You can run a right wing, loudmouth, ignorant asshole as long as he hits some of the concerns of middle America.
But you'll never run someone with his background, no matter how smart he is. The conservative voters (and I'm thinking the camo and nascar group here, ie 95 percent of the country) are still hung up on "drug bad", "white good" and other one-syllable talking points.
Supposedly McAfee antivirus software turned awful after being taken over by Intel. I don't have a source on that, but I've seen this sentiment in a few places.
The entire AMA is quite interesting, though he seems a bit paranoid indeed (on the other hand - if there's some truth in Belize government opressing him, I'm not surprised).
I know about this video, but I think opinions of users who used this software back when McAfee actually worked on it (who apparently left company mid-nineties) would be more trustworthy than his own claims. I've tried some googling, but couldn't find anything.
Hard to say either way. McAfee AV was heavily tied into the popularity of consumer desktops, so before Windows 95 and beyond, it was a tadpole compared to what it grew into.
Personally, I find that video chilling. This is a guy that may have murdered someone in cold blood, and here he is pointing a gun in the camera's face like it's all a big joke.
It's strange how if you have enough charisma people will rally behind you no matter what you've done.
He also hacked the people accusing him of murder and exposed them for who and what they are. Google it and evaluate it for what it is, instead of just believing what the press feeds us.
"My accessory tools are mostly extremely strong espresso and research chemicals from China that are classed as "Smart Drugs". They allow me to solve 2nd order partial differential equations in my head and to spontaneously create 4 dimensional images of software structures that I can mentally manipulate."
It's not an article; it's an interview. The questions are not satire, but his answers surely are.
He said that last one because he was being harassed by the government in Belize. Apparently they later shot his favorite dog and his house mysteriously burned down soon after. So it's not relevant to the question but a public reminder that he's not defenseless.
In fairness, a man who replies to a Redditor's question on his favourite hobby with "fucking with authority" just before launching his Presidential campaign probably isn't too worried about appearing like a serious politician...
I am not an US citizen, but I have more faith in him as a president than any other of the candidates, after all you should trust him he is, sort of, an engineer
Are you kidding? So what if he's an engineer? The guy's a lunatic and this is nothing more than some weird publicity stunt. It's a cry for attention, nothing more. This whole race has become a circus.
Humor is not intellectually stimulating, and has been optimized away in favor of elitist posturing. Memes are for the normals on Reddit. Hacker News is serious business.
Not quite. I think that HN is such a diverse group, its hard to tell sarcasm from a straight answer. Especially in a text forum. So its darned confusing.
Sure, because this article is the most serious in the world... and all the HN post are extreamly serious... come on dude, re read yourself, you are talking about "normals" what are you, some kind of godlike being?
Stock markets go up and down, so what? Governments can only do so much to keep the economy positive. The real problem with China is repression of its citizens and the complete lack of protections and "safety nets" that is taken for granted in civilized western nations. I don't think that has anything to do with leadership being engineer-heavy rather than lawyer-heavy.
Yup and their human rights and pollution records are excellent, too :) </s>
People forget that civic leadership is a requirement for running a country. Just like managers have to "herd cats," politicians have to herd a more diverse group of roles. I'm not trying to garnish sympathy for politicians, I just want to point out that their requirements are not easily translated from any one field, such as real estate, engineering, business leadership, chemistry, etc.
Also, their decisions are constantly compromises. Most people cringe when they have to compromise b/t two things such as cost and quality. Politicians typically compromise b/t about ten things like: legacy, human rights, quality of life, cost, reputation, longevity, state of relationships at local, county, state, region, national and international level, etc, etc. They even have to compromise against themselves in order to stay in power. It would make me completely ill to have nearly all of my decisions play out with a near 10% net efficiency :)
We can make it look like McAfee is saying even more ridiculous things than he actually says! All we have to do is MITM a reporter's computer while they're at a coffee shop, send them a link to that site, and have them believe they're reading the real site while we make it seem like it has offensive content! Totally worth it!
Relax, McAfee is just trolling. As is Trump. It's either just for the sake of trolling or some sort of distraction strategy, i.e. making all "real" (and still crazy/bad/horrible candidates) look less crazy/bad/horrible by being an even worse joke oneself.
Plus, in the US, your cat can run for President. It means absolutely nothing.
> Plus, in the US, your cat can run for President. It means absolutely nothing.
Legally? Only if your cat is over the age of thirty-five and is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The age requirement is a tough one...I believe that would make your cat the Ralph Hall of feline politicans.
Can the cat get on the ballot? I imagine every locality requires people on the ballot to be eligible to take the office in question, so no.
But we're not even at that stage yet. Right now, "running for President" is nothing more than an announcement that a person is doing so. It's one of those actions that you can perform merely by stating that you're doing it, like "I apologize" or "I order you to ...."
And on that note, I'm running for President too. Unlike most cats, I'm actually eligible, so I have that going for me.
