Jump to content

McAfee Fleeing US; Will Run Presidential Campaign from a Boat


rkbabang
 Share

Recommended Posts

Almost makes me want to register to vote.

 

Crypto Proponent John McAfee Fleeing United States After Being Charged With Felonies by IRS; Will Run Presidential Campaign from a Boat

 

"We are today at war,” McAfee said in a two-minute Twitter video. “I have not paid taxes for eight years. I have made no secret of it …"

 

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea the guy is very bright, but he's also borderline insane, if not full blown insane. I remember seeing a story about how he more or less turned an entire South American town into his personal fiefdom. He had his own militia, his own distribution networks, and his own team of hookers who apparently would defecate in his mouth, at his request, and on demand. He is an interesting fellow to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belize. He also claims to have developed a method for turning meth or cocaine into some new Uber-sex drug, testing it on himself then selling it around Belize. Feel free to google if you’re in the mood for a crazy story.

 

The guy is essentially the libertarian pipe dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belize. He also claims to have developed a method for turning meth or cocaine into some new Uber-sex drug, testing it on himself then selling it around Belize. Feel free to google if you’re in the mood for a crazy story.

 

The guy is essentially the libertarian pipe dream.

 

No he's not. I'm libertarian, he's simply a lying scumbag. He's not very good at hiding it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea the guy is very bright, but he's also borderline insane, if not full blown insane. I remember seeing a story about how he more or less turned an entire South American town into his personal fiefdom. He had his own militia, his own distribution networks, and his own team of hookers who apparently would defecate in his mouth, at his request, and on demand. He is an interesting fellow to say the least.

 

Absolutely.  If we're electing crazies now, my vote is for the guy who admits to liking drugs and hookers, and hates taxes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

 

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

 

I didn't know you supported any of those?

 

Just support Rand Paul?

 

I don't support anyone.  But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

 

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

 

I didn't know you supported any of those?

 

Just support Rand Paul?

 

I don't support anyone.  But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

He would? Isn't he the closest to Libertarian ideals of any mainstream candidate in decades? I would like to know you don't consider him a step in the right direction.

 

Because he would be able to do nothing as president.  He thinks of himself as a "mainstream" politician and wouldn't rock the boat.  He isn't his dad.  He wouldn't go in there day one and start trying to end the Fed, close all the overseas military bases, and bring all the troops home.  He'd do little of anything that would result in real change.  Ron Paul as president would be a positive, he'd be unstoppable until the military industrial complex simply assassinated him.  Rand Paul, not so much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

 

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

 

I didn't know you supported any of those?

 

Just support Rand Paul?

 

I don't support anyone.  But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

 

+1, the system is broken and can't be fixed. Let it burn.  Politics follows culture.  The government which exists is largely the government people want.  The problem is that too many people identify with the state.  The thing that pisses people off most about Trump is that they are embarrassed by him and can't be proud of him being president. "Other countries are laughing at us", etc.  That is good, you shouldn't identify with the state at all.  You shouldn't be proud of your president or think that the president has anything at all to do with you.  Anything that separates people from personally identifying with the government is good.  This is why I try never to use the terms "my", "our", or "we" when talking about the government or the military.  I have nothing to do with what the military is doing or the government is doing, nor do you.  It is "the" government, not "our" government.  When I started hearing the leftists say "not my president"  I couldn't have been happier.  Now that is a step in the right direction.  You can't change the government without first changing the culture.

 

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."

-- H. L. Mencken

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

He would? Isn't he the closest to Libertarian ideals of any mainstream candidate in decades? I would like to know you don't consider him a step in the right direction.

 

Because he would be able to do nothing as president.  He thinks of himself as a "mainstream" politician and wouldn't rock the boat.  He isn't his dad.  He wouldn't go in there day one and start trying to end the Fed, close all the overseas military bases, and bring all the troops home.  He'd do little of anything that would result in real change.  Ron Paul as president would be a positive, he'd be unstoppable until the military industrial complex simply assassinated him.  Rand Paul, not so much.

 

Ok so incompetance. Tbh I don't think it's even possible to achieve libertarianism through democracy. And I prefer Paul (either really) over all the other clowns running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

 

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

 

I didn't know you supported any of those?

 

Just support Rand Paul?

 

I don't support anyone.  But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

 

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

 

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

 

+1, the system is broken and can't be fixed. Let it burn.  Politics follows culture.  The government which exists is largely the government people want.  The problem is that too many people identify with the state.  The thing that pisses people off most about Trump is that they are embarrassed by him and can't be proud of him being president. "Other countries are laughing at us", etc.  That is good, you shouldn't identify with the state at all.  You shouldn't be proud of your president or think that the president has anything at all to do with you.  Anything that separates people from personally identifying with the government is good.  This is why I try never to use the terms "my", "our", or "we" when talking about the government or the military.  I have nothing to do with what the military is doing or the government is doing, nor do you.  It is "the" government, not "our" government.  When I started hearing the leftists say "not my president"  I couldn't have been happier.  Now that is a step in the right direction.  You can't change the government without first changing the culture.

