Johnson/Weld donation page surges past its target goal within 3 days of going up - Polidicks

[quote]The Johnson/Weld donation page, called "The Money Comet" was started 3 days ago, during the RNC. Under the tag "The two party system is a dinosaur. You are the comet," the original goal for the donation page was $25,000. As of right now, the "money comet" has hit $156,738, and it's not done yet. The new goal is to reach $200,000, but at the rate this donation page receives money, we'll probably be looking at $250,000 sooner than later. [img]http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-22-at-12.13.32-PM.png[/img][/quote] [url]http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/07/22/gary-johnsons-donation-page-surges-past-intended-goal-thousands-still-rising/[/url] I know not exactly the best source, but the numbers aren't biased. Glad I help get them there, the campaign is just a few steps away from going to the debates with Clinton and Trump.

I wonder if the Libertarians made it into the national debates if it would just be a one time thing, or if it would be a 3 party election for awhile.

The Libertarian Party are probably the best thing that could have ever happened to the Democrats. They are going to attract more Republican-leaning voters than Democrat-leaning voters, and so the more powerful they become, the more they will split the right-leaning vote and make it ever so easier for Clinton to be elected. People say Trump was planted by the Democrats. If that is actually true (very doubtful obviously), then maybe the Democrats secretly helping the Libertarians get unprecedented support is a part of that plan by the Democrats to split the right-leaning vote.

[QUOTE=sb27;50764588]The Libertarian Party are probably the best thing that could have ever happened to the Democrats. They are going to attract more Republican-leaning voters than Democrat-leaning voters, and so the more powerful they become, the more they will split the right-leaning vote and make it ever so easier for Clinton to be elected. People say Trump was planted by the Democrats. If that is actually true (very doubtful obviously), then maybe the Democrats secretly helping the Libertarians get unprecedented support is a part of that plan by the Democrats to split the right-leaning vote.[/QUOTE] besides the right wing Bernie Supporters.

[QUOTE=OvB;50764573]I wonder if the Libertarians made it into the national debates if it would just be a one time thing, or if it would be a 3 party election for awhile.[/QUOTE] Odds are the Libertarians will be in the public spot light for a while, but I sincerely doubt they'll win any presidential elections any time soon. But maybe we'll see a Congressman in the future here or there. There will be a lot of name recognition after Johnson entering a national debate.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50764632]Odds are the Libertarians will be in the public spot light for a while, but I sincerely doubt they'll win any presidential elections any time soon. But maybe we'll see a Congressman in the future here or there. There will be a lot of name recognition after Johnson entering a national debate.[/QUOTE] I have no doubt that they'll get a decent presence with state-level congressional seats. There's a reasonable chance they could win Utah and maybe another state, but no chance they'll get the presidency, and very little chance they'll actually get anyone in Congress. I really can't imagine they'll do better than Wallace (the last third-partier to win a state). Libertarians could be a major bottom-up force if they push to get into local and state seats - something most parties fail to do entirely. I really can't imagine they'll go beyond the American Independent Party or the Dixiecrats. Not a chance they'll get close to Roosevelt's Progressive Party. 2-3 states at the absolute max. If Johnson doesn't get on the general election debates, zero states.

[QUOTE=OvB;50764573]I wonder if the Libertarians made it into the national debates if it would just be a one time thing, or if it would be a 3 party election for awhile.[/QUOTE] 1 time thing, they cannot win any electoral votes therefore they cannot win the presidency. they probably could win some house seats if the libertarian party had more Johnsons and less Vernon Supremes so bringing him to a national stage might bring more....sane blood... to their party but as far as a presidency goes, its pretty much impossible without very broad base support in all 50 states which can only come from having strong enough membership to get their own people in congress first and thats without touching state legislatures which could be potentially easier to get into