I am guessing that probability is close to zero. The presidential race is a multi-stage contest. Trump happens to be good at working the current stage, but his current actions will eventually catch up to him later. I used to be a big fan of the show Survivor. Russell Hantz had a similar run: twice in a row he made it all the way to the end, but because of how he got there he could not actually win the grand prize. Trump is similar: he is going to pull a lot of stunts, get lots of attention and spend lots of money. Then the rubber meets the road and he'll lose. The real question is whether he is going to be the Republican nominee, because if he is then they'll be handing the victory over to the Democrats. My guess is that like many vanity candidates before Trump, he'll fizzle out before the primaries, but if he does make it even more hilarity will ensue.
How much did you bet at what odds did Trump won't become president? Surely it's a wise investment strategy, given how certain you seem to think the future is.
Odds are something like 15:1, so if you think it's 150:1 - or more - that's a 10x certain return. It's a no-brainer, in that case.
The point is that talk is cheap. Of course it's more likely that he won't become president, but don't rule out the chance that he might. If you do, it'd be wise to put your money where your mouth is.
I generally don't gamble, that's why I didn't bet any money on this race, or any other. In fact, I don't even know where/how one would place such a bet.
You are right, talk is cheap and I am just shooting my mouth here, like everyone here.
I put some money on Trump at 11:1 so I'm estimating the probability at higher than that. Scott Adams has a mildly entertaining series of blog posts on why he thinks he'll win. Roughly that he's good at persuasion techniques. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128552964506/the-outsider-expla...
One reason I think he may do it is that he's spoken out against the carried interest exemption for hedge funds. It seems obviously fair that hedge fundies should pay as much or more as doctors and nurses and the like but the mainstream politicians don't touch it because they want the campaign contributions and are scared of them funding their opponents instead. I'm hypothesising that the voters are fed up with their representatives being bought by wealthy special interests.
Both Clinton and Sanders are also in favor of closing the carried interest loophole, and Clinton campaigned on it in 2008, too. It's a commonplace position in the Democratic party. "Mainstream politicians don't touch it" should probably be "mainstream Republicans don't touch it".
I haven't figured out exactly what Trump is doing but I'm sure it's in no one's best interest but his own. The sad part is, I think that's true for everyone with the exception of Bernie Sanders who, unfortunately, is about as electable as a wet blanket.
Bernie Sanders has a long history as a public servant and advocate for the people. He doesn't have a legacy of corruption, self interest, exploitation, profiteering, deception or scandal that you find in all the other candidates. He tries to be a good steward of the tax payer's money from his walking to work instead of being driven in a limo, to his work on the Senate Budget Committee.
He doesn't strike me as having ulterior motives like every other candidate out there right now.
Unfortunately he lacks the charisma, command, and authority necessary in a President and I think his handling of the OA 206 protesters at his Seattle Rally is pretty telling of how he'd flounder in that role.
Like I said in my other reply. I think he lacks the charisma, command, and authority necessary in a President and I think his handling of the OA 206 protesters at his Seattle Rally is pretty telling of how he'd flounder in that role.
It can't be president unless it's 35 or older (and a citizen of the United States, which is also difficult for a cat) but I don't know of any age requirement for running.
Trump is a fairly serious candidate now. No, I don't think he'll get the nomination, but I think there are going to be a lot of backroom deals here to make sure he doesn't run third-party and spoil the election for the GOP. I'm sure some more "legitimate" members of the GOP are trying to get his endorsement as well, which will strengthen his negotiation position.
What he's trying to get is unknown, but he may get something like a cabinet-level position. Secretary of State Donald Trump should give all voters a moment of pause.
I don't see the argument that Trump is trolling. He's spent considerable time over the past several years injecting himself into the political debate, which now seems like his clear intention was to position himself as a viable candidate for the presidency.
He's also reaching a point in his campaign where he's spending considerable time preparing himself for the primary season and will also need to start spending considerable money.
It's hard to really see why he would do all this in order to make Jeb Bush seem "less bad". If you recall the 2012 primary, there were a similar number of candidates, but the person who won was the most moderate of them, Mitt Romney. However, in 2012, there was never really on "outsider" as popular as Trump. I think it's less apt to compare Trump to Herman Cain than it is to compare him to the runs of Steve Forbes or Ross Perot.
Trump's current popularity might be completed related to the fact that he isn't coming from a political background and isn't acting like a politician. Mark Cuban said he doesn't necessarily support Trump's positions, but does support the idea that we need more people like Trump involved in politics.
How is Trump worse than Hillary? So Americans on either side live in some echo chamber that makes them ignore their own crazies? Maybe it's not an American trait now that I think about it :-)
99 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadYou can run a right wing, loudmouth, ignorant asshole as long as he hits some of the concerns of middle America.
But you'll never run someone with his background, no matter how smart he is. The conservative voters (and I'm thinking the camo and nascar group here, ie 95 percent of the country) are still hung up on "drug bad", "white good" and other one-syllable talking points.
If I think of McAfee three things come to mind:
So if he is to have any chance he should really be spending all his money in the PR department...As for some murder scandal, I think it makes sense to check out his side of story: https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/3hr9f0/i_am_john_mc... https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/3hr9f0/i_am_john_mc...
