John McAfee would rather have sex with whales than debate other candidates for LP Presidential nomination again

13173892_609960389160145_2107267768085659537_n Screenshot of John McAfee’s explanation of why he will not participate in a debate with other candidates seeking the LP nomination for President on Russia Today, or other debates planned at the remaining state LP conventions this year.

At this time, Gary Johnson is also not scheduled for the RT debate, although I have not seen an explanation from his campaign or any statement that he would definitely not be in the debate or other debates.

Earlier this year the Petersen and Johnson campaigns made a big deal about Gov. Johnson not agreeing to participate in the Stossel debate on Fox Business Network because he had a prior commitment to a debate at a state party convention, but the debate was rescheduled and Johnson participated.

Facebook post is here.

H/T Michigan Standard

129 thoughts on “John McAfee would rather have sex with whales than debate other candidates for LP Presidential nomination again

  1. Joshua Fauver

    So, what we have learned this far is that John McAfee isn’t serious about winning the Libertarian Party nomination and Gary Johnson couldn’t care care less about putting his face and name on T.V. where people can hear him talk about his ideas. Boy, great times for the Libertarian Party.

  2. Dave Terry

    Wang Tang-Fu.
    :One thought on “John McAfee would rather have sex with whales than debate other
    candidates for LP Presidential nomination again”

    This must be because he speaks through his “blow hole”!

  3. Matthew Cholko

    McAfee had a very good shot at my vote several weeks ago. But, he has talked himself out of it.

    Johnson didn’t have much of a shot at my vote, and has done nothing to change my mind.

    For the nomination. I’ll likely be voting Perry, then NOTA, if it gets that far. Of course, I’ll support whoever the nominee is in the general. It seems unlikely that I’ll be doing so enthusiasticly though.

  4. Shivany Lane

    The above mentioned and pasted post from John was meant as humor. You know, like have a little humor. I know his humor can be a little odd sometimes, however he has been recovering from a pretty nasty flu.

    As I mentioned in the other post on this very site, he already had a previous engagement scheduled. His prior engagement, like Gary Johnson’s, cannot be changed, however RT is able to change theirs. They don’t have to do it live, they could tape it like Stossel did.

    Give the guy a break. He’s 70 years old, new to this whole politics thing and the convention is 3 short weeks away. And RT had no interest in third party debates until after it was apparent that Trump was going to be the Republican nominee. If Cruz were still viably in the primary race, they wouldn’t even care. Though at a certain point, it would still be mathematically impossible for Cruz to get the votes he needed he still could have continued on like Sanders is so that he had more bargaining power when it comes to other party business.

    I bet some of the Republican establishment wish they had super-delegates like the Democrats do right about now.

    As far as Johnson is concerned, haven’t you heard him tell you that he has already won? Yeah, apparently the convention is all just political theater so us delegates, who are paying way more money than we can afford right now, can give the illusion that Gary Johnson being crowned as the candidate was done democratically. When the truth is that us peons and our votes do not really matter. It hearkens back to the good old days when the Party establishment types would make these decisions in a smoke filled room like good ole’ boys should. And us gals shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about such things.

    I mean after all, he was a governor twice. He was a crappy governor and ran as a Republican, but lets not quibble over silly little details. Did you know he climbed Mount Everest?

  5. Dave Terry

    “and Gary Johnson couldn’t care care less about putting his face and name on T.V.
    where people can hear him talk about his ideas. Boy, great times for the Libertarian Party.”

    Perhaps you would prefer Donald Trump as our candidate!

  6. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    It sounds like this previous engagement is a good use of the Mr. McAfee’s time and will probably be good for his cardiovascular health.

    The whales are certainly large enough to take care of any undue annoyance and likely would not notice the activity in any case. The gentleman might consider taking a box of fish with him, to break the ice.

  7. Austin Cassidy

    This does sound like Mr. McAfee is getting bored with this whole running for president gag. Probably time to drop out of the race and announce to the media he’s solved cold fusion. Tell everyone he is moving to Madagascar to begin production of a new facility that will provide free electricity for the entire world.

  8. Austin Cassidy

    On the other hand, I don’t blame any of the Libertarians for ditching RT America. It is a joke network with practically zero American audience and there’s nothing to be gained from appearing on the propaganda outlet of the Russian government. Waste of time.

  9. Bud Fein

    “As far as Johnson is concerned, haven’t you heard him tell you that he has already won?”

    Honestly, no. Anyone have links to print or video or audio of him saying that anywhere?

    “The above mentioned and pasted post from John was meant as humor. ”

    Well, I would hope so, LOL. But you say he did have a prior engagement. I am mildly curious as to what that would be.

    I can understand that from the candidates’ point of view the debates are boring and repetitive. But you also have to consider the audience perspective as well. Right now the LP is experiencing a new spike of interest from the general public following Trump becoming the Republican presumptive nominee. A lot of people are paying attention who were not paying attention when the Stossel debate was held. Also RT has a lot more viewers than Fox Business. If they participate(d) in the debate it would bring the party, and whoever the nominee will end up being, off to a lot of new people who will not see or hear it otherwise.

    Right now is the time to maximize on the window of attention that the LP is getting and the candidates are not doing themselves or the party any favors if they turn down (inter)national media network exposure at this crucial time just because they are bored and tired of debating each other. Hopefully Johnson and/or McAfee will change their minds about participating. Hopefully it’s just a case of miscommunication and rearranging schedules. We shall see. If I was a delegate, I would eliminate any candidate who is already giving up on debates because they are tired of repeating themselves from consideration. They will clearly not work as hard as they could or should once they become the nominee if they are already slacking off before even getting the nomination.

  10. Austin Cassidy

    “Also RT has a lot more viewers than Fox Business. ”

    It has far, far fewer viewers than Fox Business. A fraction of a fraction.

  11. Bud Fein

    ” It is a joke network with practically zero American audience and there’s nothing to be gained from appearing on the propaganda outlet of the Russian government. Waste of time.”

    I’ve seen it on local cable lineups around the country. Probably at least as often as Fox Business. There are also many American voters abroad and I have seen RT clips shared frequently by many, many Americans living in the US from youtube, facebook and other social networks. They are clearly Russian government propaganda, true, but their coverage of American politics is often better than that of US networks. And Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is no better than the Russian oligarchs or their pet gangster government.

    If the LP candidates think they are too good and/or too big for RT they are clearly delusional and should be considered to thereby signal that they are not serious.

  12. Bud Fein

    “It has far, far fewer viewers than Fox Business. A fraction of a fraction.”

