John McAfee

John McAfee's Dark Afternoon of the Soul at the Libertarian National Convention

Contemplating a nation, and a Libertarian movement, in mortal crisis, the antivirus pioneer plans to win even if he loses.


Friday at the first full day of the Libertarian Party National Convention, I found supporters of both Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen for president expressing confidence that things were going their way in the quest for the presidential slot. (Johnson's vice presidential choice William Weld, however, has very little independent love, and even people who told me they intended to pick him were doing so out of the belief they should give Johnson, their presidential pick, what he wanted.)

Fewer people, though, seemed loudly dedicated to voting for antivirus software pioneer John McAfee than I expected.

McAfee/Weiss Facebook

When I first caught up to John McAfee, generally considered to be the third serious contender as the convention began, on Friday, he kept striding (he was being taken by a New York Times team for a quieter place to talk), put his arm around me with his usual warm avuncularity, and assured me everything was going "perfectly."

I would have known that, he said, had I caught a presidential candidate debate Thursday night, which I had not as I was still in transit. (I later watched some video of it, in which he described the experience of running for the nomination as like "a five month acid trip" and openly declared that victory for the L.P. would mean helping the activists and lower-level candidates listening to him, but that "I don't believe any of us will become president" and that even if they did, the system would crush them rather than allow them to change things.)

Later I found McAfee, still surrounded by the media that churn like wavelets in his wake, sitting behind the table for U.S. Term Limits, signing a pledge to limit himself to just one term.

The McAfee I had spent some time with last week in Las Vegas told me he was certain he was going to win—though not at all certain how. Now he was talking about "the laws of physics changing, reality gets warped" as a necessary prelude to him becoming president.

About an hour after that I found him in his hospitality suite, talking to Tom Maciejewski, a delegate from New Jersey. McAfee was riffing on how the party needed to stop seeing something like an increase in votes "from half a percent to one percent" as any kind of victory.

Do small vote total increases, he asked us, get "taxes reduced or make the IRS disappear? Did it get the federal government to accept my body as mine, and that it's unjust to tell me what I can and cannot do? Did it get the NSA to stop spying? Then it's not a victory, it's zero." 

He starts talking more about the possibilities on "the local level—we are half a million strong." If those half a million all tried to do something smaller, that could be a victory. But he insists that "if we can't have a honest conversation about that simple concept"—that losing an election is losing—Libertarians are in trouble. "We lose soundly and convince ourselves we won. What madness is this? No!"

"We need to do sane things, like a military strategist. If we're not gonna win, can we slow them down? Blow up the bridge? We are half a million strong," he says again, adding that Libertarians need to come up with a way to sell themselves "that doesn't take two hours to explain, so the listener falls asleep."

He reels off a complicated metaphor about facing dark truths involving whether your wife is having an affair. "I have to accept the truth," he says. But in the face of concentrated Libertarian power, "I promise you, congressmen are going to be terrified and take action of some kind. The American people are made to feel powerless. That's the illusion [government sells], that we control you, we tell you what's right and wrong. We believe that, until you find that, no, 'I have the power.'"

He keeps on going. "We gotta fix this. And if we can't do it this year, when will we?"   

He seems alternately hopeful and depressed about the realities of the Libertarian Present. "We gotta stop lying to ourselves," he says. 

"The truth is this year at least there's maybe a 0.005 percent chance that any candidate on this [L.P.] stage wins the election. If we don't, if we get 20 percent, I promise you, if we don't do something to win in a real sense, this world is going to collapse." He tells me, as he's told me before, that if Donald Trump wins the election and follows through on his apparent intentions, he doesn't believe there will be another election.

At the same time, McAfee says that compromising "the principles that founded this movement" is not the way to accomplish anything. "If you are willing to accept compromise in order to win, then I can't stand with you. I know what compromise means. It means we become the same thing we are fighting against."

Noticing the unusual lack of bravado, I ask him if he still is confident he can win the nomination.

"That's the quickest way to do this in my mind," he says. "But if I don't, I'm still going to win, just in a different way. I will continue to move with the party. If someone else is nominated, we're still going to win. Let's win. Of course the nomination will be the simplest way. I'm old. I tire easily. But I'm not gonna stop. I'm not going to give in to frustration and fear. I will not let this go on to my children, on the backs of my blood. I will not do that. I'm not giving up."