[QUOTE=Sableye;50764827]1 time thing, they cannot win any electoral votes therefore they cannot win the presidency. they probably could win some house seats if the libertarian party had more Johnsons and less Vernon Supremes so bringing him to a national stage might bring more....sane blood... to their party but as far as a presidency goes, its pretty much impossible without very broad base support in all 50 states which can only come from having strong enough membership to get their own people in congress first and thats without touching state legislatures which could be potentially easier to get into[/QUOTE] Getting into the debates this year will give the party a surge, getting them toeholds in state legislatures, maybe Congress, and potentially even some state governors. They may not have a real chance to get into the White House this year, but this year could be the turning point, where the Republicans start ceding ground to a newer (and IMO better) conservative party which eventually displaces them. It depends, in a large amount, on how badly Trump does with non-Republicans, how many Republican politicians try to follow Trump's playbook (and how well that works for them), how well the Libertarian Party is able to transition from fringe to mainstream, and how well/badly the Democrats handle things in the meantime (with the nature of FPTP voting, neither the Republicans nor Libertarians will have a majority during the transition, meaning a long series of Democrat presidencies).

Johnson doesn't have a chance of winning, at least not until the left has another party to vote for besides the democrats (Green Party barely has any support) Regardless, if he makes one of the debates Trump's gonna have to knock his poll numbers back down below 15% by the next debate so that he can focus on defeating Clinton

Too bad the Libertarian policy is just as bad as Trump's.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50764890]Johnson doesn't have a chance of winning, at least not until the left has another party to vote for besides the democrats (Green Party barely has any support) Regardless, if he makes one of the debates Trump's gonna have to knock his poll numbers back down below 15% by the next debate so that he can focus on defeating Clinton[/QUOTE] Works for me, even if Johnson does get knocked around by Trump, it shows two things: He's a threat to Trump He's not focused on Clinton Both of those equate to a weak Trump campaign.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50764946]Too bad the Libertarian policy is just as bad as Trump's.[/QUOTE] You'd have to be seriously ignorant to believe something like that in the face of what Trump has said.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50765082]You'd have to be seriously ignorant to believe something like that in the face of what Trump has said.[/QUOTE] No, their policies are just terrible, and Libertarianism is terrible. Deregulation isn't going to improve society, ending welfare isn't going to reduce poverty, axing public education isn't going to make people smarter; the "free market" isn't going to magically fix everything, and it's seriously naive to think that.

Trump is a destructive egomaniac that has actively and continously threatens media and opponents that attack him. He is a danger. The Libertarians at least got that going for them.

If you're Conservative and vote Johnson then you're letting Hillary win the election, and would prefer having Hillary instead of Trump run the country. Its your choice to do this so vote as you like, just remember what your vote is going for.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50765118]If you're Conservative and vote Johnson then you're letting Hillary win the election, and would prefer having Hillary instead of Trump run the country. Its your choice to do this so vote as you like, just remember what your vote is going for.[/QUOTE] Finally a political post we can completely agree on.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50764946]Too bad the Libertarian policy is just as bad as Trump's.[/QUOTE] Trump: Global warming is a myth invented by the Chinese to hurt America's economy Johnson: Human CO2 emissions impact the climate, the EPA is an example of good government Trump: Torture suspected terrorists, even if we don't need info from them, they deserve it Johnson: Torture is out of the question. Detainees should be treated as prisoners of war and given a trial by a military tribunal, and should be able to seek compensation if wrongly and illegally incarcerated Trump: Fuck the Geneva Convention, we need to murder the families of terrorists Johnson has not advocated committing war crimes, to the best of my knowledge Trump: We need to ban muslims and shut down mosques Johnson: The government should not intervene in citizen's private lives Trump: Most crime is committed by blacks and mexicans, they should be deported or jailed Johnson: the War on Drugs has proven ineffective, the crime rate will go down if we stop jailing people for minor drug offenses which only turns them into career criminals Trump: Build a wall to stop mexican rapists Johnson: We need to make legal immigration easier so that hard-working people can come to America and help grow our economy, by issuing more work visas rather than citizenship. A wall wouldn't work anyways Trump: I'll fix the economy, I'm the best at business Trump also declared bankruptcy at least four times Johnson: We need to balance the budget. We can't spend more than we take in, forever. I disagree with a number of Libertarian policies, but they're at least reasoned, evidence-based policies. Trump only has demagoguery and baseless assertions that he's going to make things better.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50765141] I disagree with a number of Libertarian policies, but they're at least reasoned, evidence-based policies. Trump only has demagoguery and baseless assertions that he's going to make things better.[/QUOTE] Exactly this. Even compared to establishment GOP you could have policy disagreements between them and Libertarians, and frankly I'd find the choice between Johnson and Kasich genuinely difficult because I agree/disagree with them on different issues about equally. With Trump there is no reasonable policy compromises, even on the things Johnson agrees with. Foreign policy is the big one in my mind. Johnson, as a libertarian, favors a non-interventionism policy that supports free trade but not becoming entangled in foreign conflicts. Trump seems to flip daily between intervening in the middle east ("I will take out ISIS and take their oil fields") and isolationism and has made protectionism one of his cornerstone platforms. Johnson has said that he would respect treaties as long as they are ratified by congress. Trump wants to be friendly with Russia by pulling NATO support from Eastern Europe. With the former you can compromise. Maybe the United States does have a bit of an imperialist streak it needs to break. I don't necessarily agree personally, but I'm willing to compromise the idea on scaling back some of our foreign obligations. With Trump there is no compromise. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50765118]If you're Conservative and vote Johnson then you're letting Hillary win the election, and would prefer having Hillary instead of Trump run the country. Its your choice to do this so vote as you like, just remember what your vote is going for.[/QUOTE] See, the problem you have arguing the spoiler effect toward Johnson supporters to pull for your man is that while both occupy the right side of the spectrum, they have quite a few policies that are quite different, and even some of the ones that overlap (like foreign policy mentioned above) have diametrically opposed motivations. So when you encourage liberals to vote for Jill Stein over Clinton, you are trying to convince people to effectively give up the vote when both candidates share 80% of policy stances. With Johnson and Trump it's like 50/50. The "cost" to a Johnson supporter by Hillary getting in is markedly less than the cost to a Stein supporter stuck with Trump. Again, purely dictated by policy that the candidates have supported prior and have made part of their platform. I am sure Clinton is not appealing at all to Libertarians and most would probably prefer Trump :v:

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50765141]Trump: Global warming is a myth invented by the Chinese to hurt America's economy Johnson: Human CO2 emissions impact the climate, the EPA is an example of good government Trump: Torture suspected terrorists, even if we don't need info from them, they deserve it Johnson: Torture is out of the question. Detainees should be treated as prisoners of war and given a trial by a military tribunal, and should be able to seek compensation if wrongly and illegally incarcerated Trump: Fuck the Geneva Convention, we need to murder the families of terrorists Johnson has not advocated committing war crimes, to the best of my knowledge Trump: We need to ban muslims and shut down mosques Johnson: The government should not intervene in citizen's private lives Trump: Most crime is committed by blacks and mexicans, they should be deported or jailed Johnson: the War on Drugs has proven ineffective, the crime rate will go down if we stop jailing people for minor drug offenses which only turns them into career criminals Trump: Build a wall to stop mexican rapists Johnson: We need to make legal immigration easier so that hard-working people can come to America and help grow our economy, by issuing more work visas rather than citizenship. A wall wouldn't work anyways Trump: I'll fix the economy, I'm the best at business Trump also declared bankruptcy at least four times Johnson: We need to balance the budget. We can't spend more than we take in, forever. I disagree with a number of Libertarian policies, but they're at least reasoned, evidence-based policies. Trump only has demagoguery and baseless assertions that he's going to make things better.[/QUOTE] Can you justify him wanting to eliminate Department of Education and HUD?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50765118]If you're Conservative and vote Johnson then you're letting Hillary win the election, and would prefer having Hillary instead of Trump run the country. Its your choice to do this so vote as you like, just remember what your vote is going for.[/QUOTE] All studies I have seen point to the fact that Johnson is pulling equally from Trump and Clinton.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50765748]All studies I have seen point to the fact that Johnson is pulling equally from Trump and Clinton.[/QUOTE] Which is just mind-boggling for me. I understand Trump, but the idea that left-leaning independents are voting for a pretty staunchly right-wing candidate just confuses me. But then again I overestimate how much people know about economics. Most voters are fucking retarded and think "legal drugs? small government is good too i heard that in school, i'm all in!"