    700 million is the number I have seen for RT. Granted most of that is in other countries, but there are a lot of Americans living and working there. I have very rarely seen Fox Business in most cable lineups. And I see RT clips passed around by Americans on social media. I doubt whatever sources you are using for viewership include that, since how exactly would you measure it?

    Given the higher level of interest in the party and its candidates right now, when you include people reposting and forwarding the debate I bet it would get more viewers than the Stossel debate if it includes the leading candidates for the nomination.

  13. Bud Fein

    “It sounds like this previous engagement is a good use of the Mr. McAfee’s time and will probably be good for his cardiovascular health.

    The whales are certainly large enough to take care of any undue annoyance and likely would not notice the activity in any case. The gentleman might consider taking a box of fish with him, to break the ice.”

    LOL. Still early but so far you have my vote for comment of the day.

  14. Austin Cassidy

    Saying RT reaches 700 million people is like saying IPR reaches 350 million Americans, because that’s how many could theoretically find it on the Internet.

    The normal business model for cable networks is to charge the cable companies a fee per subscriber that carries it. ESPN might be $1.50… while Fox Business might be $0.08 per subscriber. The networks also sell advertising on top of that.

    Some start-up channels offer themselves free to cable carriers for a time and rely on ad sales alone while building an audience at a loss.

    Russia Today pays cable and satellite companies to carry it. It’s main distribution in the United States is through Dish Network, and a scattered number of smaller cable systems.

  15. Austin Cassidy

    Here’s some leaked Nielsen ratings data for prime time and full day viewing on the top 100 or so cable networks in the United States. This is a week in April of this year.

    Al Jazeera America, a network that was in the process of shutting down, drew the lowest measurable ratings with an average of only a few thousand viewers at any time. Russia Today is unmeasurable.

    Fox Business Network draws around 80,000 viewers in these measurements.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/309716676/Cable-Ranker-Week-of-April-11-2016

  16. Bud Fein

    “Saying RT reaches 700 million people is like saying IPR reaches 350 million Americans, because that’s how many could theoretically find it on the Internet.”

    In that case it would be way more than 700 million since there are a lot more people than that online worldwide. And I can’t even count how many times I have seen RT clips shared online, on social media and other websites.

  17. Austin Cassidy

    Well at that rate, have an IPR sponsored debate on YouTube then and share those clips. That’ll reach the actual audience of Libertarian delegates far better than RT America.

    Their TV audience is nonexistent. Russia Today is the personal propaganda outlet of Vladimir Putin. I think you could argue that he is one of the least Libertarian figures in the world at the moment and associating with RT America brings no real benefit to Gary Johnson, John McAfee, or the Libertarian Party at large.

    They co-hosted a third party debate in 2012, and that was nice. But the LP has graduated beyond that level of fringe media, as evidenced by the Fox Business debates. Leave RT in the rear view mirror.

  18. Bud Fein

    “Well at that rate, have an IPR sponsored debate on YouTube then and share those clips. That’ll reach the actual audience of Libertarian delegates far better than RT America.”

    It won’t reach the potential LP voters, members and donors nearly as well as RT would, although that’s not a bad idea. Anyone at IPR want to try to put it together?

    ” Russia Today is the personal propaganda outlet of Vladimir Putin.”

    Well, what I’ve seen of their US coverage has been good, better than US networks. And I have seen tons of Americans sharing it online. Mr. Putin is not a very nice fellow, but as far as I know he is not incredibly stupid either. Why would he waste so much time on a TV network if no one watches it?

    “I think you could argue that he is one of the least Libertarian figures in the world at the moment ”

    He’s almost as bad as Rupert Murdoch. May be a close race between them for who is worse.

    “associating with RT America brings no real benefit to Gary Johnson, John McAfee, or the Libertarian Party at large.”

    Yeah, why would they want more people than watched the Stossel debate paying attention to them right at the moment when they are finally ready to do so? After all they are constantly deluged with larger media networks covering them and who has the time? And it would be stupid of them to associate themselves with a network like RT that has been critical of US interventionism overseas and surveillance at home, unlike Mr. Murdoch’s Fox, which has been the preeminent cheerleader for such things.

  19. Bud Fein

    “Mr. Putin is not a very nice fellow, but as far as I know he is not incredibly stupid either. Why would he waste so much time on a TV network if no one watches it?”

    My apologies. I meant to say money, not time. I doubt he spends much time on it.

  20. Austin Cassidy

    I think we’re just going around in circles.

    If you enjoy KGB-TV, please continue to watch it. If you want to believe, despite the actual ratings, that it has some huge American audience… I guess that’s fine too.

  21. Nicholas Sarwark

    “Mr. Putin is not a very nice fellow, but as far as I know he is not incredibly stupid either. Why would he waste so much time on a TV network if no one watches it?”

    My apologies. I meant to say money, not time. I doubt he spends much time on it.

    Like government projects around the world, it’s not Mr. Putin’s money that’s being spent. It’s the Russian taxpayers’.

  22. Wes Wagner

    Well McAfee may have just earned my vote in our primary. He at least recognizes how silly the rank and file of the national party are.

  23. Derrick Michael Reid

    That is to funny! But I agree. The LP Johnson – Petersen PANDERBATES are a huge waste,
    not much more than an LP informercial.
    Climbing Mountains or living next to the town of Liberty, is … well you know.

    There is no substantive analysis, just cute sound bites, pander, and shallow responses.
    If you want a credible analysis, start here, but one wonders if libertarians can handle the truth.
    If anyone dares and wants to hear the truth about the LP prospects,
    there is one sure path to the White House.

    Libertarian Party 2016 US Presidential Election Victory
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/home/lpvictory

    A powerful and compelling set of campaign lecture videos have been created for the Libertarian Party delegates, so as to demonstrate clearly why Derrick Michael Reid is the only choice for the Libertarian Party for president, if a national victory is actually sought, raising the LP to a viable competitive third party, for increasing our liberties and freedoms from government, as a necessary liberty counterbalance to the totalitarian socialistic fascist DC implemented by the two pandering political machines, enslaving all Americans as tax mules, perpetual debtors, and state dependents. It is incumbent upon any serious libertarian to fully understand the presidential candidates, for making the right choice, as less would tend to stagnate the LP even more than it already is. This campaign lecture series, in total, is accurate and powerful for understanding of the state of the country, the state of the LP and the 2016 presidential election cycle.
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/lectures/td-lectures

    (#028 will ROCK YOUR WORLDS, but its for mature adults only)

    LP State Convention speeches and pictures are linked on the home page of the campaign blog of Derrick Michael Reid for all libertarians to review and enjoy. It was a wonderful experience traveling about the country meeting libertarians nation wide, and much was learned about the state of the LP and prospects for winning the 2016 general presidential election.
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com

  24. Bondurant

    The small viewing audience of RT isn’t a concern. Their content still makes it out to other media like RT. I watch RT content quite frequently on YouTube despite having never seen the content on television.