NEXT: Food Policy and the 2016 Presidential Election

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now he was talking about “the laws of physics changing, reality gets warped” as a necessary preface to him becoming president.

    *waves to the waiter* Check, please!

    1. ‘ You can check out any time you want,but,you can never leave’.

      1. I hate the fucking Eagles man.

  2. Is that Lenin in the pic?

    1. “i am the walrus?”

      1. Like in Tusk?

  3. Do small vote total increases, he asked us, get “taxes reduced or make the IRS disappear? Did it get the federal government to accept my body as mine, and that it’s unjust to tell me what I can and cannot do? Did it get the NSA to stop spying? Then it’s not a victory, it’s zero.”

    He starts talking more about the possibilities on “the local level?we are half a million strong.” If those half a million all tried to do something smaller, that could be a victory. But he insists that “if we can’t have a honest conversation about that simple concept”?that losing an election is losing?Libertarians are in trouble. “We lose soundly and convince ourselves we won. What madness is this? No!”

    Once again, McAfee the only LP candidate speaking sense.

    1. It is a strange argument for the LP to make, since the only small level gains are made by running as libertarianish Republicans.

      1. Maybe, but Paul, Massie, and Amash are pretty solidly libertarian. Especially compared to Johnson’s VP pick. I still agree with the senior Paul, that the only way to see any political gains in the next decade or so, as far as elected representatives fighting for liberty, is to get libertarian candidates to run and win as republicans. Eventually, I think libertarians can run 3rd party and win. The 2 party system is weakening and it’s showing in this year’s presidential campaign. Neither Trump or Sanders are really republican or democrat (of course neither are even close to libertarian). There’s not going to be any big libertarian moment, it’s a long hard fight.

        1. Respectfully disagree. We need to change people’s minds and wake them up. Getting a high third party vote count has more significance than another single digit NO vote in Congress.

          1. But I have much respect for those guys.

  4. Pretty much off topic, but I can’t resist. Here is how CNN ends its column about the IG report on Hillary’s email issues. She (or Bill) couldn’t have said it better themselves.

    “Clinton violated the law, but committed no crime.”…..index.html

    1. I did not have crime with that computer e-mail thing

    2. I wonder how they’d end a column about a Koch brother avoiding taxes?

    3. That story is incredible derp to me. They repeat the lie that the FBI needs to prove intent (“that she knew that emails on her private server were classified and that she intentionally mishandled classified information”), then a paragraph later admit that no…intent isn’t needed under the law (they cite some nonsense about judges typically requiring such a burden of proof be met).

      How about this?
      In the end, extracting the truth in the Clinton email controversy in the current polarized political environment remains a nearly impossible task.

      Yea, I mean…we know she broke the law, but did she really break the law? We can’t just look at the letter of numerous laws.

      They then talk about this report like it’s out of nowhere to accuse Hillary of breaking federal records laws. I mean, we don’t even know if the FBI is investigating that…because clearly the FBI is clueless of the law.

      1. According to the recent depositions, Hillary didn’t even use a password to access the email account.

        1. Passwords aren’t the only, or even most secure way to protect a system.

    4. Despite the ocean of horse shit being spun about her I think most people are beginning to see her for what she is, i.e. a mediocre huckster. All the propaganda in the world won’t save her once people get it in their minds that she is a liar and her relentlessly heaping lie on top of lie is certainly helping people get that in their minds.

    5. And when the Department of Justice announces that it is not filing criminal charges — as is both expected and perhaps inevitable — Clinton will likely argue that it constitutes proof that she did nothing wrong.

      Well, she certainly won’t argue that it constitutes proof that the DoJ is as corrupt as she is.

    6. It’s only a crime for you peasants.

      They could have just added that line, if they weren’t biased lying assholes themselves.

  5. Libertarians need to adopt silmple but correct views of what it is about. Her’s mine.

    Libertarianism: The political belief in our social right to freedom of association over state-mandated ones.

    Fascism: the political belief in state-mandated associations as a means to achieve social goals.

    DONE !

