Adam Kokesh endorses McAfee for Libertarian nomination

[r3volution 3.0]

Kokesh hitched his train to Ron Paul too.........

Kokesh violently attacked Rand, among many other sins.

I don't consider Kokesh an ally in any sense.

He's a "shock-jock" who values being edgy over doing anything positive for the libertarian movement.

Him endorsing McAfee confirms my suspicion that McAfee is the "edgy" or "cool" candidate, but not the one to get things done in November.

 

[dannno]

It mostly boils down to the Belize thing. Conflicting reports coming from McAfee and the Belize Government about the reason he fled and what he was really doing in the country.

You trust the Belize Govt?

 

[bunklocoempire]

Two guys who have had some intimacy with the law, their rights have been clearly trampled and they are resisting in a way that will probably benefit themselves.

I have no issue with that. The Rand opinions and some other opinions of Adam rubbed/rub me the wrong way, but hey, resisting and making a living isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

EDIT: Rand PUSA 2016 -The Mud Pit was a strange beast, it's like trying to figure out why using a spork didn't work to eat a can of beans, other than maybe the reporting on the can of beans being eaten was obviously horrendous and skewed.

 

[tod evans]

Kokesh violently attacked Rand, among many other sins.

I don't consider Kokesh an ally in any sense.

He's a "shock-jock" who values being edgy over doing anything positive for the libertarian movement.

Him endorsing McAfee confirms my suspicion that McAfee is the "edgy" or "cool" candidate, but not the one to get things done in November.

Do whatever you like but I'm not going to discount McAfee because somebody I don't care for supports him...

Now if McAfee were supporting Kokesh I'd give pause...

 

[Spikender]

You trust the Belize Govt?

No but we have no facts, only McAfee's word and the corrupt Govt's word.

Obviously I value McAfee's more. Doesn't mean I can't have my doubts and misgivings about it since we don't have the full story or evidence.

 

[younglibertarian]

No but we have no facts, only McAfee's word and the corrupt Govt's word.

Obviously I value McAfee's more. Doesn't mean I can't have my doubts and misgivings about it since we don't have the full story or evidence.

I do agree with this. I wonder how the true story could be revealed.

 

[Krugminator2]

To recap, McAfee had sketchy story about fleeing Belize after his neighbor was murdered a few days after his neighbor killed McAfee's dogs.

McAfee came to US. Married a prostitute. Was arrested on a weapon's charge and a DUI. Decided to run for President. Hired a serial liar and felon who among other things was convicted of passing bad checks and forgery to run his campaign and become business partners with. Decided to get into the cybersecurity business. Partnered with a plumber who developed a free anti-malware app and who was also recently arrested. Decided to take the cybersecurity company with zero revenue public. And now has a net worth on paper greater than $100 million through his involvement in a massive pump and dump scheme. And the major stockholders along with McAfee also have sketchy pasts.

Seems like a good candidate for Preside-- I mean prison.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[tod evans]

To recap, McAfee had sketchy story about fleeing Belize after his neighbor was murdered a few days after his neighbor killed McAfee's dogs.

McAfee came to US. Married a prostitute. Was arrested on a weapon's charge and a DUI. Decided to run for President. Hired a serial liar and felon who among other things was convicted of passing bad checks and forgery to run his campaign and become business partners with. Decided to get into the cybersecurity business. Partnered with a plumber who developed a free anti-malware app and who was also recently arrested. Decided to take the cybersecurity company with zero revenue public. And now has a net worth on paper greater than $100 million through his involvement in a massive pump and dump scheme. And the major stockholders along with McAfee also have sketchy pasts.

Seems like a good candidate for Preside-- I mean prison.

In otherwords compared to the R&D offerings he has a stellar reputation...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Do whatever you like but I'm not going to discount McAfee because somebody I don't care for supports him...

I was discounting him for other reasons.

Practical reasons, nothing personal or ideological.

I just don't think he appeals to the right sort, if the goal this cycle is (as it must be) to hit historic vote totals for the LP.

...that he appeals to someone like Kokesh only confirms this, to my mind.

(and, no, I'm not saying everyone who supports McAfee is like Kokesh)

Now if McAfee were supporting Kokesh I'd give pause...

Indeed!

 

[younglibertarian]

Kokesh violently attacked Rand, among many other sins.

I don't consider Kokesh an ally in any sense.

He's a "shock-jock" who values being edgy over doing anything positive for the libertarian movement.

Him endorsing McAfee confirms my suspicion that McAfee is the "edgy" or "cool" candidate, but not the one to get things done in November.

Him attacking Rand makes him more credible in my opinion.

 

[cajuncocoa]

To recap, McAfee had sketchy story about fleeing Belize after his neighbor was murdered a few days after his neighbor killed McAfee's dogs.