  25. Matthew Cholko

    Clearly, their audience is quite small. But, it is far larger than the zero people that will be exposed to a debate that doesn’t happen. Probably more important, as has been noted, is the fact that debate clips make for good sharing material. Let’s also remember that this network is one of the very few that actually gives us some attention. Not attending their debate sure ain’t gonna encourage them to give us more coverage.

    The reality, GJ doesn’t get closer to the nomination by doing this debate. So, it’s not in his personal, short term interest to do it. As for McAfee, he seems to be going out of his way to not be taken seriously.

    I’m not holding my nose and voting for the lesser of 3 or 4 evils. If I wanted to do that, I’d be a D or R. I’m supporting Perry, as he seems to be taking this seriously, and putting out a consistent libertarian message. I haven’t had to make any excuses for him either (Thankfully, nobody has pushed me on his donation policy. When someone does, I guess I’ll have to start making excuses.)

  26. Matthew Cholko

    RT is also available over the air in a few markets (or, at least it was several years ago, when my sister worked for MHz Networks, their US distributor at the time). Not that that means much, but, if its still the case, RT does have the potential to reach a few people that may not see other media coverage of the LP.

  27. Roy Weller

    ” If you want to believe, despite the actual ratings, that it has some huge American audience… I guess that’s fine too.”

    It depends on what you mean by huge. Ratings don’t measure social media shares. It’s probably pretty significant compared to the number of people who have seen these candidates debate up til now, in part because timing matters. Granted, it’s not like having a debate on CNN or Fox (not Fox Business), but then I haven’t seen those being offered as venues. At least not yet. It’s certainly a larger audience than what you would find at LP state conventions.

  28. Roy Weller

    “Like government projects around the world, it’s not Mr. Putin’s money that’s being spent. It’s the Russian taxpayers’.”

    Granted. But again, he is not that stupid. Someone watches it or he would not spend that much money, regardless of whose money it is. The number of times I see it shared online also indicates that quite a few people in the US are watching, even if relatively few of them are doing so on broadcast channels.

  29. Roy Weller

    “Well McAfee may have just earned my vote in our primary. He at least recognizes how silly the rank and file of the national party are.”

    The Republicans and Democrats endured dozens of debates with each other too. You think they didn’t get tired of the repetition? It’s what you do when you are a candidate. If you are lucky enough to be offered a venue. If you get bored so easily and can’t take the repetitiveness, do yourself and everyone else a favor and don’t run. Just stop. Because, if you are lucky, you will be asked the same questions over and over as the nominee. How quickly will you get bored then?

  30. Roy Weller

    “RT is also available over the air in a few markets (or, at least it was several years ago, when my sister worked for MHz Networks, their US distributor at the time). Not that that means much, but, if its still the case, RT does have the potential to reach a few people that may not see other media coverage of the LP.”

    Good point. And it still is. I’ve seen it on cable just recently.

  31. Austin Cassidy

    So the TV network has no real audience, but the online arm is the real key. Everyone loves RT America’s YouTube channel apparently.

    Let’s see how many millions of views Libertarian videos are getting over there…

    https://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica/search?query=libertarian

    They seem to be about as popular as Augustus Invictus’ goofy fireside chats. Maybe Gary Johnson and John McAfee should allow August Invictus to moderate a debate for his YouTube channel?

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsdPzJBJYQlsKigw_3XTqJw/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0

    Hey, it’s more than zero viewers. If that’s the standard, then there are a lot of YouTubers who should be lining up to host LP Presidential debates.

  32. Andy

    I have not jumped on board the McAfee bandwagon, but I will say that McAfee was starting to grow on me, but this comment of his about not wanting to participate in debates, and his comment about quitting the party if Johnson gets nominated (therefore showing a lack of commitment to the party), are not impressing me.

  33. Russ Woodall

    “So the TV network has no real audience, but the online arm is the real key. Everyone loves RT America’s YouTube channel apparently.

    Let’s see how many millions of views Libertarian videos are getting over there…”

    They get posted on lots of other accounts besides the official RT America account. Then there are facebook videos. Also how do youtube views get counted…when a youtube is posted on other sites does the view get counted?

    “They seem to be about as popular as Augustus Invictus’ goofy fireside chats.”

    I’ve heard about RT for years and years and seen many people sharing their clips. I’ve never heard of Invictus until his goofy Senate run and then it was nothing good. RT actually has very nice, professionally produced shows that could impress whatever people do see them, at least if the LP candidates don’t embarrass themselves … but that is not up to RT.

  34. Joe Wendt

    Assuming the RT debate excludes Feldman & Perry, I actually agree with McAfee on yet another debate. Gary Johnson has proven time and time again that 1) he’s horrible at debating (throwing tantrums over his record/debt, embracing jews being forced to make Nazi wedding cakes, etc) & 2) likes to over sell that he’s climbed a mountain. Petersen always brings up that she supports anything within the bounds of the Constitution, as flawed as that is (under Petersen’s logic, we could declare war on Ireland because Congress decided it wanted to exterminate gingers; which technically is Constitutional, not necessarily sane or & Libertarian, but given that Petersen’s only requirement is that the act be “Constitutional” demonstrates why he’s unfit for the office). McAfee is within his right to abstain from debating soley Johnson & Petersen, because it is a waste of time.

  35. Dave Terry

    When the lights are off, you won’t believe the number of rats and other ‘varments’
    crawl out of the woodwork!

    On
    Rabbi Bruce Cohen offers the above hit piece on Gary Johnson.
    He writes: “Gary Johnson is wrong for this job. He comes across alternately as bored, tired, stoned or giggly. He blinks his eyes like he’s in a dust storm, shrugs his shoulders randomly and repeats himself. Gary appears to not have a stage coach and little or no background in this very important skill.
    Compare this to Austin Petersen. Austin went to School for this. Literally. He has many years
    experience acting in plays, musicals and commercials as paid talent. He’s been a successful screenwriter and producer. Austin is confident, likeable and prepared. The camera loves him and so do the pyramids of women outside his stage door. Austin is just as good on the attack as he is on defense.”

    I have the perfect solution to this quandary; Let’s have Johnson play Johnson as the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate during the election process and have Mr. Peterson play Johnson in the movie version.

  36. Al Grossman

    “Assuming the RT debate excludes Feldman & Perry, ”

    It definitely includes Perry. I think Feldman too but I need to check.

    “Rabbi Bruce Cohen”

    When did Bruce Cohen become a Rabbi? That’s news to me.