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50765751]Which is just mind-boggling for me. I understand Trump, but the idea that left-leaning independents are voting for a pretty staunchly right-wing candidate just confuses me. But then again I overestimate how much people know about economics. Most voters are fucking retarded and think "legal drugs? small government is good too i heard that in school, i'm all in!"[/QUOTE] Or maybe people just want the government to stop telling them what to do with their lives. Right now, the politics in the US are split between social authoritarianism (Republicans) and economic authoritarianism (Democrats). Both are just different brands of paternalism, where the state attempts to control the lives of its subjects "for their own good". "People are too stupid to resist sin" vs "People are too stupid to manage their money" Johnson (and the libertarians in general) break that dichotomy. They are a voice for freedom in a world where it has become the norm to enforce one's social or economic positions on others. I do not live in the US, but if I were, I would 100% vote for the one party that wants to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50765757]Or maybe people just want the government to stop telling them what to do with their lives. Right now, the politics in the US are split between social authoritarianism (Republicans) and economic authoritarianism (Democrats). Both are just different brands of paternalism, where the state attempts to control the lives of its subjects "for their own good". "People are too stupid to resist sin" vs "People are too stupid to manage their money" Johnson (and the libertarians in general) break that dichotomy. They are a voice for freedom in a world where it has become the norm to enforce one's social or economic positions on others. I do not live in the US, but if I were, I would 100% vote for the one party that wants to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.[/QUOTE] I've had three friends who were previously Bernie supporters come out to endorse Johnson. I listed his policies in a comment and [i]two[/i] of them deleted their posts while the other hunkered down and insisted he was the best choice. Most people supporting him right now hear what he [i]wants to accomplish[/i] without understanding [i]how[/i]. There's genuine reasons to support libertarians - moreso than Trump. But nobody who supported Sanders can reasonably switch to Johnson. You can't go from "free public college tuition" to "no more federal student aid," you can't go from "more social programs to help the poorest americans" to "cut entitlements across the board to balance the budget." You can't champion universal healthcare and then support a candidate who called federal control of healthcare "insanity." There's just almost no overlap other than minor social policies. Their governmental style is genuinely opposite. You say you want the government to leave you alone, but you really don't. People don't realize how much of their livelihood is provided by the government. You're from Greece, you should know more than anyone that you need strong controls on the economy.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50765781]I've had three friends who were previously Bernie supporters come out to endorse Johnson. I listed his policies in a comment and [i]two[/i] of them deleted their posts while the other hunkered down and insisted he was the best choice. Most people supporting him right now hear what he [i]wants to accomplish[/i] without understanding [i]how[/i]. There's genuine reasons to support libertarians - moreso than Trump. But nobody who supported Sanders can reasonably switch to Johnson. You can't go from "free public college tuition" to "no more federal student aid," you can't go from "more social programs to help the poorest americans" to "cut entitlements across the board to balance the budget." You can't champion universal healthcare and then support a candidate who called federal control of healthcare "insanity." There's just almost no overlap other than minor social policies. Their governmental style is genuinely opposite.[/quote] Your goal can be the same and your methods can be different. See healthcare as an example: both Johnson and Bernie want affordable healthcare for all. Bernie wants to make healthcare public, Johnson wants to liberate the market from government melding and let it drop the prices. College tuition increased from its very affordable prices because the government offered riskless loans, giving the message that universities could charge whatever they wanted and the government would cover it - and the students didn't care about their debt until it was too late. The poor are kept in a vicious circle of poverty by exclusionary minimum wage and workplace regulation laws, which prevent them from acquiring the necessary experience to seek better employment and overwhelmingly disenfranchise minorities. [quote]You say you want the government to leave you alone, but you really don't. People don't realize how much of their livelihood is provided by the government. You're from Greece, you should know more than anyone that you need strong controls on the economy.[/QUOTE] I do know better, but not what you'd think. In Greece, we have the "Bernie dream": socialized healthcare, free universities, heavy social programs. And you know how these are funded? By sucking the livelihood out of the private sector, forcing company after company to either close down or move abroad. Our 'socialized healthcare', which I see first-hand as a medical student, is so useless, incompetent and unorganized that it's not even funny. It is very fortunate that we are allowed to have private insurance, which we can use in private clinics, because they are the only ones that work properly - my family pays about a tenth for private insurance than we do for socialized medicine, and we get far better service. And yet we are all forced to pay for public healthcare that nobody [I]wants[/I] to pay or use. When my father required urgent surgery, we took him to the public hospital first - a huge university hospital that supposedly had the 'best' doctors and was completely free. After a few hours of indecision and classic public servants constantly 'passing the ball', we had him moved to the private clinic our insurance covered. Had he stayed in the ~socialized~ hospital an hour longer, he would have died. Let Greece serve as a warning against socialism. My country has suffered under leftist governments (and populist right governments with the same economic policies) for decades, and we were left in ruins when the socialist bubble collapsed. Innovation was chased out of the country, our taxes are absurd, and our 'free universities' are in constant decay, because people don't respect that which they have not directly paid for. Private universities are forbidden by our constitution, and when every few years the topic comes up, you know what the primary argument against it is? [I]Our public universities are so bad that nobody would use them if they had a private alternative.[/I] Strong controls on the economy is what got us into this mess. What we need is to be left alone, and I can't wait to move to a country that stays the fuck out of my pocket and private life.