    1. No. Vague mantras about open borders & weed are the true path to victory.

      1. Open borders are a socialist idea as they assume public property is public for the world … not merely the citizenry.

        1. You are of course correct.

        2. Closed borders are also a socialist idea, as they assume that government can control what you do with your property and who you can associate with.

          1. So you support doing away the state ? That’s ok. But don’t tell me you support the state but can’t accept state cpontrol

            1. I would like to eventually replace all govt services with voluntary subscription based businesses , but we are not ready for that yet.

        3. Oh shut up. The idea of border control is only libertarian if all property owners in the country agree to it. Good luck with that.

      2. I wasn’t talking about victory in the election or killing jews to get there or anything like that 😀

    2. Much too complicated. I call my philosophy “self control”: the right, and duty, to control yourself and your property, regardless of harm to self or distaste of others.

      Adjectives like “political” and “social” complicate things by implying higher meanings, and open up the principle of “freedom of association” to political and social contexts and limitations and purposes.

      1. Man is a social animal. I don’t doubt that even though people may have different views of what society is.
        The negative view of “social” has developed from the fact it was used to support social rights that contradicted individual rights.

        Freedom of Association is BOTH an individual right and a social right; it is alsos in sync with the concept that man is a social animal – not a socialist one 😀

        1. I don’t doubt you think that matters. The problem is you have a defined a loose and vague principle which is easy to twist to suit whatever philosophy someone wants.

          1. Freedom of association maybe vague at first glance bit it is general enough for a line definition.
            Of course if you wanyt tobe a stickler, we can then define what freedom means 🙂

        2. Freedom of association also implies a right to exclude others.

          1. Indeed, that is the concept ! you get to choose whom you associate with — not some fascist state.

          2. How far does the freedom to exclude go? Can you exclude others from the market?

            1. If you mean treating a spalpeen the way the people of Mayo treated Captain Boycott, I’d say, sure, that’s fair. You can’t have anyone making threats or using actual violence to enforce the boycott, of course.

              Kevin R

      2. The right to be an asshole

        1. Lol, and you would make that a crime maybe …. should we shoot them 😀

          1. There would be no one left!

        2. +1 Cantwell

  6. McAfee is too colorful for the LP. Delegates have consistently rejected the more colorful person seeking the presidential nomination. Boddie, Hunscher, Means come to mind. Can you just imagine Russell Means campaigning in full Lakota regalia??

    1. The LP will not win the White House. The only thing to gain this election cycle is publicity. So the LP has three choices:

      1. The most mainstream candidate to pretend to actually try to win.

      2. The most articulate and least scary candidate, most likely to take the scare out of the concept of NAP and libertarian, increase the number of libertarian voters, possibly constrain some of the more ludicrous GOP/Dem plans, even if only by fielding more spoilers who threaten to suck away votes in an election.

      3. The purest NAP/Libertarian candidate, most likely to keep libertarians happy with their own purity; why not make Libertarians happy rather than waste time and effort in hopeless real world fantasies?

      I wouldn’t mind Johnson and even Weld if they were honest about being the best for plan 1, but they aren’t. My biggest worry with McAfee is he seems so flighty; even if he were actually elected to the White House in some bizarro alternate universe, I could easily see him just walking out some day with no resignation, no notice, and no indication of whether he’d even come back or how long he’d be gone. I know nothing about Petersen.

      Don’t know who I’d vote for if I were a delegate, but of the three plans, 1 is a waste, 3 is masturbation. But I’m not a dues-paying member, so I don’t get to vote for plan 2.

      1. I could easily see him just walking out some day with no resignation, no notice, and no indication of whether he’d even come back or how long he’d be gone.

        Isn’t that pretty much the libertarian dream scenario when it comes to the presidency though?

    2. Bill Hunscher colorful??!

  7. FYI, for all you so-called Libertarians considering supporting William Weld for veep, he is a member of the. Council of Foreign Relations.

    1. Cosmotarians are cool with that.

      1. It’s not like William Weld is going to represent me in government.

        It’s a protest vote.

        As long as he’s generally pro-capitalism, pro-free trade, pro-lower taxes, and pro-less spending, I’m okay with that.

        For everything there’s a season. A time for libertarian purity tests, and a time for a big tent.

        When the two big-joke parties are running a petulant child and a crook, it’s time to break out the big tent.