    “The camera loves him and so do the pyramids of women …”

    Pyramid power!

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Including online engagement as opposed to actual television, RT America seems to be reasonably competitive with Fox Business, and it probably has the advantage in terms of reaching people who are not already firmly in the tank for one of the major parties.

    Yes, RT is Russian state media. That has up sides and down sides.

    The down side is the possibility that Libertarian candidates will be negatively identified as pro-Russian or something. That seems a kind of strange concern — why would people who are anti-Russia be watching to notice?

    The up side is that with respect to AMERICAN politics, RT seems more inclined to a broad inclusive view than either US state media (e.g. NPR, PBS, RFE, AFRN) or US “mainstream” media.

  38. Russ Woodall

    Knapp has it right @ 21:13. And then considering that more people are paying attention to the LP than when the Stossel debate happened, Johnson and McAfee are just shooting themselves and whoever the nominee ends up being by refusing to participate.

  39. Thane Eichenauer

    > Yes, RT is Russian state media. That has up sides and down sides.

    I am amazed that people that are all worried about the onslaught of Islam are also just as worried about the onslaught of Russia. There is such a thing as being too worried about too many things. Which is the bigger worry?

  40. Ralph Gordon

    As far as appearing on a TV network neither one. I would say go ahead and take those slots on RT, Al Jazeera, and even that foreign Australian wanker’s Faux News. Hell I would not even turn down the Clinton News Network. Bring them all on, the more the merrier. Infowars? Yep. Glenn Beck? Yep. PBS? Yep. BBC? You bet. Do them all and let the viewers sort them out.

  41. langa

    I don’t know enough about domestic politics in Russia to judge, but when it comes to foreign policy, I don’t think RT is any more biased toward Russia than American cable news networks are biased toward the U.S.

  42. Ralph Gordon

    It’s Kremlin propaganda when it comes to Russian politics, and pretty good when it comes to American politics.

  43. Austin Cassidy

    Meanwhile, Gary Johnson just did a 5 minute hit on “This Week” on ABC, a show that draws around 3 million viewers weekly.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gary-johnson-2016-race-real-opportunity-libertarian-party/story?id=38956151

    http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/sunday-show-ratings-may-1-2016/292885

    So if Johnson did a Russia Today debate that was watched live by 4,500 people on TV and then, being optimistic, a YouTube clip was viewed by an additional 20,000 people. Well, let’s see… that would be approximately 1/120th as much reach as this single interview. Or something like that.

    Back to my original point — it’s not worth flying somewhere and putting on a suit for the micro-audience RT is offering. If McAfee or Johnson don’t want to waste their time with garbage media like RT America, I can’t see how any objective person could really blame them.

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    Austin, Cassidy, I will disagree with you. I’m very active on Facebook, and Russia Today videos are a very good source of information. It clearly isn’t controlled by the mainstream media that controls what we hear in the US. Of course, I realize that might have an agenda also, but it’s much easier to believe what they say because it usually appears to fit in with the rest of the events on our globe.

    There might not be quantity with them, but there is certainly quality.

    Another excellent alternate news source is Mint Press News.

  45. Andy

    A couple of other points about the Russia Today debate:

    1) The video of the debate will stay on YouTube for years, and could have an impact well after the election is over, as lots of people from all over the world watch YouTube videos.

    2) The type of people who would watch the debate are also the type who would be more likely to become activists.

  46. Tiffany Madison

    This was a joke. John is attending a hacker conference, Hack Miami, on that day. We informed the RT producer in early May when the conference could not switch John’s date to the 13th and RT could not move the date either. The fact that this obvious irreverent joke has been taken so seriously concerns me. I’m pulling my team off of working with candidates on our Vote Different initiative to write an actual press release clarifying that this was a joke.

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for clearing that up, Tiffany. Keep in mind that we don’t know Mr. McAfee, so writing a press release clarifying this is a good idea.

  48. Shivany Lane

    Thank you Tiffany.

    I knew he had another engagement but didn’t know the details.
    John posted this as a joke. I think he may have even taken it down but someone took a screenshot of it and made it turn into a much bigger deal than it needed to be. By the way, the foreign press seems to appreciate John more than the American press. Maybe it’s because they know the difference between a joke and something serious. Maybe it is because they still have a sense of humor. Mostly it has to do with his honesty. They respect his honesty.

    John is well known for his odd sense of humor and also being a prankster.

    Google “Observational Yoga”. for a taste of one of his pranks.
    Wow it now returns 377,000 hits. It isn’t real. It was a joke he played on a reporter. Yet real blogs reported it as some new thing. When John McAfee speaks, people listen and they report on what he has to say. That Google returned so many hits astounds me. I believe there is even an entry for it in Wikipedia.

  49. Tiffany Madison

    Thank you, Jill. That’s an excellent point. I apologize we didn’t produce that faster. I just took on campaign management three weeks ago. As you can imagine, I’ve slept maybe 50 hours since then. 😉

    We’ve spent that time building an actual infrastructure, on-boarding the highly talented and energetic volunteer team that had been waiting to be contacted since February, and reaching out to delegates that thought our campaign didn’t exist because it didn’t. We started with 0. We also built the first candidate database and soft launched a national survey that assess the actual pain points the Party experiences so we can work together to execute solutions.

    Our Vote Different initiative launches tomorrow and John is on Milo Y’s show, and we’ve been busy interfacing with candidates and cleaning up their database information, so we will include a press release on this and other goings on. Appreciate the encouragement. Cheers, and keep rocking. 🙂

  50. Stewart Flood

    When you are running for president, you don’t make jokes like this without experiencing a significant negative affect on your campaign.

    No one at the South Carolina convention appreciated it. It shows a complete lack of respect and indicates that he really isn’t serious. If he had a real reason, he should have just given it.

    I doubt at this point that he will get even as much support as Perry will in Orlando.

  51. Jeff Cottonwood

    I don’t really think it was taken seriously, Tiffany. It was reported exactly because it was humorous (at least I would guess). The point that Mr. McAfee makes is serious though: he’s sick and tired of debating the other candidates and hearing the same questions, answers, and applause lines over and over and over again. I do believe he seriously meant that. And he has been missing from a lot of LP events lately from what I understand, often due to repeat bouts of the flu, or schedule conflicts etc. I don’t think anyone seriously thought that he was off to have sex with whales. He was basically saying “I would rather (fill in the blank) than debate these guys again” where whale fucking was an obvious “fill in the blank.” But all humor aside the main point remains that he is sick of putting in the work that comes with being a candidate.

  52. Shane

    Austin is 100% correct on Russia Today. It’s a propaganda tool and is no different than appearing on the North Korean network.

    McAfee shouldn’t appear and whale fucking is a much better use of this time.

