press "Enter" to skip to content

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Darryl Perry: On the Libertarian Presidential debates

Darryl-headshot-2015-sqSeveral weeks ago, and well after the Libertarian Parties of Alabama and Mississippi announced plans for a Presidential debate at their joint convention, there were reports of a debate to be hosted by John Stossel over the same weekend. The Stossel debate was to include only Gary Johnson, John McAfee & Austin Petersen, however this debate did not happen as Johnson indicated that he couldn’t attend due to a prior commitment (the AL/MS convention debate).

The debate at the AL/MS LP convention was held in two parts with the first part including 10 of the 12 Presidential candidates recognized by the LP and one candidate not recognized by the LP. After the first hour of the debate, audience members participated in a straw poll whereby the top 5 candidates were selected for the 2nd round of the debate. The 5 candidates to move into the 2nd round were the 3 invited to the Stossel debate plus Marc Allan Feldman and Darryl W. Perry. At the conclusion of the five man debate, attendees were asked “If the election were today, who would you vote for?”. Gary Johnson won the straw poll with 38% followed by John McAfee at 26%. Petersen & Perry were separated by 3 votes at 17% & 15% respectively, followed by 4% for Feldman.

Three days after the Saturday night debate in Biloxi, John Stossel posted on his facebook page that he would be holding a debate to be recorded on March 29 and airing on April 1 to include the aforementioned Johnson, McAfee & Petersen “because they placed top three in a poll done by the Libertarian Party.”

He does not specify which poll, link to the results, say what percentage any of the candidates received in the poll, or explain why he was taking only 3 of the 12 candidates.

People are asking what they can do to get other candidates invited to the Stossel debate. A petition has been created on Change.org, and will be submitting on Friday March 4, a full 3 ½ weeks before the Stossel debate is to be recorded. Please sign the petition and share it with your friends before the petition is sent to Stossel and the three candidates participating in the debate.

Absent being invited to the Stossel debate, the Darryl W. Perry campaign is planning events for both March 29 & April 1.

About Post Author

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.

77 Comments

  1. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt March 2, 2016

    That’s an unfortunate airing date.

  2. J.R.Myers J.R.Myers March 3, 2016

    Stossel should hold a LP/CP/GP candidates debate(s).

  3. Thane Eichenauer Thane Eichenauer March 3, 2016

    Any airing date is a good date.

    As for LP/CP/GP debate, the real question is would the audience want to see such a debate? Make a case and he or some other TV news source just might.

  4. Election Addict Election Addict March 3, 2016

    Heck, I’d guess views would go up for such debates. It would be Stossel/whoever’s audience + people generally interested in a third party debate.

  5. Steven Berson Steven Berson March 3, 2016

    A televised alternative party debate would be excellent – but Stossel would not be a good moderator for one as he is biased towards libertarian ideals – the best moderator for such a debate would be non-partisan and neutral.

  6. Andy Craig Andy Craig March 3, 2016

    You can’t have a multi-party debate before those parties have formally selected their nominees, and in the case of the Greens that won’t be until August. Whether or not the CP will have 270+EV ballot access is also still up in the air (I’m betting not.)

  7. Andy Craig Andy Craig March 3, 2016

    As for which poll Stossel is referring to, that should be obvious, since there’s only one poll that has been conducted by the national Libertarian Party, the one that was on lp.org. I’m willing to bet that’s why that poll was done. He’s not basing it on the MS/AL straw poll in Biloxi (though, the results would be the same if he did).

  8. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    If the Green Party is not having their presidential nominating convention until August that is very foolish.

  9. Andy Craig Andy Craig March 3, 2016

    August 4 – August 7 in Houston.

  10. natural born citizen natural born citizen March 3, 2016

    This guy should ask Wayne Root for the name of his dentist.

  11. Steven Wilson Steven Wilson March 3, 2016

    I would love to see a debate between Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton, and Ben Carson.

    Thus far, NOTA appears to be the leader in the LP race.

  12. Jeremy Jeremy March 3, 2016

    Not sure where to put this (and apologies to Darryl for stealing his thunder on this thread), but I’ve now watched the second half of the Biloxi debate and my conclusion is that McAfee will be the nominee. Disclaimer: I’m not a libertarian or a Libertarian, but I am a friend to third parties generally and an advocate for electoral reform and ballot access. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, but will be voting for the Democratic nominee this year.

    First of all, I want to say how impressed I was with all five candidates in the finalist round. I think all five of them, plus Kerbel, are better speakers than was Bill Still, who was the third-best speaker among the 2012 field. The field as a whole is a credit to the LP. (I assume Kerbel will be dropping out following his indictment, so I won’t be discussing him below.)

    Feldman is a good speaker and has some interesting ideas. He is broadly libertarian (as are all five candidates, really — no Bob Barr-style wolves in sheep’s clothing here), and he delivered some smart lines. Nevertheless, he is not particularly charismatic, nor a particularly plumbline Libertarian, nor good at fundraising (given his self-imposed limitations), nor good at getting media exposure. His main problem is that there is no particular area where he is the best candidate; even if you like his $5 donation limit, Perry is doing something similar and is a more effective plumbline Libertarian. I don’t think Feldman will be much of a factor at the convention, although he is a stronger candidate than his performance will probably reflect.

