In other words, he’ll get as many votes as you will.
But in the process, he’s using his candidacy to spread ideas to anyone who’ll listen.
Like this one:
As an aspiring politician, I strive to improve society by applying statistical analysis to decision making. I look at numbers and facts, and try to logically create policy that achieves the greater good for society, especially in a scientific transhuman way… Millions of productive hours (the equivalent of at least hundreds of millions of dollars) are being spent needlessly by atheists in security check lines every year — all because a number of religious people may use planes as terror weapons.
I envision a fast track line for atheists at all commercial airports, with only visual screening from a distance by TSA personnel. To use such a line, a traveler would simply have to publicly check that they’re an atheist when getting ticketed, and then off they’d go through security with no wait.
This is our Great Godless Hope? If he’s serious and this plan went into effect, we’d all be screwed. Why? Watch me dismantle his whole brilliant plan in a sentence:Terrorists will just lie and say they’re atheists.
What, you don’t think they’ll do that? They’re already willing to kill for their God. Lying is hardly a dealbreaker at that point.
Istvan, however, isn’t letting logic like that get in his way:
… ultimately, such a fast track line would force wishy-washy believers, or those who are religiously apathetic, to write off their faiths and God in the name of not wanting to wait in exhausting security lines.
On the economic front, less TSA people would be needed, giving tax payers more money in their pockets.
One of the main reasons I’m running for US President is to try to create policies for this country that simply make more sense…
Great… let’s pressure people into saying they’re godless and lay off security workers. That’s a winning, totally-not-creepy platform.
Makes you consider voting for Ted Cruz, doesn’t it?
***Update***: Libby Anne adds an important rebuttal to the argument: Most terrorist attacks are politically, not religiously, motivated.