McAfee came to US. Married a prostitute. Was arrested on a weapon's charge and a DUI. Decided to run for President. Hired a serial liar and felon who among other things was convicted of passing bad checks and forgery to run his campaign and become business partners with. Decided to get into the cybersecurity business. Partnered with a plumber who developed a free anti-malware app and who was also recently arrested. Decided to take the cybersecurity company with zero revenue public. And now has a net worth on paper greater than $100 million through his involvement in a massive pump and dump scheme. And the major stockholders along with McAfee also have sketchy pasts.

Seems like a good candidate for Preside-- I mean prison.

Murderers, prostitutes, lying, sketchy past....sounds like the majority of people who run for president. What's different about McAfee is what he wants to do if he gets there.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Him attacking Rand makes him more credible in my opinion.

That makes your opinion less credible in mine.

 

[younglibertarian]

That makes your opinion less credible in mine.

I just think so because he realized that he wasn't fully libertarian and wasn't afraid to say it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I just think so because he realized that he wasn't fully libertarian and wasn't afraid to say it.

Intentionally undermining Rand's campaign because he was only 98% libertarian was not brave, it was stupid.

Well, it was stupid if the goal was to reform the government in a libertarian direction.

It was prudent if the goal was to promote one's brand to a certain niche market of permanent contrarians on the internet.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Intentionally undermining Rand's campaign because he was only 98% libertarian was not brave, it was stupid.

Well, it was stupid if the goal was to reform the government in a libertarian direction.

It was prudent if the goal was to promote one's brand to a certain niche market of permanent contrarians on the internet.

I was critical of Rand at that point too. And looking back on it, I think that was Rand undermining himself. During that time, he was trying desperately to cozy up to Republicans who would have never voted for Ron, by trying to make them believe he was as far from Ron on positions as a son could be....but in doing so, he was rolling the dice that his Dad's supporters either wouldn't notice this, or that we wouldn't matter that much, since he would/should gain more voters than he would lose. Unfortunately for Rand, the whole strategy backfired. He lost a lot of Ron's supporters, and never did pick up enough from the mainstream GOP voting bloc to make as good of a showing in the 2016 primaries as Ron did in 2012. (Don't take this to mean I don't like Rand... I don't and never did like that strategy. Whoever advised him to do that should be fired from future campaigns IMHO.)

 

[younglibertarian]

I was critical of Rand at that point too. And looking back on it, I think that was Rand undermining himself. During that time, he was trying desperately to cozy up to Republicans who would have never voted for Ron, by trying to make them believe he was as far from Ron on positions as a son could be....but in doing so, he was rolling the dice that his Dad's supporters either wouldn't notice this, or that we wouldn't matter that much, since he would/should gain more voters than he would lose. Unfortunately for Rand, the whole strategy backfired. He lost a lot of Ron's supporters, and never did pick up enough from the mainstream GOP voting bloc to make as good of a showing in the 2016 primaries as Ron did in 2012. (Don't take this to mean I don't like Rand... I don't and never did like that strategy. Whoever advised him to do that should be fired from future campaigns IMHO.)

Basically what I think.

I like Rand but his "lukewarm" libertarian strategy was utter garbage.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

Intentionally undermining Rand's campaign because he was only 98% libertarian was not brave, it was stupid.

When Rand Paul threw his father under a bus and endorsed Romney, that was stupid.
When Rand Paul decided to throw away his fathers base that voted for the man that would stand by his principles, and instead pandered to the middle, that was stupid.

I donated money to Ron, I stood in the rain at my polling location with my 5' hand made sign for 8 hours for Ron.

I wouldn't even give rand the time of day, let alone money or my time, he acts like your typical washington pandering piece of shit..

 

[younglibertarian]

The point is there is a fine line between right and wrong. People are attracted to a man they can pin down like Ron.

When Rand Paul announced I was extremely cautious. I thought of how he shot the liberty movement in the foot with that endorsement of Romney and other establishment republicans. However I decided I would give him a chance.

I logged onto his official campaign site and looked at the "Issues" tab. I saw this section on Israel and how they were our most important allies in the middle east and how Rand would support them at all costs.

In the debates when confronted on ISIS and foreign policy he seemed to only talk about us funding isis (which is important) but never come out with a solid stance on non-interventionism.

Rand has some good points, and yes he probably would be better then Trump or any republican running this year. But Rand is not the leader of the liberty movement. He seems more like a leech to me, riding of the success of his father. We need someone who can rally us. We need someone who STANDS on the issues and will not budge just for the sake of "electability."

I'll defend Ron and his message to the death. I'll walk through hell and back.

I draw the line at compromise. Don't expect the grassroots movement to get behind your campaign if you do not stand firm in your principles.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Him attacking Rand makes him more credible in my opinion.

IMO, Rand's way of resisting is playing a political game. It's how he chose to roll, against ideas that have a propaganda machine to counter his every move. Adam (or others) criticizing it, is like whining that Logan Couture playing a hockey game, isn't hitting enough home runs -wrong game fellas.

The idea of a one size fits all strategy, is more prevalent than I'd ever expect to find with free men. lol