    Perry is a surprisingly good speaker and an appealingly consistent Libertarian. He would be a party-building candidate, a Jill Stein type who is chosen for messaging consistency rather than for public exposure. I actually think Perry would have been an appealing dark horse candidate a few months ago. However, his biggest problem in this race is that McAfee appears to be a reasonably radical Libertarian and has a lot more charisma, and a lot more exposure, than Perry does. Party-building candidates tend to win nominations only when higher-profile candidates are unavailable, or when the higher-profile candidate is too much of an apostate on the issues (think of Alan Keyes for the CP nomination in 2008). There are two high-exposure candidates in this field, and while one could make an argument that Johnson is too much of an apostate to beat Perry, I think McAfee is enough of a real libertarian that most natural Perry supporters will back him.

    Petersen is an astonishingly well-spoken guy, in a fundamentalist preacher kind of way. But he comes off as just so phony that I can’t believe a significant number of delegates will support him. In a way he is running the Wayne Root playbook, pledging to bring libertarian Republicans into the party in exchange for supporting some Republican policies such as abortion restrictions. But I think that sort of pitch will not be as successful coming from someone as young as Petersen, especially when he is up against a former governor. Ultimately, I can see Petersen coming in third at the convention, but I don’t think he will be a significant factor in the race.

    So that leaves Johnson and McAfee, the two high-exposure candidates, as the real heavyweights in this race. And, in all honesty, I think Johnson’s rantings about Sharia are an astonishing misstep from someone who otherwise might well have cruised to the nomination. They are wildly out of step with the mainstream LP, and they make Libertarians sound like warmongers, which wasn’t acceptable coming from Root and isn’t acceptable from Johnson. It was one thing when Johnson was advocating the Fair Tax when he’d just crossed over from the GOP, but this is four years later and is far less forgivable. We like to think that high-exposure candidates coming from other parties are just trying to use the LP to their own ends, but honestly, I tend to think that Johnson is just sort of wandering aimlessly indeologically, and that this is his authentic response to the rise of ISIS. Either way, he is doing his best Ben Carson impression — despite his political experience, it often seems as if there is no one at home in his campaign, and I think it will cost him.

    As for McAfee, he’s intensely charismatic — an area where Johnson has always been challenged — and he appears to be a true-blue Libertarian, or at least a lot closer than most late-breaking candidates are. He’s great at getting media attention, he’s got a bit of Trumpian swagger (which may endear him to voters this cycle), and I foresee him getting a lot of radical support at the convention. If I were his opponents, I’d have people attacking him at the convention for his checkered personal history (which may involve murder and definitely involves statutory rape), and that indeed is where he’s vulnerable. But he doesn’t rant about Sharia and he isn’t a nobody, and I think that takes him all the way at the convention.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    “[McAfee’s] checkered personal history (which may involve murder and definitely involves statutory rape)”

    The murder accusation is somewhere in the same range of believability as Bill Clinton being the guy on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

    Probably no there there on statutory rape, either. The age of consent in Belize is 16.

  14. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Andy Craig
    March 3, 2016 at 14:10

    August 4 – August 7 in Houston.”

    Is the Green Party trying to destroy itself? That is a really, really, bad idea to have their presidential nominating convention that late.

    Why? Because there are some states that require the names of the candidates for President and Vice President to be on their ballot access petitions, and I am talking about states that do not allow candidate substitution.

    Having their national convention from August 4th-7th is actually past the ballot access deadline in some states, and it is close to the ballot access deadline in some other states.

    Another reason why this is a bad idea is that a lot of donations tend to come in AFTER people know who is going to be on the presidential ticket. Having their nominating convention this late means that these donations will come in late, which will hurt their ballot access efforts, and also will give them less time to build a campaign before the election.

    It was a terrible idea for them to have their convention that late.

  15. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    Jeremy said: ” However, his biggest problem in this race is that McAfee appears to be a reasonably radical Libertarian”

    “Appears to be” and what is reality are not the same thing here. McAfee is NOT a hardcore radical libertarian. He wants to create a new government cyber security bureaucracy, and he was campaigning on a platform which included creating government make work programs (like FDR) to “stimulate” the economy, and wanting to preserve Social Security. He may have recently changed the platform planks about the government make work programs and Social Security, but he only did this because Libertarians were calling him out on this.

    Like I said in another thread, I know a Libertarian who talked to McAfee months ago about getting him on the ballot as the Cyber Party candidate, or as an independent. This person told me that McAfee did NOT have a solid grasp of libertarian philosophy and issues.

    The ONLY reason that McAfee is seeking the LP nomination is because he found out that it would be too difficult to get on the ballot as the Cyber Party candidate or as an independent.

    I’m not saying that he’s necessarily a bad guy, and he probably leans libertarian on a lot of issues, but acting like he is some kind of hardcore radical libertarian activist is ridiculous.

    The guy would not even been in the LP right now if he had found a way to get the Cyber Party on the ballot, plus, there is no past record of him even being a libertarian. Sure, he has spoken out about cyber security over the last few years, and that’s great, but the fact remains is there is no record of him representing a spectrum of libertarian spectrum of issues.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    ” plus, there is no past record of him even being a libertarian”

    No matter how many times you lie about that, I’m going to be here to point out that you’re lying about it.

  17. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 20:00

    ‘ plus, there is no past record of him even being a libertarian’

    No matter how many times you lie about that, I’m going to be here to point out that you’re lying about it.”

    I am not lying about anything. I asked you on another thread to post links that confirm that John McAfee has a past record of being a libertarian, and you FAILED to do this, and you even admitted that he’s a newcomer to libertarianism.