    There’s no need for further debates as for one, they’re not attracting new supporters as no one watches them and secondly, the only necessary debate is the one that will take place at convention.

    People should not get their panties in a wad over this decision, they should see it as proper use of time. When Trump did it, it was applauded as a smart, strategic move. When McAfee or Johnson do it, because most Libertarians don’t understand real world politics and campaigning, they see it as a personal slight.

    Time to grow up and get real.

  53. Bob Waller

    I think they should debate as much as possible because they need all the exposure they can get. RT coverage of US politics has been excellent, regardless of what they do with Russian politics, which I don’t know much about. McAfee’s actual reason for not attending may well be valid, the HackMiami conference, not the whale screwing thing. Johnson doesn’t even feel like he needs to provide a reason at all, apparently, so I think LP delegates would be fully justified in counting that against him. I know I would if I was a LP delegate.

  54. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    No one could have taken McAfee’s remark as a serious suggestion. It did reveal something about his sense of what is appropriate along with with an outrageously fey sense of humor. And I think you are correct is saying he is tired of the endless repetition which comes with being a candidate. Being a candidate is both exhausting and repetitive. That is the job. This part of holding office is boring. Could it be different? Yes, but first the focus on federal government would have to change. The centralization of power and money are driving, along with the expectations of those whose votes are being sought.

    McAfee could individually call all the voters and activists to ask for their support. His videos are good, even inspiring but they do not present any plan of action.

    None of the candidates appear to be running to win office in November. I wish this was not since this is the best shot a freedom candidate has ever had – but so it is.

    A third party candidate or independent can win. But they have to hit the sweet spot and drive publicity and public interest on those issues. Absent a candidate, perhaps just using the issues something positive can be accomplished.

  55. James Welby

    “Being a candidate is both exhausting and repetitive. That is the job. ”

    Exactly. If you can’t overcome your aversion to that, don’t be a candidate. Withdraw.

  56. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Now, let’s not be petty. Why should they withdraw? Given the kind of campaigns being run it all falls under ‘entertainment’ any way. The absence of a learning curve it its own lesson.

  57. James Welby

    It doesn’t make sense to apply for a job if you are not willing to fully engage in the application process and/or can’t or won’t do the job if you do so happen to get it. The former being a good indicator for the latter.

  58. Andy

    The American mainstream media is also filled with propaganda, so should Libertarian Party candidates not appear on American TV networks either?

    Russia Today may well propagandize the Russians, but no more so than the American mainstream media propagandizes Americans, and if you take the time to watch some of Russia Today’s coverage of American politics, it is actually pretty good.

    Any opportunity to get the Libertarian message out is a good one, especially given that the mainstream American media has never given the Libertarian Party much coverage. So I do not agree with the candidates who skipped the Russia Today debate.

  59. Andy

    Being a candidate is a grind. If you can’t handle the grind don’t run for office.

  60. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    It is not true that a Libertarian candidate could not get major publicity from the MSM today. Our group could get that for a third party candidate or an independent. And we might be cutting a deal to do that soon.

  61. Jeff Cottonwood

    Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, they are applying for a job. Whether you or they think that job is actually to be President, or merely to get maximum publicity for the party by pretending to run for President, it’s still a job and not an easy one. Clearly it is a job that a number of different people want. The ones who are not serious about seeking it should clear the way for the ones who are.

  62. Jeff Cottonwood

    Andy is right again at 13:26. And Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, I look forward to seeing what your group comes up with.

  63. Andy

    No Libertarian Party candidate stands a chance of being elected President. It would take a $1 billion plus campaign budget to even stand a chance, and even then they would have to overcome vote fraud, and if they somehow made it through those hurdles, if the election is close, it would be decided in the US House of Representatives, where there are currently zero elected Libertarians.

    The purpose of the Libertarian Party’s presidential campaign is to build the party and movement. Winning would be nice, but is not realistic under the current conditions.

  64. Andy

    The Natural Law Party disbanded, but I would hope that we who are in the Libertarian Party have not reached the point where we are going to roll over and play dead.

    I for one do not believe that the Libertarian Party has ever come close to achieving its full potential.

  65. Stewart Flood

    I agree that RT may be a dangerous move. Who knows what questions they will ask or how it will look when they finish editing it for broadcast.

    But McAfee does appear to be getting tired of running. If he were to get the nomination, should we expect the same thing? How many events would he be willing (or able) to do? Would he stay active, take all the interviews he can get, make campaign stops (not everywhere, but enough), and do the other things a candidate must do? I’m not sure.

  66. Andy

    Stewart, it appears to me that you have never watched Russia Today. Their coverage of American politics is not anywhere near as bad as you are acting like it is here. They have actually had some good news stories that you won’t see much of in the American mainstream media (note that they have an American division with American reporters). Libertarian Party candidates have appeared on Russia Today, such as when Gary Johnson debated Green Party candidate Jill Stein in 2012, and no such editing as you are fearful of took place.

  67. Andy

    There is no Libertarian Party candidate that could be elected President in 2016.

  68. John Byrd

    My understanding is that the RT debate will be live. Correct me if I am wrong. Green Party portion is tonight so we can see for ourselves. And candidates should be prepared to answer all sorts of questions, although I know of no reason to presume RT would ask negative or biased questions. It seems to me that this is a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Whatever the Putin regime’s reasons behind it may be it seems clear from their track record that they want to promote a more genuinely multipartisan system in the USA. Maybe because other parties are promoting a more noninterventionist US foreign policy when compared with the Democrats and Republicans? But whatever the reasons are, McAfee and especially Johnson are turning down a good opportunity and helping Petersen in the process. Also Perry and Feldman, but they don’t have much of a shot regardless, so I think Petersen is the one in best positioned to take advantage of it.

  69. George Phillies

    But he will debate anyhow. Or so I am recently told by the campaign.

    Andy: I suspect if we nominate Clinton that our candidate will win. I did not advocate this idea.

  70. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Did you know the media used to call us to make sure they did not miss our tax protests in the 1970s?

    We used Halloween to pass out campaign literature. The candy was nice. too.

    Trick of Treat! Vote for Roger MacBride for President!

  71. robert capozzi

    sf: Who knows what questions they will ask or how it will look when they finish editing it for broadcast.

    me: Alway true on the first part. Is there reason to believe that RT would do 60-Minutes-type editing, designed to make a speaker look bad? Is this a practice of theirs?

    Personally, I’ve watched a few RT segments and they seem opinionated, but not especially so. The production values seem pretty OK. Yes, I’m a bit suspect of some hidden agenda of theirs, but for an LP prez debate? Not so much.