        1. As long as he’s generally pro-capitalism, pro-free trade, pro-lower taxes, and pro-less spending, I’m okay with that

          All GOP candidates say they are those things. Then they get elected.

          1. As long as Gary Johnson signs 10,000 vetoes, I don’t give a shit what Weld believes.

            1. Isn’t that a sign of the decline of ALL political parties …. “I don’t give a sh** what Weld believes”

              1. The definition of a political party is a group of people who’ve decided to sell their principles short in order to gain some practical advantage.

                A political party without people who are willing to sell their principles short for pragmatic reasons is like going swimming without getting wet.

                P.S. If the current parties are in decline because they sold too many principles too short, then we’re just waiting for new principles to emerge. It’s happened so many times before–the Republicans famously selling Reconstruction short being one example, the Democrats selling segregation short being another, the Republicans selling their isolationism short in order to fight communism being yet another. As long as we have single-member districts, we’ll converge to having two main parties for pragmatic reasons–but God only knows what principles they’ll stand for 20 years from now. Here’s to hoping that spending, taxes, and the Second Amendment are still important to somebody in the future.

          2. First, we’re not talking about someone who is actually going to be President. It’s a protest vote. All he has to do is be more pro-capitalism, more pro-free trade, more pro-lower taxes, and more pro-less spending than the Trump or Hillary.

            Second, Trump isn’t pro-free trade. He’s actually campaigning against free trade. Trump came out and promised to soak the rich because they wanted to pay more in taxes, too–again, he’s not pro-lower taxes. The LP isn’t the capitalist alternative to the Republicans this election. They’re the only capitalist option.

            We don’t have to be perfect this election. This election, we can play for market share.

            1. Can I write in McAfee? Otherwise, I stay home.

          3. But aren’t the candidates who say they’re against such things worse? Or do they turn around too, so you should vote for those who say the opposite of what you want?

            1. Beyond all of that, let me remind everyone of a simple fact.

              Vice President.

              Vice….. President.

              The guy who has almost zero power to do anything unless his boss loses the job through death or impeachment or resignation. Well, he can break tie votes in the senate. That’s it.

              I really don’t see what the consternation is all about. Vice President has been an almost entirely symbolic and empty position for your entire life. They are only chosen for their ability to add a key state to the electoral map, or to give a candidate some needed credibility.

        2. Exactly. When they hand you the race, take it.

      2. Cosmotarians are cool with that because we aren’t dipshit Birchers that believe in crazy conspiracy theories.

        1. Taxation is theft, but fluoridation is death!!!

          1. pure grain alcohol and rainwater

    2. The purpose of a Vice Presidential candidate for Republicans and Democrats is to balance out the ticket and look good debating the other party’s Vice Presidential candidate on TV.

      The purpose of a Vice Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party is to attract media attention and project seriousness–which is, actually, the purpose of the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, too.

      William Weld would do an excellent job of attracting media attention and using the opportunity to have libertarian ideas treated seriously in the media. It isn’t just that he was a governor that will attract attention; it’s that he was the governor of Massachusetts.

      That projects credibility in certain circles–the kinds of circles where libertarian ideas haven’t been treated seriously in the past.

      1. I’m curious who Trump will pick because I want to see someone debate White Squaw. I would just open up by ignoring the mediot doing the campaign questions and say ‘So my opponent in tonight’s debate claims to be a Native American. And uses this to get special privileges not available to most Americans. You’re going to ask this question next, right?’

        1. If he hadn’t alienated iCarly so thoroughly, she would have been excellent.

          If the most important consideration for a Vice Presidential candidate were debating the other VP on TV, then Carly Fiorina would have destroyed anybody they put up against her–without looking like a bully either.

          He also needs someone that will soften his image to balance him out.

          Nikki Haley has already ruled him out.

          Trump might seriously consider looking at Democrats. All those disaffected Bernie supporters are the tip of the iceberg. Nobody likes Hillary–not even in her own party. They only support her reluctantly. Trump wins by gunning for disaffected Democrats. Union workers, and the like. He might do well to pick a Democrat.

          1. Don’t count on alienation in politics. The DA who convicted someone of embezzlement will pull that person out of jail to endorse hir for comptroller in a campaign for mayor.