    Being a Johnny One Note on cyber security does NOT make him a libertarian, just like being a Johnny One Note in favor of marijuana legalization or gun rights does NOT make somebody a libertarian.

    Post some links that PROVE that John McAfee has a long record of being a libertarian, or shut the fuck up about it.

  18. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    If somebody asked me to prove that Darryl W. Perry has a long record of being a hardcore libertarian, I could do this pretty quickly.

    The same goes for Adam Kokesh, who is not a candidate for President right now, but who has declared that he’s going to run for President in 2020.

    Where is John McAfee’s long record of being a libertarian?

  19. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    Well, I guess one strategy when I call you out for lying is to double down and add some more lies.

    Not a working strategy, likely, but a strategy.

  20. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 20:22

    Well, I guess one strategy when I call you out for lying is to double down and add some more lies.

    Not a working strategy, likely, but a strategy.”

    What lies have I told?

    I asked you to post some evidence that shows John McAfee’s record of being a libertarian. So go ahead, post your evidence that shows his record of being a libertarian.

    All I have seen so far is a record of McAfee being a Johnny One Note for cyber security. This is not enough to say that he’s got a record of being a libertarian.

  21. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    Come on Tom, all I have asked for is for you or somebody to post some evidence that shows John McAfee’s long track record of being a libertarian.

    All I have seen so far is some Johnny One Note stuff about cyber security.

    If he’s got a track record of being a libertarian, it should be easy to post the evidence to back this up, right?

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    Been there. Done that. When you hear things you don’t want to hear — like the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 took 3 hours and 20 minutes — you just pretend you didn’t hear them and make up the things you DO want to hear. I’m not going to hand you stacks of facts over and over just so you can keep pretending that I didn’t and demand that I do it again.

  23. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 21:06

    Been there. Done that. When you hear things you don’t want to hear —”

    Notice how Tom is trying to change the subject, RATHER THAN POSTING THE EVIDENCE THAT JOHN MCAFEE HAS A PAST RECORD OF BEING A LIBERTARIAN.

    Come on Tom, we are still waiting for you to post some links that show John McAfee’s track record of being a libertarian. Cut the bullshit Tom. Either post the evidence, or admit that it does not exist and that McAfee is a Johnny Come Lately.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    Andy,

    Why don’t you lie awhile longer? That will really get you what you want.

    I have, in fact, posted links before to past libertarian statements and appearances by McAfee.

    I don’t have to do it every time you lie about it, because people here at IPR have watched you pull this shit enough times that they recognize it when they see it.

    Knapp: Ron Paul says X.

    Andy: Ron Paul does NOT believe X! Ron Paul believes whatever I want him to believe! You can’t prove Ron Paul says X !

    Knapp: Here’s a video of Ron Paul saying X.

    Andy: Ron Paul does not believe X! Ron Paul believes whatever I want him to believe! You can’t prove Ron Paul says X!

    Knapp: Here’s another video of Ron Paul saying X.

    Andy: Ron Paul does NOT believe … Oh, fuck it, this is where I start hinting that you’re a government plant.

  25. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    Tom has NOT “been there and done that” when it comes to posting the evidence that John McAfee has a past history of being a libertarian. I asked him to post this evidence on another thread recently, and he never did.

    So once again I ask, can you or somebody else post the evidence that indicates that McAfee has a past history of being a libertarian?

    Like I have said several times, I’ve got nothing against personal against McAfee, I just think that if somebody wants to be the candidate for President for the party of which I have been a member of for almost 20 years, that this person should be vetted, and part of my vetting process is that I want to see a record of this person being a libertarian from BEFORE they declared that they were running for my party’s presidential nomination.

  26. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 21:19

    Andy,

    Why don’t you lie awhile longer? That will really get you what you want.

    I have, in fact, posted links before to past libertarian statements and appearances by McAfee.”

    BULLSHIT. Post the evidence that John McAfee has a record of being a libertarian. Stop trying to change the subject. I don’t want anything beyond links that show McAfee’s past record of being a libertarian.

    Nothing else will suffice here.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    “Nothing else will suffice here.”

    Nothing HAS to suffice, because I don’t work for you.

    Nor would anything suffice in any case, since you have — as usual — made it clear that Andy will believe what Andy has already decided Andy wants to believe, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    There’s nothing to stop you from hitting Google if you’re interested in the facts. But the next time you’re interested in the facts will be the first time you’ve ever displayed any such interest in my presence.

  28. Anastasia Beaverhausen Anastasia Beaverhausen March 3, 2016

    “August 4 – August 7 in Houston.”

    “Is the Green Party trying to destroy itself?”

    Four days in Houston in August will take care of that.

  29. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 21:42

    “Nothing else will suffice here.”

    Nothing HAS to suffice, because I don’t work for you.”

    Once again, Tom Knapp has NOT POSTED EVEN ONE LINK THAT SHOWS JOHN MCAFEE’S PAST BACKGROUND AS A LIBERTARIAN.

    NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

    This is not just about me Tom, it is about vetting a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President.

    This is for everybody who reads the site. Some of the regular readers here will be LP National Convention Delegates. A lot of other people reading this site are people who will be voting in the general election this November.

    Vetting a candidate who is seeking the nomination of a political party is a part of the campaign process.

    So given that John McAfee is one of the candidates who is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President, and given that he only recently joined the Libertarian Party, and given that prior to this, he was trying to get on the ballot for President for another political party, one that he started called the Cyber Party, it is a very relevant question to ask about his background as a libertarian, and to ask for some proof as to whether or not he even has a background as a libertarian.