  72. robert capozzi

    aj: I for one do not believe that the Libertarian Party has ever come close to achieving its full potential.

    me: Totally agree. Drop the SoP and NAP and make it open to all lessarchists, and maybe we have something useful. Let there be a NAP caucus rather than 89 20-somethings imposing it on all Ls, many from the grave.

  73. Andy

    My source who talked McAfee months ago, before he even switched to the Libertarian Party said that his plan as the Cyber Party candidate was to run a mostly online campaign and do little traveling. I told my source that I thought that was a bad idea.

  74. John Byrd

    “There is no Libertarian Party candidate that could be elected President in 2016.”

    Granted the odds are very low. But I would say not impossible.

    We have now entered a time when the Democrats and Republicans are at their lowest level of popularity ever and their presumptive frontrunners are more unpopular than any they have ever run before. They are hemorrhaging voter registration support, as more and more people identify as independents. Fewer and fewer states continue to have straight ticket party voting devices.

    SuperPAC funding allows any group that is unhappy with the major party nominees to promote a different candidate, for their own reasons, with essentially unlimited money. The whole campaign finance world has been changed by Citizens United and other court rulings.

    Social media has risen to the point that, if certain stories get enough traction online, the mainstream media is being essentially forced to cover them just to maintain their share of the news market, even if they would prefer not to. Their role as gatekeepers of information is increasingly slipping.

    So, given these facts, there’s an unlikely but plausible scenario where some donors who are not happy with the Clinton and Trump choices will promote the LP through a superpac, driving up voter recognition of the LP candidate to a point where they could qualify for the fall debates. At which point all bets could be off.

    I would still bet against this happening, but not nearly as heavily as a few years or even a few months ago.

  75. robert capozzi

    mpf: Is there a Libertarian candidate who could be elected?

    me: GJ would be a very long shot. But right now a lunatic megalomaniac and a felon stand the best chance to win, and that they are presumptive nominees, I say anything is possible this year. This is the first time since 1980 I’ve said that an L stood even a long-shot potential.

    Like RP1 before him, I don’t think GJ is actually equipped to do the job, and L bench strength is very, very thin. With a very, very good CoS and cabinet, maybe it could be pulled off. Not worth thinking about much, though, given the longshot nature of the task.

    Making Perot-type noise is the more feasible scenario, but even that would be quite difficult.

  76. Jill Pyeatt

    McAfee was interviewed outside of the New York convention the first weekend of this month. Whoever the reporter was asked him if he worries that the Belize police department will put a hit out on him. McAfee said, yes, he does, so he never goes out at night. Then he repeated NEVER.

    Isn’t this a fairly big deal? I’m surprised no one else has brought it up. How could he campaign as our candidate if he never goes out at night?

  77. Andy

    Robert Capozzi, I do not believe that the SoP or the NAP are the reasons for the LP never coming close to achieving its full potential, in spite of your obsession with these things supposedly being the reason for this.

  78. Dave Terry

    robert capozzi, May 9,

    Drop the SoP and NAP and make it open to all lessarchists, and maybe we have something useful.

    1. What is it about ‘AGGRESSION’ that you DON’T understand? WHY would you not condemn it????????
    2. How “– USEFUL” is a political party without PRINCIPLES?
    3. The LP IS open to ‘all lessarachists’; It is the ANARchists that should not be welcome!

    Let there be a NAP caucus rather than 89 20-somethings imposing it on all Ls, many from the grave.

  79. Andy

    If it even looked like a Libertarian Party candidate had a chance of being elected President, the “powers that be” would just rig the vote. They could even purposely send it to the US House, where there are currently zero elected Libertarians.

  80. Andy

    Jill brought up a very good point, which is can we have a candidate who can’t or won’t go out at night?

  81. Ralph Gordon

    “If it even looked like a Libertarian Party candidate had a chance of being elected President, the “powers that be” would just rig the vote. They could even purposely send it to the US House, where there are currently zero elected Libertarians.”

    Probably, but not necessarily. For one thing, Republicans don’t all support Trump, so maybe some of those Republican house votes would go LP. For another, there is increasing pressure to eliminate the electoral college system and go with the winner of the popular vote majority or plurality, so there would be some pressure on both the Republicans and Democrats to back the winner of the popular vote. You are also assuming that the powers that be would uniformly oppose the LP candidate, but it’s remotely possible that they may find a moderate libertarian like Johnson to be a lesser evil than Trump.

  82. robert capozzi

    dt: 1. What is it about ‘AGGRESSION’ that you DON’T understand? WHY would you not condemn it????????

    me: Because abolition of “aggression” would in my judgment be far too dislocative.

    dt: 2. How “– USEFUL” is a political party without PRINCIPLES?

    me: I’m for principles. Principles are helpful guides. I advocate for less government over time. That’s the definition of a lessarchist.

    dt: 3. The LP IS open to ‘all lessarachists’; It is the ANARchists that should not be welcome!

    me: As a matter of principle, I realized it was inappropriate for me, as a lessarchist, to be a member of a party that is committed to challenging a non-existent cult. And I just don’t buy the NAP as a useful analytical tool, but instead its only use is as a statement of sentiment.

    Have I not made this clear to you earlier? My apologies if I have failed to do so.

  83. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Those issues are:

    Stopping the electoral fraud which is endemic to elections today.
    Anonymous took care of this in 2012. Rove was very surprised. They him/her might be willing to do it again. Might even enjoy it.

    Ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. The fiasco with Ron Paul during the primaries showed what needs to be done.

    Forcing the media to come out. This is not hard. You just have to know what to do on what issues.

    And, of course, you need to keep the candidate alive. That takes specialized personnel which can be obtained using money.

  84. Andy

    The Republican establishment would rather have Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as President than any Libertarian.

  85. Andy

    Election fraud has not stopped. I’d bet that it has already happened this year.

    If it looked like a Libertarian candidate was close to winning the White House (as unlikely as that is), the CIA or somebody else would have their people fix the election.

  86. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    “Election fraud has not stopped. I’d bet that it has already happened this year.”
    Yes, elections were stolen from both Trump and Sanders. They were stolen electronically, which is a specialty for Karl Rove. Rove could have been contracted by Hillary for the purpose. Notice that the Bush Co GOP = Neocons, are moving toward support of Hillary as she is a corporate candidate.

    “If it looked like a Libertarian candidate was close to winning the White House (as unlikely as that is), the CIA or somebody else would have their people fix the election.”

    It would not be the CIA. They do wet work, not generally cyber interventions.
    The corporations (Both those controlling the GOP and Dem political parties) are very nervous because they can only steal the election if it falls within certain limits. This is also one of the reasons to do exit polls. When Bush stole Florida in 2000 it was a real squeaker for them.