 

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."

-- H. L. Mencken

 

I appreciate your views because they are eons away from mine, and I'm trying to understand your perspective. If step 1 is blow everything up to smithereens (i.e. the Bannon model), what does that look like practically in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, institutions, government services? If it's more a matter of changing the culture, I think it's clear Trump has thrown a grenade on process and norms, but I'm hard pressed to see how him installing former lobbyists, industry folks, etc. in leadership positions is changing the underlying D.C. culture. In any event, what's step 2? What's the end game here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your views because they are eons away from mine, and I'm trying to understand your perspective. If step 1 is blow everything up to smithereens (i.e. the Bannon model), what does that look like practically in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, institutions, government services? If it's more a matter of changing the culture, I think it's clear Trump has thrown a grenade on process and norms, but I'm hard pressed to see how him installing former lobbyists, industry folks, etc. in leadership positions is changing the underlying D.C. culture. In any event, what's step 2? What's the end game here?

 

One minor point, is you mention "Washington culture", that isn't the culture I'm talking about.  Washington Culture will always be about big government getting bigger.  I'm talking about American culture.  Step 1 is getting people to not respect government, to not identify with government, and to not look to government to solve problems.  Step 2?  I don't know.  Has any government/empire in recorded history gotten significantly smaller and less powerful without either being violently overthrown (from the outside or in) or going through a massive financial collapse?  Theoretically it is possible in a Western Democracy/Republic, but in practice it has never happened.  I don't know what step 2 is?  Maybe halting the empire's further growth is the best we can hope for, because I don't think the powerful people in the deep-state/military industrial complex are going to give up power easily.  But halting the growth of leviathan would be an improvement to the status quo.  Would 330M Americans with almost 400M guns be willing to take it a step further?  I don't know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m curious how the anarchists here balance the good with the bad. Is a federal govt all bad? Where is the line? For example, what would have happened during WW2 had the USA lived in some anarchist/libertarian state?

 

"To invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle."

 

Whether or not Isoroku Yamamoto actually said this, it is true.  It is the reason Germany went out of their way to avoid Switzerland in two world wars.

 

But that aside, if the US hadn't intervened in WWI there would have been no clear winner. The fighting would have gone on until it ended in a stalemate.  There would have been no Treaty of Versailles with devastating consequences to Germany.  There would have been no rise of Hitler. And thus no WWII & no holocaust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But that aside, if the US hadn't intervened in WWI there would have been no clear winner. The fighting would have gone on until it ended in a stalemate.  There would have been no Treaty of Versailles with devastating consequences to Germany.  There would have been no rise of Hitler. And thus no WWII & no holocaust."

 

I am not so sure about that regarding WWI. Key was arrival of tank on battlefield and revised strategy by U.K., France, Canada, Australia to better integrate their troops and move artillery along with infantry (infancy of blitzkrieg). On the other hand, America surely helped reduce the length of the conflict.

 

Then in WWII if the U.S. had not intervened, Europe would be all Nazi or all Soviet.

 

So no, I don't think that your dream of troops always being at home or not existing at all is in the interest of our free world.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m curious how the anarchists here balance the good with the bad. Is a federal govt all bad? Where is the line? For example, what would have happened during WW2 had the USA lived in some anarchist/libertarian state?

 

"To invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle."

 

Whether or not Isoroku Yamamoto actually said this, it is true.  It is the reason Germany went out of their way to avoid Switzerland in two world wars.

 

But that aside, if the US hadn't intervened in WWI there would have been no clear winner. The fighting would have gone on until it ended in a stalemate.  There would have been no Treaty of Versailles with devastating consequences to Germany.  There would have been no rise of Hitler. And thus no WWII & no holocaust.

 

If I recall correctly there was bombing of Switzerland, both by Nazis and "allied forces".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might be drinking the stuff below I stead of Coke, and Bitburger instead of Budweiser,  if the US had not intervened in WW1 and WW2. Without a functioning government, the US might look like the US in the Amazon series, “The man in the high castle”,  I doubt that whatever # of guns are owned by US citizens really make a difference, when you have a real army rolling in with tanks, airplanes that is willing to raze cities and kill millions, if need to be.

 

home_sinalco.jpg

 

Or perhaps the Russians would have won, which would get us back to Stolchynaya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...