    I am asking similar questions about all of the candidates.

    I asked this question about Steve Kerbel on several threads here, and so far, you are the only one to provide an answer, which was that Kerbel supposedly discovered the Libertarian Party back in 2000, but you did not know when he joined the party or registered to vote under the Libertarian Party banner.

    I’ve still got questions about Steve Kerbel, questions which have yet to be answered.

    I already know more about the backgrounds of Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, Darryl Perry, and Marc Feldman, but I have questions about all of them as well.

    I am planning to be a delegate in Orlando, and I would like to have a candidate for President to vote for in November.

    The other candidates who are running outside of the ones who I mentioned appear to be a bunch of oddballs, some of whom I question their libertarian credentials, and some come off as weirdos, and I doubt that I’d back any of them.

    Out of the candidates whom I mentioned, who appear to be running the more active campaigns for the nomination, I am not really happen with any of them either. If I had to vote for one of them, like if somebody put a gun to my head and said to pick one, I’d probably go with Darryl W. Perry.

    My problem with Perry is not so much his issues (although I have some strategy disagreements with him), or his character (he seems like a good guy as far as I know), but rather his lack of campaign organization, and his lack of fundraising, which is likely being handicapped by his principled stand of only accepting donations in crypto-currencies and precious metals (it would help if he set up a mechanism to make it easier for those who are not familiar with crypto-currencies or precious metals to covert Federal Reserve Notes into either of these things and send them to his campaign).

    I want the best possible candidate for President for the Libertarian Party. Vetting candidates is a way to try to get the best possible candidate for the nomination.

    Part of my problem with the way Bob Barr got nominated in 2008 is that I do not think that he was properly vetted prior to receiving the nomination (and it appears that most Libertarians look back on that nomination as having been a mistake).

    So when I ask questions about John McAfee, or Steve Kerbel, or any of the candidates for the nomination, it is not that I’m trying to “pick on them,” I’m just vetting them because I want the party to have the best candidate possible for the general election in November.

    I became aware of John McAfee sometime within the last few years by hearing him being interviewed on The Alex Jones Show. I’m a long time fan of The Alex Jones Show (since 2001), so I think that it is cool that McAfee was on that show, but lots of people of various ideologies across the political spectrum have been interviewed on The Alex Jones Show, so even though I think that it is cool that McAfee has been on that show, this alone is not enough for me to support him for the LP nomination for President.

    McAfee has been talking about cyber security since I first heard him sometime within the last few years.

    So still I ask, where are the links that show John McAfee’s past history as a libertarian?

  30. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “I am not really happen with any of them ”

    Should read, “I am not really happy with any of them…”

  31. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    “to covert Federal Reserve Notes”

    Should read, “to convert Federal Reserve Notes…”

  32. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    Andy,

    I agree, all of the candidates should be thoroughly vetted.

    But in this thread, you didn’t ask for information about McAfee, you just asserted that there was no such information, even though you knew that from past comment threads to be false.

    And then you cite an answer I gave you about Kerbel, which is EXACTLY like the answer I previously gave you about McAfee, by way of pretending that you never got what you did in fact get.

    I don’t care whether or not you support McAfee. I’m not supporting him myself. But let’s get it right instead of just making shit up.

  33. Andy Andy March 3, 2016

    John McAfee may or may not be a good candidate for the Libertarian Party, but he should not be given the nomination without being properly vetted (nor should anyone).

    My asking for evidence of his past background as a libertarian is a part of the vetting process.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 3, 2016

    Well, then, start vetting.

    As I’ve pointed you to at least once before, the earliest reference I’ve personally found to McAfee being referred to as, or referring to himself as, a libertarian was from 2010. IIRC, it was in a story in The Guardian about his move to Belize, and characterized him as leaving the US because he was tired of big government, big regulation (he was interested in pursuing ideas for new medicines and found it difficult to do so) and big taxation. This was well before the raid on his house and the killing of his neighbor and of course long before any hint of presidential aspirations.

    Between then and now there are various text and video interviews in which he makes libertarian statements concerning government ranging from the mild (that it can’t do anything right) to the fairly strident (that it shouldn’t be trusted with anything, ever) to the very radical (that it is a criminal conspiracy).

    By the time I really started Googling for the phrase “John McAfee” and the word “libertarian” in earnest, it was already getting difficult to find stuff because of link pollution. For example, results all the way back to 2008 are polluted by IPR itself, because Google pulls up IPR articles from back then based on McAfee’s name being in the recent comments widgets, etc., in the sidebar on the recent crawls.

    I can take you back at least one year, though. Or, to be more precise, one year and one day:

    To clarify:

    I’m not for net neutrality of [sic] for anything at all that involves regulation, government, law, congress, the Senate, the president or the door keeper at the library of congress.

    My posting thanking ?#?NetNeutrality? Feedom Fighters was satirical. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not for anything that involves Government regulations.

    That’s John McAfee on Facebook on March 2, 2015. URL:

    https://www.facebook.com/officialmcafee/posts/435593973263455

  35. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    McAfee on CNBC in 2013. Compares NSA data demands from Google to Nazi Germany. Takes the libertarian position on “intellectual property.”

  36. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    OK, now here’s some vetting for you: John McAfee on Cavuto, Fox News, from his site, multiple embeds dated June 27, 2013:

    http://www.whoismcafee.com/fox-news-exclusive-with-neil-cavuto-3/

    Go to the bottom embed, about one minute and 45 seconds in. My transcription:

    Cavuto: Are you a Republican, are you a Democrat, independent, how do you describe yourself?