    I dropped out of the LP in 1988 to study why it had not worked and what could be done to eliminate the problems. From there I got interested in organizational structures which provided stability and reliability. Centralized government provides neither and the LP has not worked as we hoped it would.

    There are issues both inside the LP which prevent it from being successful, and outside. But this year has amazing potential. It should not be wasted.

    If they want to kill you, they will. Did you think this kind of activity was without risk? Grow up.

  87. From Der Sidelines

    Derrick Michael Reid: whodahellareyou?

    Andy: “I will say that McAfee was starting to grow on me…” Some penicillin will clear that up quickly.

    Tiffany Madison: You need a better candidate. Boinking whales might win the bestiality and pepdophilia vote, and maybe even Aaron Starr and Bruce Cohen and a half-vote from M(idget) Carling, but it does nothing to improve the LP’s public standing. This is why us party veterans don’t take Belize BongoBoy seriously–not to mention that his software sucks anyway,

  88. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    “Aaron Starr and Bruce Cohen and a half-vote from M(idget) Carling”

    Hey! You left out Michael Emerling (Cloud) and others who belong in the same category, well defined by those already present therein.

  89. Andy

    Just to be clear, at the moment I am torn between None Of The Above, casting a write in vote, or voting for Darryl Perry.

    I will probably show up in Orlando undecided. None Of The Above or a write in vote as a protest are looking better and better each day.

  90. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    “Just to be clear, at the moment I am torn between None Of The Above, casting a write in vote, or voting for Darryl Perry.

    I will probably show up in Orlando undecided. None Of The Above or a write in vote as a protest are looking better and better each day.”

    Hard to disagree with you unless one of them, any of them, shapes up and gets serious.

  91. Andy

    Here is the Russia Today debate that was held in 2012 between Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Note that Christina Tobin from Free and Equal does the introduction to the debate.

    Stewart and the others who have poo pooed the idea of appearing on Russia Today should watch this.

  92. Dave Terry

    dt: 1. What is it about ‘AGGRESSION’ that you DON’T understand? WHY would you not condemn it????????
    rc: Because abolition of “aggression” would in my judgment be far too dislocative.

    In what way would abolishing “aggression” be ‘dislocative’? And WHY is that a problem? Shouldn’t those who are aggressive against their fellow citizens be separated from them?

    rc: : As a matter of principle, I realized it was inappropriate for me, as a lessarchist, to be a member of a party that is committed to challenging a non-existent cult.

    What “non-existent cult” are you referring to? If a gang of thugs broke into your home, shot your dog, raped your wife, kidnapped your child and escaped in your new car, would you consider an attempt to arrest them equivalent to “challenging a non-existent cult?

    Seriously, do you not concede that criminal acts are violation of the principle of non-aggression. Why do you think the term “victimless crime” exists?

  93. robert capozzi

    dt: In what way would abolishing “aggression” be ‘dislocative’? And WHY is that a problem? Shouldn’t those who are aggressive against their fellow citizens be separated from them?

    me: According to the NAP, taxation is theft. Most if not all government spending is based on “stolen” funds. Abolishing most/all government would be unwise, IMO. Rolling government back, otoh, is highly wise.

    dt: What “non-existent cult” are you referring to? If a gang of thugs broke into your home, shot your dog, raped your wife, kidnapped your child and escaped in your new car, would you consider an attempt to arrest them equivalent to “challenging a non-existent cult?

    Seriously, do you not concede that criminal acts are violation of the principle of non-aggression. Why do you think the term “victimless crime” exists?

    me: Jeez, I thought I’ve made this clear before. The first words of LP’s founders put forth is that they challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. It doesn’t exist, near as I can tell.

    Most of the criminal law on the books seems about right to me. Victimless crimes are not my favorite ones, and I’d support undoing those.

  94. Barry Swift

    Word has it that the Johnson campaign has been buying up hotel rooms and bribing delegates. They deny it, and proof has not yet surfaced as far as I’ve seen. In fact, it’s doubtful that they have the money to do so.

  95. Nicholas Sarwark

    Does anyone have a delegate count for the National Convention – or is it a ‘how many delegates can you buy deal’ this year? That was how Crane manged in in 1979.

    The last delegate spreadsheet I saw had 1,144 rows in it between delegates and alternates. The mathematical limit on delegates is 1,047, but not all states are sending full delegations and not all of those can add delegates at convention.

    My guess is that we exceed 900 credentialed delegates on the floor. It may be the biggest convention in Libertarian Party history or second only to Denver 1979.

  96. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Thanks for the information.
    1979 was at the Bonaventure in Los Angeles, a stone’s throw from Ed Clark’s office at Arco.

    I was Southern California Vice Chairman for the LPC at the time and LA County Chairman. I did the delegate count for Roger MacBride on the Hunscher delegates.

    Actually, now that I think about it, I wrote an article on the 1991 Convention in Chicago. It was sort of funny and includes some Libertarian history. Here is the link. http://adventuresinactivism.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

    The rules have changed some since then. Do you know how many credentialed delegates are new members?

  97. Russ Woodall

    I’ve never been to a convention myself, but I read that there were over a thousand in Anaheim, CA in 2000. Is that true?

  98. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Anaheim was big, but not as bit as the ’79 Convention. The Koch money paid for some huge events and the after parties and hospitality suites went on all night. The best event, for sheer joy and triumph, was the MacBride Victory Party in Los Angeles in November of 1976. It was the national event and lots of people flew in for it.

  99. Andy

    How many delegates were in Anaheim in 2000? I thought it was around 1,000 or something like that.

  100. Kareem Caliente

    Andy said: “There is no Libertarian Party candidate that could be elected President in 2016.”

    Obviously Andy has not watched the lectures of Libertarian frontrunner Derrick Michael Reid. Mr. Reid WILL be elected President unless the nomination is stolen from him at Convention.

    #StopTheSteal

  101. Andy

    I was one of the attendees in Anaheim. I had been in the party for 4 years at that point, and I could have been a delegate, but I was still new to attending party meeting (I only went to one prior to the national convention, and it was over a year before the convention, and I did not know how the delegate process worked at that time, so I just observed the convention and hung out.

    The candidates for whom I would have voted, Harry Browne and Art Oliver, ended up winning anyway. I was not that familiar with anyone who ran for the internal party offices at that convention, so not voting in those races was not that big of a deal to me at that time.

  102. Shawn Levasseur

    According to wikipedia, there were 878 ballots cast for the presidential nomination at the 2000 Libertarian Party National Convention.

    Note, there were different rules for delegate allocation back then that had a theoretical maximum delegate count of 1500, greater than the current 1100.