          2. I don’t think Carly is likable, she comes off as cold and mean. I wouldn’t recommend her. If you suddenly hear that Biden has switched to the GOP…

            1. Hahaha, I can see Biden switching to the GOP if he thinks Trump will get him more pussy.

            2. I think she’s likable enough–and you want a woman if she’s going up against Lieawatha.

              Bad Vice-Presidential debate performances really can hurt a candidate in the general.


          3. Trump might well want a Democrat, but the delegates won’t go for it. Remember that many of “his” delegates are only “his” to the extent of being pledged (not to him, but just by party rules) to vote for him on ballot #1. My understanding is that a lot of these people were not sought out by his campaign, but simply assigned by the state party to fill the role of Trump delegate. They’re going to feel much more obligation to almost anyone in their own party than to a Democrat, and no obligation to vote for Trump’s preference.

            This is a fairly recent phenomenon in major party politics, this business of assigning delegates like that to reflect the outcome of what’d previously been a mere “beauty contest” in a primary state. It could well result in Trump’s not getting the running mate he wants, even if a Republican, and if the party keeps these rules it could result in future conventions also not giving the prez nominee their preferred running mate.

            1. Is there a rule that says the nominee has to pick a Vice-Presidential running mate before the convention?

              If I were him, I’d wait until after the convention to pick even a Republican running mate!

              The last thing he needs is division before or during the convention, and picking a running mate–even a Republican running mate–can be divisive.


            2. Yes, but Biden can pull a switch and start talking like a Republican. He sure won’t be the first to do something like that.

    3. Wouldn’t you want your candidate to rub elbows w others in the CFR? How does that kind of influence hurt? Even if he were a member of the Mafia, isn’t it better to have influence w them than not?

      1. Well, no…. for obvious reasons.

  8. Half a million strong. An illusion. At the state and local levels LP voters throw their paltry lot to candidates who do almost anything to avoid association with libertarian principles. Unlike Ron Paul, their objective is perpetual ballot access, not to be libertarian vectors. The dilution and corruption of libertarianism is easier now that the great libertarian writers are mostly dead and young adherents get their views from YouTube and web sites.

  9. McAfee is trying to undermine the party by making it seem crazy. The goal is to confuse Libertarianism and anarchy so that people can say, “Oh ok so we should be just like Somalia.” He bought a house in Belize – obviously he doesn’t appreciate the principles that made America great, and that allowed him to become successful. Maybe he should run for office down there. Couldn’t be worse than what they already have.

    1. WTF are you talking about? Belize is one of the few countries in Central America that has a free and functioning government. It ranks pretty damn high on the freedom scale.

    2. Ooc, I compared the freedom scores of Belize to the US. If you believe that the US was founded on the principle of personal liberty and you want to support that idea then you should probably GTFO of the US and move to Belize.

    3. Anarchy versus the government was ALWAYS a mistake.

      It’s coercive monopoly governments – states- versus free market governments

  10. “I don’t believe any of us will become president” and that even if they did, the system would crush them rather than allow them to change things.”

    McAfee would make a terrible LP nominee for President, but he’d make an excellent regular commenter here at Hit & Run.

    For all we know, he’s already either Troy Muey Grande Boner or Masterbatin’ Pete.

  11. Yup, McAfee is nuttier than a squirrel turd. But, he’s my kinda crazy.

    1. McAfee might be Agile Cyborg.

    2. Do they bury their duties like cats? Is that how nut trees propagate? I’ve seen squirrels dig holes, but never turn around & squat over them. I have, however, seen them bury nuts in those holes, so we know the trees can at least propagate that way.

  12. See, these people at the convention that are for Johnson or Peterson, they have a brain virus. That virus tells them to take themselves seriously, because they’re picking the next president here. Those of us who don’t have the virus, should pick the guy who can get the most media attention for libertarian ideas, and that person is McAfee. I’ll stay home if it’s Johnson because the guys running mate is not a libertarian, he’s an establishment east coast republican. Fuck that.

    1. His ideas are not libertarian they are anarchist. They appeal only to people who want to make libertarians look like they have a ‘brain virus’. Sounds like he is being rejected at the convention – good for them. Pro-tip: if McAfee puts him arm around your shoulder gently pry it off.