    McAfee: What would you think, you think I’m a Democrat with my views on guns and everything else? No, sir, I’m a Republican.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    So we can now establish that McAfee has been a Republican more recently than Gary Johnson has been. But not as recently as Austin Petersen.

  38. Caryn Ann Harlos Caryn Ann Harlos March 4, 2016

    Speaking of AWP, he made a statement in the recent issue of LP News in his attempts to reinvent his history – which although not technically a lie – isn’t true in the way the reader is intended to take me.

    He recounts his history with the LP in 2008 and then says “he never joined another Party again.” The intended impression of course is that he has been this dedicated LP advocate since then which is utterly false.

    As recently as two months before declaring, he was still not promoting the LP but rather stumping for Purple PAC and Rand Paul

  39. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi March 4, 2016

    cah: …intended impression of course…

    me: Sounds like you are a mind reader.

    From what I’ve seen, AWP has made no secret of the fact that he was a Fox producer and worked on small-l issues, including being a RP2 supporter. Like many Ls, they are less about “the party,” and more about the ideas.

  40. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt March 4, 2016

    Like many Ls, they are less about “the party,” and more about the ideas.

    In this case, it’s less about parties or ideas, and more about Austin.

  41. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi March 4, 2016

    jp, can you be more specific? That AP’s statement that CAH is calling out, that he didn’t “join another party,” is that somehow “all about him”?

    Or is yours just a general indictment of AP and his campaign?

  42. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt March 4, 2016

    There are so many examples on FB that all you need to do is to go to one of the national lp pages and read how Austin talks to people. It has gotten better, but he doesn’t act like a serious candidate to me. He posts silly pictures as responses, and says flip and inappropriate things.

    That behavior says to me that he’s not serious and is simply looking for attention.

  43. Andy Andy March 4, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 4, 2016 at 00:25

    OK, now here’s some vetting for you: John McAfee on Cavuto, Fox News, from his site, multiple embeds dated June 27, 2013:

    http://www.whoismcafee.com/fox-news-exclusive-with-neil-cavuto-3/

    Go to the bottom embed, about one minute and 45 seconds in. My transcription:

    Cavuto: Are you a Republican, are you a Democrat, independent, how do you describe yourself?

    McAfee: What would you think, you think I’m a Democrat with my views on guns and everything else? No, sir, I’m a Republican.”

    This is not an example of McAfee being a libertarian. He clearly called himself a Republican.

    He could have said, “I am not a Democrat or a Republican, I am a libertarian.” or, he could have at least said, “I am a registered Republican, but I lean libertarian.” or, he could have said, “I’m a libertarian Republican.” or, “I’m like Ron Paul, I have libertarian views, but I am Republican because I think that I can be more effective working within the Republican Party to move it in a libertarian direction.”

    OK, he says he is for gun rights. That’s great, but it is still not enough to say that he’s a libertarian, and he clearly identified as a Republican here.

  44. Andy Andy March 4, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 23:45

    Well, then, start vetting.”

    This is what I have been doing, and what everyone in the LP ought to be doing, and that is vetting all of the candidates.

    Hey, maybe John McAfee will end up winning the LP nomination, and maybe he’ll end up being a good candidate, and maybe at this time next year we’ll be here talking about what a great campaign McAfee had, but even if this scenario were to come true, it should not happen without a thorough vetting process prior to the nomination.

  45. Andy Andy March 4, 2016


    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 3, 2016 at 23:27

    Andy,

    I agree, all of the candidates should be thoroughly vetted.

    But in this thread, you didn’t ask for information about McAfee, you just asserted that there was no such information, even though you knew that from past comment threads to be false.”

    Yes, I did ask for information about McAfee. That’s why I was asking you (or anyone else) to post links that show his past record of being a libertarian. If such links were posted here before, I must have missed them.

    The only things that I know about McAfee’s political background is that he’s the cyber security advocate who has been interviewed on The Alex Jones Show, and that he tried to get on the ballot for President as the candidate of the Cyber Party, a party which he started.

  46. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi March 4, 2016

    jp: That behavior says to me that he’s not serious and is simply looking for attention.

    me: So, this sounds like a general indictment vs. CAH’s specific one, yes?

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    “This is not an example of McAfee being a libertarian. He clearly called himself a Republican.”

    Uh … yeah. That was my whole point.

  48. Andy Andy March 4, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 4, 2016 at 15:18

    ‘This is not an example of McAfee being a libertarian. He clearly called himself a Republican.’

    Uh … yeah. That was my whole point.”

    OK then, my question still stands. Can anyone post any links that show that John McAfee has a background of being a libertarian before declaring that he is running for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President?

    I do not think that a person has to be a member of the Libertarian Party to be a libertarian. I recognize people who are not members of the Libertarian Party as being small “l” libertarians if they hold libertarian views (as in they support free market economics, civil liberties, and a peaceful foreign policy).

    Question for Tom: You have been pretty critical of the Libertarian Party running candidates who were Republicans (such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, etc…). Is John McAfee having publicly self identified as a Republican in 2013 a strike mark against him to you, or do you make an exception for him, and if so, would the basis of this exception be because he never held elected office as a Republican, or would it be for some other reason?

    I do not hold it against somebody for having been (or even being) a Republican IF they have libertarian views, assuming that they are really a libertarian are are not just BS’ing people. So I do not have a problem with the Libertarian Party nominating candidates who used to be Republicans in and of itself (unless the candidate ends up being a phony).