  103. Joey Berry

    I’m looking forward to finally being able to interact directly with delegates and other candidates (and I definitely have no plans to interact with aquatic life ala McAfee)…

    Gotta love the Libertarian Party.

    Of course, it would be nice if the lower tier candidates like me had a better opportunity to raise our voices before final decisions are made; I strongly suspect that the top three candidates will be deadlocked (with Johnson and supporters unwilling to support Petersen, McAfee unwilling to support Johnson, etc.) meaning a fourth choice will be needed for the Presidential nominee. Obviously, I am planning to fill the role but the outlook is slim with the current selection process (unless I have a publicity breakthrough).

    *I do find the attitude that there are only three LP candidates with a chance at the nomination to be somewhat anti-Libertarian (as the Political Free Market should be more efficient and adaptive than simply defaulting to mainstream choices).

    Joey Berry for President

  104. Jill Pyeatt

    Joey said: *I do find the attitude that there are only three LP candidates with a chance at the nomination to be somewhat anti-Libertarian (as the Political Free Market should be more efficient and adaptive than simply defaulting to mainstream choices).

    Joey Berry for President

    I don’t feel this is unlibertarian. At least one of the candidates has been campaigning for years for this nomination. We’ve tried to cover all the candidates here, but if the Libertarian public has chosen to support other candidates, that’s how the system works. You have had the opportunity to get your name and info out there. How long have you been running?

  105. Andy

    I have never heard of this Joey Berry guy, and i have been following this stuff closely for many years.

  106. Dave Terry

    Some ‘fruit” wrote:
    “I do find the attitude that there are only three LP candidates with a chance at the nomination to be
    somewhat anti-Libertarian (as the Political Free Market should be more efficient and adaptive than
    simply defaulting to mainstream choices).”

    Joey, I have bought and/or used many of your cousins in my life; STRAW berry, RASP berry, BLACK berry,
    BOYSEN berry, MARION berry, MULL berry, ACAI berry, BLUE berry, HUCKLE berry, CRAN berry, GOJI berry, GOOSE berry, LOGAN berry, LINGONberry, and SALMON berry.

    I do not believe that these are all examples of “mainstream choices”, so you will forgive me if I confess that I have NEVER heard of a “JOEY berry”! Perhaps, if you sent me a sample along with a recipe on how to prepare and serve them, I MIGHT give you some consideration.

  107. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    I thought the use of the word “anti-libertarian” was odd, too. There is a lot of range in the attributes of the candidates I have read about but this is not a kids birthday party game. The point is picking the best, most qualified, articulate, attractive, charismatic and focused candidate possible. The message should be pointed, pithy, compassionate, insightful and riveting.

    Actually, perhaps we should reshuffle. (Just kidding.)

  108. Dave Terry

    robert capozzi, May 10,
    ” According to the NAP, taxation is theft. Most if not all government spending is based on “stolen” funds. Abolishing most/all government would be unwise, IMO. Rolling government back, otoh, is highly wise.

    Robert, you wrote the above in response to my question, “In what way would abolishing “aggression” be ‘dislocative’? And WHY is that a problem? Shouldn’t those who are aggressive against their fellow citizens be separated from them?”
    Clearly, my question dealt with private acts of “aggression” against one’s follow citizens.
    Your RESPONSE seems to imply that you ONLY consider acts of GOVERNMENT against citizens to be violations of the NAP! Perhaps you could address the question that I actually WROTE.

    I ALSO ASKED….”dt: What “non-existent cult” are you referring to? If a gang of thugs broke into your home, shot your dog, raped your wife, kidnapped your child and escaped in your new car, would you consider an attempt to arrest them equivalent to “challenging a non-existent cult?

    Seriously, do you not concede that MOST criminal acts are violations of the principle of non-aggression. Why do you think the term “victimless crime” exists?

    RC; Jeez, I thought I’ve made this clear before. The first words of LP’s founders put forth is that they challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. It doesn’t exist, near as I can tell.

    When the LP was founded, we had a military draft. Capital punishment was still practiced in all but two states. Interracial marriage was still illegal in twelve states. AND the President of the United States STILL has supererogatory powers of foreign military intervention.

    THAT is what, the CULT OF THE OMNIPOTENT STATE entails!!!

    However the idea of NON-AGGRESSION is far broader that that!

    Most of the criminal law on the books seems about right to me. Victimless crimes are not my favorite ones, and I’d support undoing those.

  109. Joey Berry

    I would suggest strawberry shortcake, blueberry tarts, and blackberry jam…

    As far as preparing a Joey Berry, I would suggest basic voter’s due diligence.

    😉

  110. Joey Berry

    Jill Pyeatt wrote: ” I don’t feel this is unlibertarian. At least one of the candidates has been campaigning for years for this nomination. We’ve tried to cover all the candidates here, but if the Libertarian public has chosen to support other candidates, that’s how the system works. You have had the opportunity to get your name and info out there. How long have you been running?”

    First, I was not criticizing IPR and its coverage (which I have found to be exemplary).

    Second, as I said, “the attitude that there are only three LP candidates with a chance at the nomination”, is a failure of the Libertarian principle that people (with personal responsibility and important choices) and a [Political] Free Market can/will make better/best choices. How is ignoring other choices at the first chance to embrace a popular choice consistent with a fundamental Libertarian principle? How can Libertarian principles work if we defend bad habits and attitudes instead of embracing our responsibilities. I believe that my initial point should have been fairly clear (and was already effectively explained by the original parenthetical expression).

    For the vast majority of Libertarian ideals to be even close to attainable, personal responsibility must include due diligence. The best Libertarian choices may not be thrust into your face by large bureaucratic campaign staffs and huge advertising budgets. If they are, you should likely question the Libertarian values embraced by the candidate(s) or advertisers.

    *By the way, I was not making a complaint specific to my campaign as you seem to imply; I was simply making an observation. In any case, I have been disappointed by my failure to inspire more active supporters to-date [and the disappointment is sharper related to Libertarian apathy]. To answer your question, I only started public outreach a few weeks ago; I officially registered as a Presidential Candidate last August (with preparations several months earlier); otherwise, the characteristics that make me a reasonable Presidential Candidate were developed over a lifetime; the Libertarian drive to seek the office is direct experience with blatant court denial of individual rights in favor of Judicial Privilege (with the inherent Natural Law appointment to correct the Judiciary as my personal responsibility and President as one of few jobs with appropriate authority).

    **Thank you for opportunity to have a brief diversion.

  111. Dave Terry

    Joey Berry
    May 10, 2016 at 19:03

    I would suggest strawberry shortcake, blueberry tarts, and blackberry jam…

    WHAT? No loganberry wine?

Leave a Reply

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