What's hilarious is that Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and the lot of disenfranchised Sanders supporters are Trump's greatest allies against Hillary. The simple reason is this: Trump doesn't actually need more votes than Hillary to win the election. All he needs to do is prevent Hillary from getting the absolute majority of 50% in the general elections by throwing as much dirt on her as possible, and he'll win by default due to the House of Representatives having to choose the president. The Libertarians and the Greens provide alternatives for disenfranchised Democrats that dislike Hillary. If Gary gets his 15%, you can be sure to see even more Democrats drop support for Hillary after the debates that follow. (Even though the Libertarians are actually a more right wing party. But as Isak mentioned, there are Sanders supporters that are now behind Johnson simply because he's the most popular alternative. Party policy doesn't really seem to matter all that much) Republican voters dropping support for Trump matters a lot less in the grand scheme of things, unless it's enough to lead to a possible Libertarian Victory. I find that unlikely though as Trump does have a strong base of supporters that are unlikely to switch away. Trump seems to have the tactical advantage here.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50765874]What's hilarious is that Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and the lot of disenfranchised Sanders supporters are Trump's greatest allies against Hillary. The simple reason is this: Trump doesn't actually need more votes than Hillary to win the election. All he needs to do is prevent Hillary from getting the absolute majority of 50% in the general elections by throwing as much dirt on her as possible, and he'll win by default due to the House of Representatives having to choose the president. The Libertarians and the Greens provide alternatives for disenfranchised Democrats that dislike Hillary. If Gary gets his 15%, you can be sure to see even more Democrats drop support for Hillary after the debates that follow. (Even though the Libertarians are actually a more right wing party. But as Isak mentioned, there are Sanders supporters that are now behind Johnson simply because he's the most popular alternative. Party policy doesn't really seem to matter all that much) Republican voters dropping support for Trump matters a lot less in the grand scheme of things, unless it's enough to lead to a possible Libertarian Victory. I find that unlikely though as Trump does have a strong base of supporters that are unlikely to switch away. Trump seems to have the tactical advantage here.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. As far as I can tell (which is difficult because there's no real clear answer online), the sitting house doesn't vote the president in. The incoming house does. The only other time in history this happened - 1824 between Jackson and Quincy Adams - the congressional vote on the president didn't take place until [I]February of 1825[/I], months after the presidential election and the congressional elections were finished. By this point, the incoming congress would have replaced the one existing at the point of the actual election. Basically, if the Democrats are able to gain a majority in the House, and the [i]incredibly unlikely[/i] event that nobody gets a supermajority of electoral votes, Clinton could win the House vote. Even with the strongest Republican control of the House since 1928, [URL="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-house-majority-is-safe-right/"]the Democrats are predicted to win a number of House seats in the upcoming election[/URL] - and there would definitely be anti-Trump Republicans in the house (like Cruz in the Senate). Sure, it's still more likely that Trump would win a House vote, even counting 20+ incoming Democratic House seats, but it's not a certainty. Plus that assumes that there's even a remotely reasonable chance that either party would fail to reach a supermajority - and there isn't. You have to win a state to get an electoral vote (excluding faithless electors/nebraska/maine i think), and the Libertarians/Greens don't have the support (yet) to make that happen. They can't win a state with 8-10% popular vote support in individual states - you need over 50% to win a state and get [i]any[/i] electoral votes. It's a [I]super[/I] unlikely scenario, but probably the most likely way that Trump could win without the popular vote.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50765118]If you're Conservative and vote Johnson then you're letting Hillary win the election, and would prefer having Hillary instead of Trump run the country. Its your choice to do this so vote as you like, just remember what your vote is going for.