    I do agree with you about one thing though when it comes to nominating candidates who used to be Republicans, and that is that if the Libertarian Party does it too frequently, we run the risk of being known as the party of cast off Republicans, or even the Republican Lite Party (or something like that). This has already happened in some instances. The Libertarian Party has the ability to draw people from across the political spectrum, but if all we do is draw in and push former Republicans a lot of people who might otherwise support us, but who are currently on the left, or are independents or non-voters, may end up getting the wrong impression of the Libertarian Party, and therefore will be less likely to support us, or listen to what we have to say.

  49. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    “OK then, my question still stands. Can anyone post any links that show that John McAfee has a background of being a libertarian before declaring that he is running for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President?”

    I posted a couple above.

    “Question for Tom: You have been pretty critical of the Libertarian Party running candidates who were Republicans (such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, etc…). Is John McAfee having publicly self identified as a Republican in 2013 a strike mark against him to you, or do you make an exception for him, and if so, would the basis of this exception be because he never held elected office as a Republican, or would it be for some other reason?”

    As with any other candidate, it’s something I’d want him to explain — why he’s not a Republican any more and when that happened. And such an explanation would either be convincing or it wouldn’t.

    I don’t have anything against former Republicans per se. It’s just that if they were Republicans last week and this week they’re running for president as a Libertarian, I tend to be somewhat more skeptical about them.

  50. Andy Andy March 4, 2016

    Thomas L. Knapp said: “I don’t have anything against former Republicans per se. It’s just that if they were Republicans last week and this week they’re running for president as a Libertarian, I tend to be somewhat more skeptical about them.”

    How about John McAfee, who was a Republican (at least as of 2013, and possibly beyond then), then formed the Cyber Party last year, and who recently joined the Libertarian Party and is running for the party’s presidential nomination?

  51. Caryn Ann Harlos Caryn Ann Harlos Post author | March 4, 2016

    ==I don’t have anything against former Republicans per se. It’s just that if they were Republicans last week and this week they’re running for president as a Libertarian, I tend to be somewhat more skeptical about them.==

    I tend to more skeptical of people who now claim they have been completely supportive of the LP since 2008 yet were campaigning for Republicans less than a year ago and now try to rewrite their history.

  52. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 4, 2016

    Andy,

    Well, I’m the one who discovered that he identified as a Republican as of 2013.

    And I’m the one who brought it to your attention and the attention of other people that he identified as a Republican as of 2013.

    And I’m the one who publicly asked him to explain when he stopped being a Republican.

    So unless you’re retarded or something, I’d say your question kind of answers itself.

  53. George Phillies George Phillies March 4, 2016

    At the end, we have the nominees who we have, or NOTA, and those are the available choices.

  54. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    Still not seeing anything that indicates that John McAfee has a background as a libertarian from before he recently declared for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

    I’ve seen a few statements from him that indicate a few pro-liberty views, but still not enough to say that he was a libertarian, especially in light of him espousing a few non-libertarian views, and in light of him self identifying as a Republican (without a qualification that he was a libertarian Republican) as recently as 2013, and since he established the Cyber Party last year, and tried to get on the ballot under that party’s banner.

    Can anyone out there post some links that show McAfee’s background as a libertarian, if any such links exist?

    I am likely to be a delegate in Orlando, and I am undecided on a candidate at this time. If none of the candidates are able to win me over, I may cast a write in vote, or I may vote for None Of The Above.

  55. William Saturn William Saturn March 6, 2016

    Andy,

    What’s stopping you from voting for Darryl?

  56. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    “William Saturn
    March 6, 2016 at 02:55

    Andy,

    What’s stopping you from voting for Darryl?”

    My problem with Darryl Perry is his lack of organization and lack of fundraising. Part of running a campaign is building an organization and raising money.

    Perry also does not have much name recognition outside of libertarian circles. He’s one of the co-hosts of Free Talk Live, but I don’t know how many people listen to Free Talk Live, or how many would recognize him from the show (Free Talk Live has multiple hosts).

    I don’t vote for candidates just based on fame show. If candidates were the same or very close on issues, I’d vote for the more famous candidate, but if the more famous candidate has flaws on issues/philosophy or character or something else, then I will be swayed to vote for the less well known candidate.

    Perry has put a self imposed fundraising limitation on himself by not accepting Federal Reserve Notes and by only accepting crypto-currencies and precious metals. I actually do think that this is kind of a cool idea, but the only problem is that even among libertarians, not everyone uses crypto-currencies or precious metals, and even out of ones who do, they may think that a lot of people will not donate for this reason, and this could cause them to not donate.

    If between now and the national convention, Darryl Perry could somehow demonstrate that he can build a campaign organization, and that he can run a more active campaign (as in not just talking to people who are already libertarians), and that he can raise a decent amount of money (by Libertarian Party standards), then this would greatly increase the odds that I’d vote for him at the national convention.

    If Darryl really wants people to donate to him in crypto-currencies or precious metals, he ought to find ways to make it easier for people to do these things. Like he could have a link on his site where people donate Federal Reserve Notes, but the Federal Reserve Notes get turned into crypto-currencies before they get to the campaign crpto-currency wallet. He could also work something out with one or more precious metal dealers where people send Federal Reserve Notes to the precious metals dealer, and then the dealer mails the precious metals to Darryl.

    Another thing that could be done is other people could set up a PAC, and/or a Super PAC, for Darryl W. Perry for President, and the PAC or Super PAC accepts Federal Reserve Notes and files with the FEC.