      1. Give me an example of something he’s saying that makes him an anarchist?

      2. The fact that McAfee is running for a political office disqualifies him as an “Anarchist”.

        1. ALL sane libertarians support government of some form. But we do oppose those governments that are coercive monopolies like most are

    2. Not all attention is good attention.

    3. Not all attention is good attention.

      1. Then stop double posting to get attention. All caps next?


        2. Squirrel attention is an example of attention that is not good attention.

    4. Johnson supports gun control and state forced commerce between citizens.
      Johnson is in the wrong party.
      I too will stay home if he is the nominee.

  13. I’ve said this here before, but if libertarians want libertarian ideas to gain any real momentum, they need to use media to do it. And the target should be the millenials. Most of the people my age and older, and even somewhat younger are so set in their ways, you’re not going to change them. You will get a few, but the millenials are the ones we should target. And we have to do it through media. Look at how an entire generation seemed to get their political news by watching John Stewart. The guy isn’t even funny. He’s an unfunny biased asshole. We’ve been shown the way and yet fail to even try. I know that Matt and Nick and all the cosmos are bravely waging this war, but it’s all so dry and humorless. The only person we even have who tries to use a different approach is Kennedy and most millenials are never even going to turn the TV channel to Fox News. I’m not sure how we do this, but it’s the only way.

    1. Remy does OK.

      1. I love Remy. We need more like him.

    2. Through the judicial use of Alt-text?

    3. Hot chicks and instagram.

      1. Lesbians, more specifically. Hot Asian lesbians.

    4. and most millenials are never even going to turn the TV channel to Fox News

      And sadly, she’s not even on Fox News; she’s on Fox Business, which millenials don’t even *know exists*, much less ‘never choose’.

      I agree with you re: libertarianism needs to find a different way to appeal to younger people.

      I made a point the other day about how the ‘anti-PC’ movement (via people like Milo) has captured a large swath of what seem to be libertarian minded young people – but there is almost no focus on/interest in “policy-libertarianism” because places like Reason don’t speak to them.

      But there’s certainly a very ripe audience out there being ignored.

      1. But the anti-PC people seem more interested in just being assholes than any sort of principled political framework.

        1. the anti-PC people seem more interested in just being assholes than any sort of principled political framework.

          Some certainly do.

          But most of what animates people politically is ALWAYS first about ‘opposition’ rather than some coherent philosophical framework. “A process of discovering what you’re *not*”

          Its a gradual process of drawing lines and saying “i’m for this and not that”, until you begin to see how all these views stem from first principles you were previously unable to express.

          I was not an acknowledged libertarian in college (or for about ~5 years afterward either) despite holding a lot of libertarian beliefs. Were you? I don’t think anyone just swallows an entire body of thought whole.

          And what do you call “being assholes”? When the forces they’re dealing with are so ridiculous and totalitarian, extreme-reactions are to be expected. as an example of Milo’s asshole-ness that rings true to his audience =

          [?] Yiannopoulos said that feminists don’t have much to complain about. They have been successful in achieving their right to vote, equal access to education and much more because of the western capitalist society ? the “only system that has rewarded these rights en masse.”…

          Is he wrong?

    5. The way to do it is to become John Stewart’s writer.

  14. You know where LP candidates are going to increase their votes this time? Not prez, but down-ticket. The effect won’t be as strong as 1992, when Perot voters had noplace else to go down-ticket, but there will be a lot of Trump voters who won’t want to vote for other Republicans, yet may not want to vote for a Democrat either.

  15. He is absolutely correct about a Libertarian’s chance of winning the Presidency or of getting any cooperation from Congress if he did.

    However, the sensible response would be for the LP to stop putting so much time and energy into the Presidential race and concentrate on local, state, and Congressional races.

    1. Agreed. We especially need more libertarians in congress. And Rand, Massie, and Amash have all shown that they can win, although running as republicans. I don’t care what they call themselves as long as they are as disciplined on legislation as those 3 are.

    2. The LP has less chance to win state and local races. People want those representatives to get them stuff. But a lot of people want the president to stop other people’s representatives from taking stuff.

      1. If it has less chance to elect state and local officials, hoe come I can list actual Libertarian’s who have won state and local offices and zero who have been President?

  16. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  17. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.