The entire AMA is quite interesting, though he seems a bit paranoid indeed (on the other hand - if there's some truth in Belize government opressing him, I'm not surprised).
[NSFW] https://youtube.com/watch?v=YpRvaQsGIY8
McAfee was only bought by Intel in 2011, it was getting worse and worse for years before that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpRvaQsGIY8
Anyway, given how the field looks likely to shake out, I might just vote for him as a default option.
It's strange how if you have enough charisma people will rally behind you no matter what you've done.
No wait, don't imagine it, watch it happen in this 1998 episode of the Ruby Wax show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwYctVDQFqQ
Is this for real? It sounds like a parody.
"My tools for national security consulting are primarily a semi-auto .22 rifle with a silencer."
"I also do my most productive security designs while having extended sex."
"My favorite real-time software is the XM153 remote control software that comes standard with the XM153 50 caliber machine gun."
It's not an article; it's an interview. The questions are not satire, but his answers surely are.
Unfortunately, for unfunny people, it's easy to confuse this with "no humor allowed."
>has become
They seem to be way more competent running their country than bunch of lawyers ru(i)nning US.
People forget that civic leadership is a requirement for running a country. Just like managers have to "herd cats," politicians have to herd a more diverse group of roles. I'm not trying to garnish sympathy for politicians, I just want to point out that their requirements are not easily translated from any one field, such as real estate, engineering, business leadership, chemistry, etc.
Also, their decisions are constantly compromises. Most people cringe when they have to compromise b/t two things such as cost and quality. Politicians typically compromise b/t about ten things like: legacy, human rights, quality of life, cost, reputation, longevity, state of relationships at local, county, state, region, national and international level, etc, etc. They even have to compromise against themselves in order to stay in power. It would make me completely ill to have nearly all of my decisions play out with a near 10% net efficiency :)
What do we really need for a leader? A leader. A consensus builder. A decision maker. And inspiration.
https://mcafee2016.com/
Edit: this was the link from the article. My bad, no https.
It also has instructions how to register for voting an opponent theoretically might want to sabotage in order to deny him some votes.
These two things are basically the only content of the site.
Sounds like an antivirus.
Plus, in the US, your cat can run for President. It means absolutely nothing.
The age requirement is a tough one...I believe that would make your cat the Ralph Hall of feline politicans.
Can the cat become President? Clearly not.
Can the cat get on the ballot? I imagine every locality requires people on the ballot to be eligible to take the office in question, so no.
But we're not even at that stage yet. Right now, "running for President" is nothing more than an announcement that a person is doing so. It's one of those actions that you can perform merely by stating that you're doing it, like "I apologize" or "I order you to ...."
And on that note, I'm running for President too. Unlike most cats, I'm actually eligible, so I have that going for me.
Odds are something like 15:1, so if you think it's 150:1 - or more - that's a 10x certain return. It's a no-brainer, in that case.
The point is that talk is cheap. Of course it's more likely that he won't become president, but don't rule out the chance that he might. If you do, it'd be wise to put your money where your mouth is.
You are right, talk is cheap and I am just shooting my mouth here, like everyone here.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-president...
Lots of people taking bets.
It's a peer to peer platform. Approx £500k punted on the US president so far on betfair.
For what it's worth Nate Silver thinks he has no chance.
One reason I think he may do it is that he's spoken out against the carried interest exemption for hedge funds. It seems obviously fair that hedge fundies should pay as much or more as doctors and nurses and the like but the mainstream politicians don't touch it because they want the campaign contributions and are scared of them funding their opponents instead. I'm hypothesising that the voters are fed up with their representatives being bought by wealthy special interests.
He doesn't strike me as having ulterior motives like every other candidate out there right now.
Unfortunately he lacks the charisma, command, and authority necessary in a President and I think his handling of the OA 206 protesters at his Seattle Rally is pretty telling of how he'd flounder in that role.
That's working out pretty well for Trump. McAfee doesn't have the giant personal warchest Trump has, of course.
> Plus, in the US, your cat can run for President.
Only if it's 35 or older, which is unlikely.
What he's trying to get is unknown, but he may get something like a cabinet-level position. Secretary of State Donald Trump should give all voters a moment of pause.
He's also reaching a point in his campaign where he's spending considerable time preparing himself for the primary season and will also need to start spending considerable money.
It's hard to really see why he would do all this in order to make Jeb Bush seem "less bad". If you recall the 2012 primary, there were a similar number of candidates, but the person who won was the most moderate of them, Mitt Romney. However, in 2012, there was never really on "outsider" as popular as Trump. I think it's less apt to compare Trump to Herman Cain than it is to compare him to the runs of Steve Forbes or Ross Perot.
Trump's current popularity might be completed related to the fact that he isn't coming from a political background and isn't acting like a politician. Mark Cuban said he doesn't necessarily support Trump's positions, but does support the idea that we need more people like Trump involved in politics.
This is the sort of guy they can rally around and at least keep him up in the polls.