    Basically, if Darryl Perry could show me that he’s “got his shit together” and is running a real campaign (by LP standards), it would greatly increase the odds of me voting for him at the convention.

  57. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    ” crpto-currency wallet.”

    Should read, “crypto-currency wallet.”

  58. George Phillies George Phillies March 6, 2016

    ” Are you a Republican, are you a Democrat, independent, how do you describe yourself?” Beware false binary choices, especially when the choice actually was not binary.

  59. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 6, 2016

    “Still not seeing anything that indicates that John McAfee has a background as a libertarian from before he recently declared for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.”

    So even after I go to the trouble of posting some links AGAIN, you’re still going to pretend otherwise? You’re a piece of work.

    It’s one thing not to support McAfee. He’s my third choice and at the moment shows no signs of moving up in that ranking. But goddamn, why lie about why?

  60. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    That was just a few issues, Tom. A few issues does not make one a libertarian, and you of all people should know this.

    The jury is still out.

  61. Anastasia Beaverhausen Anastasia Beaverhausen March 6, 2016

    “He’s my third choice ”

    I could barely find ONE Libertarian to support in that motley group, much less a Plan B or a Plan C.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 6, 2016

    Andy,

    Yes, that was just a few issues. It was not, as YOU put it, “no evidence” or “still not seeing anything.”

    It’s one thing to not be convinced.

    It’s another thing entirely to pretend that your demand for convincing has gone entirely unresponded to.

    You keep doing the latter.

    I agree, the jury is still out. But real juries actually look at the evidence, rather than pretending that there isn’t any when there is.

  63. s s March 6, 2016

    McAfee is the LP’s Trump this election cycle.

    Darryl Perry started a party in New Hampshire. His campaign structure is amateur hour (bitcoin?).

    Shawna Sterling is a Republican.

    Gary Johnson is a Republican.

    Austin Petersen is a Republican.

    Although a very short and silent debater; NOTA is the best candidate for the LP.

  64. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 6, 2016

    Anastasia,

    Everyone’s mileage varies, doesn’t it?

    My first choice is None of the Above and my second choice is Darryl W. Perry.

    I may skip my first choice and support my second choice, especially if I think it will make a difference over multiple ballots, e.g. making sure that Petersen gets eliminated before Perry.

    My third choice is for when it comes down to Johnson vs. McAfee. It’s possible that either one would be a mistake, but at least McAfee would be a new and likely far more interesting/exciting mistake than Johnson, who’s a kind of dull and boring mistake we’ve already made once.

  65. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 6, 2016 at 13:29

    Andy,

    Yes, that was just a few issues. It was not, as YOU put it, ‘no evidence’ or ‘still not seeing anything.’

    It’s one thing to not be convinced.

    It’s another thing entirely to pretend that your demand for convincing has gone entirely unresponded to.

    You keep doing the latter.

    I agree, the jury is still out. But real juries actually look at the evidence, rather than pretending that there isn’t any when there is.”

    I am looking at the evidence, Tom. What I have seen so far is a few statements on a few issues that indicate a few libertarian – or libertarian leaning – stances. This is nice, but it is not enough evidence. I need to see a more complete libertarian package from McAfee.

    I have been involved in politics for a long time, and I’ve encountered a lot of people who made a few libertarian sounding statements, who later turned out to not be libertarians, or in some cases, they only turned out to be moderate libertarians, or quasi-libertarians.

    I listened to an interview recently with Ted Nugent where he sounded really good. The subject interview was mostly about gun rights, which is his signature political issue, but they touched on a few other things, and based on this interview, one could get the impression that Ted Nugent is a libertarian. However, if you look at where Ted Nugent stands on some other issues, you’d find that he is really more of a Republican, or a conservative, if you look dig deeper into his political stances.

    I could go back and cherry pick statements that Jesse Ventura has said over the years and make the case that he is a libertarian, but of course if these statements were combined with other statements Jesse Ventura has said, one could make the case that he is not a libertarian, or that he’s only a quasi-libertarian, or some kind of hybrid between a centrist and a libertarian (I’d say that he falls somewhere between the centrist quadrant and the lower portion of the libertarian quadrant on the Nolan Chart). I like Jesse Ventura overall, but he’s not what I’d call a solid libertarian, as in he holds some views that are libertarian, or that lean libertarian, but he also holds some views that are at odds with the Libertarian platform.

    I am still interested in learning more about John McAfee, and it is possible that he could end up winning me over at some people, but I have not seen enough evidence to indicate that I’m go to go to Orlando with the intention of voting for him to be our nominee.

  66. Andy Andy March 6, 2016

    “winning me over at some people”

    Should read, “winning me over at some point…”

  67. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 6, 2016

    “I need to see a more complete libertarian package from McAfee.”

    And I respect that entirely.

    What I don’t respect is continuing to pretend that NONE of the elements of that package have been presented to you, when some elements of that package HAVE been presented to you.

    At this point, McAfee strikes ME as “more” libertarian than any of the candidates except Perry. Not libertarian enough for me to go for a first ballot vote, but enough for me to choose him versus Johnson when and if it comes down to that binary choice. Not just because his non-libertarian positions are neither as ugly nor held on to as “pry them from my cold dead fingers” tightly as Johnson’s non-libertarian positions, but that’s one of the big reasons.

  68. Steven Wilson Steven Wilson March 6, 2016

    Voters are pretty stupid with short memories and all, but Gary Johnson has already re-invented himself twice.