[/QUOTE] 'If you're Liberal and vote Johnson you're letting Trump win the election, and would prefer having Trump instead of Hillary run the country.' I think we've hit the nail on the head about why third-parties don't win in America, though that might hopefully eventually. First past the post just fucking [I]sucks[/I] and ya'll need to get PR.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50765751]Which is just mind-boggling for me. I understand Trump, but the idea that left-leaning independents are voting for a pretty staunchly right-wing candidate just confuses me. But then again I overestimate how much people know about economics. Most voters are fucking retarded and think "legal drugs? small government is good too i heard that in school, i'm all in!"[/QUOTE] He is literally right wing on only economics, every other position I've seen him take has been almost completely liberal. Hell, on most of those positions he is even more liberal than the leading candidate for the Dems. If you want more civil rights, Johnson is your guy, whether you like it or not. You'd literally be voting Hilary only for her economic positions, which are pretty shit to begin with. Yes I know all of Johnsons policies, and it's better than a lying shill or the annoying orange. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] and if you think Clinton is better on human rights I'll carefully explain everything that is wrong with your statement.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50766253]He is literally right wing on only economics, every other position I've seen him take has been almost completely liberal. Hell, on most of those positions he is even more liberal than the leading candidate for the Dems. If you want more civil rights, Johnson is your guy, whether you like it or not. You'd literally be voting Hilary only for her economic positions, which are pretty shit to begin with. Yes I know all of Johnsons policies, and it's better than a lying shill or the annoying orange. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] and if you think Clinton is better on human rights I'll carefully explain everything that is wrong with your statement.[/QUOTE] The Libertarian Party (and by extension, Johnson) are not just "right-wing" economically. They are [i]some of the furthest right[/i] on economics in the developed world. I have loads of disagreements with Clinton, but we tend to agree on [i]why[/i] we defend civil rights. Johnson's motivation behind his liberal social policies aren't motivated by any respect for human rights or civil rights, they're motivated [i]solely[/i] by this cancerous idea that any government is too much government. If he existed in the 60s, he'd be the one opposing the Civil Rights Act, exactly like Goldwater did - and he was the father of modern libertarianism. Why? Because [i]forcing the government to stop people from discriminating would be federal overreach[/i]. His motivation isn't "there is inequality and injustice in the world and we need to fix it," his motivation is "government is too big get rid of it." He's ideologically opposed to using the government to solve social issues or even economic ones. That means that, yeah, he thinks the War on Drugs is bad, because it's enormous federal overreach - but he also thinks that the federal government [i]shouldn't get involved in making sure schools are teaching evolution[/i]. Everything about Johnson's platform boils down to irrational ideological distrust of the federal government. But state governments, they can handle education. Just not the federal one.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50766329]The Libertarian Party (and by extension, Johnson) are not just "right-wing" economically. They are [i]some of the furthest right[/i] on economics in the developed world. I have loads of disagreements with Clinton, but we tend to agree on [i]why[/i] we defend civil rights. Johnson's motivation behind his liberal social policies aren't motivated by any respect for human rights or civil rights, they're motivated [i]solely[/i] by this cancerous idea that any government is too much government. If he existed in the 60s, he'd be the one opposing the Civil Rights Act, exactly like Goldwater did - and he was the father of modern libertarianism. Why? Because [i]forcing the government to stop people from discriminating would be federal overreach[/i]. His motivation isn't "there is inequality and injustice in the world and we need to fix it," his motivation is "government is too big get rid of it." He's ideologically opposed to using the government to solve social issues or even economic ones. That means that, yeah, he thinks the War on Drugs is bad, because it's enormous federal overreach - but he also thinks that the federal government [i]shouldn't get involved in making sure schools are teaching evolution[/i]. Everything about Johnson's platform boils down to irrational ideological distrust of the federal government. But state governments, they can handle education. Just not the federal one.[/QUOTE] [i]"muh roads!"[/i]