    If Johnson runs another campaign as President, for what reasons should you expect a different outcome?

    McAfee, Perry, NOTA are all new nominees. That would be something, and it would count even more once the other parties nominees are set. It would bring in new press, fresh face (or acronym), as well as new ideas (or no ideas).

    Gary Johnson is just Gary Johnson. It happens to all serial candidates. He is already known.

  69. Andy Andy March 7, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 6, 2016 at 21:41

    ‘I need to see a more complete libertarian package from McAfee.’

    And I respect that entirely.

    What I don’t respect is continuing to pretend that NONE of the elements of that package have been presented to you, when some elements of that package HAVE been presented to you.”

    Well, we must have had some kind of communication problem, because I never intended to indicate that NONE of the elements of being a libertarian had been presented, what I meant was that while a few libertarian, or libertarian leaning, issues stances had been presented, I had not seen a record of a complete libertarian package being presented.

    “At this point, McAfee strikes ME as ‘more’ libertarian than any of the candidates except Perry.”

    Hell, I’m starting to wonder if maybe we should nominate Darryl W. Perry, in spite of his lack of campaign organization and fundraising. I see problems with Johnson, McAfee, Petersen, Kerbel, and Feldman, and the rest of the candidates are not even worth mentioning.

    I’ve got a feeling that there are too many moderates, and too many “Shiny thing worshipers” (as in people who are so awed by even minor celebrity status, that they will vote for the minor “celebrity” no matter how many flaws they have) in the party (or ate least who will show up at the convention) in order for Perry to win the nomination.

    “Not libertarian enough for me to go for a first ballot vote, but enough for me to choose him versus Johnson when and if it comes down to that binary choice. Not just because his non-libertarian positions are neither as ugly nor held on to as ‘pry them from my cold dead fingers’ tightly as Johnson’s non-libertarian positions, but that’s one of the big reasons.”

    McAfee may or may not end up being better than Johnson, but just to play the role of cynic, how do you know that McAfee’s sudden issue changes are just telling libertarians what they want to hear so he can win the nomination?

    Out of candidates who are likely to win, and at this point I’d eliminate Kerbel and Feldman from that list, I do not want to see Petersen win, and I’m not wild about the prospect of a second Johnson campaign, and I’m not sold on McAfee (at least not yet). This leaves Perry, although, due to the reasons I listed above, he is probably not likely to win either.

    I see a scenario where it could be either Johnson, Petersen, or McAfee. If it is one of those three, those of us here who are not supporting them could just hope that most of the public who finds out about or pays any attention to their campaigns does not notice any of their flaws as candidates which concern people like us.

  70. Andy Andy March 7, 2016

    “Steven Wilson
    March 6, 2016 at 22:53

    Voters are pretty stupid with short memories and all, but Gary Johnson has already re-invented himself twice.

    If Johnson runs another campaign as President, for what reasons should you expect a different outcome?”

    Well, in theory, Gary Johnson could build on what he did last time as a candidate for President, and be more successful this time. If that would actually happen is open to speculation.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 7, 2016

    “how do you know that McAfee’s sudden issue changes are[n’t] just telling libertarians what they want to hear so he can win the nomination?”

    I don’t know that.

    On the other hand, I thought Harry Browne turned out to be a fairly good candidate despite his sudden changes just to win the nomination (on matching funds in 1996 and a flat tax in 2000).

    And I’d rather have a candidate that changes his anti-libertarian positions to get the LP’s nomination than a candidate who gets the nomination in 2012 without changing his anti-libertarian positions, then holds on to those anti-libertarian positions for four years and comes back around to get the nomination a SECOND time without changing them.

  72. Andy Andy March 7, 2016

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 7, 2016 at 00:10

    ‘how do you know that McAfee’s sudden issue changes are[n’t] just telling libertarians what they want to hear so he can win the nomination?’

    I don’t know that.

    On the other hand, I thought Harry Browne turned out to be a fairly good candidate despite his sudden changes just to win the nomination (on matching funds in 1996 and a flat tax in 2000).”

    I followed Harry Browne’s campaigns in 1996 and in 2000. Harry’s position on the income tax was to eliminate it and replace it with nothing. He also advocated radical cuts in government spending, and shutting down all government agencies that were not specifically authorized by the Constitution, and bringing all military forces stationed outside of the country back home. His plan for Social Security was to liquidate it by purchasing private retirement accounts for all of those who were dependent on Social Security, as well as for those who were getting close to retirement age. He wanted to sell off unconstitutionally and/or unnecessarily held government assets, and use the proceeds from that to liquidate Social Security and pay off government debt. IF it turned out that enough money could not be raised to liquidate Social Security and pay off government debt, then he proposed a either a temporary 10% flat income tax, or a 5% national sales tax, which would automatically be repealed after 2 years, and could only be extended for another two years with a super majority vote in Congress, to be used to liquidate Social Security and pay off government debts.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 7, 2016

    Just a tidbit, but it goes back to 2012:

    Lam
    November 24, 2012 at 6:24 am
    Unrelated, but I read somewhere you were a libertarian, John. Is that true?

    No worries if you want to keep your politics secret; just curious.

    John McAfee
    November 24, 2012 at 11:55 am
    I am.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp March 7, 2016

    “I followed Harry Browne’s campaigns in 1996 and in 2000. Harry’s position on the income tax was to eliminate it and replace it with nothing.”

    Yes, it was — after he proposed a flat tax and Libertarians remonstrated with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.