Excellent summation of the American Political machine, except "and third parties are essentially locked out by media and money".

It should never happen, but it does all the time and he is admitting it happens all the time. Rather know than not know

I am nnot voting for Hillary or Sanders, the true destroyers

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That being said, there are only three Republican Senators who have stood up to their own party on numerous occasions to filibuster or oppose important actions. Those three are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. I strongly encourage you to look up the histories in the Senate of those three individuals. Mike Lee would make a great Supreme Court Justice IMO.

I don't expect anyone to "fix" the Senate. That won't happen until the States repeal the 17th Amendment and return control of that body to the States where it belongs. But I would also not fall prey to the fallacy of association and attribute to any of the three above the failures of the Republican Party as a whole just because they have an (R) attached to their name.

"A 19 trillion dollar debt needs something to happen, and soon."

I agree wholeheartedly, but if something is to happen, a profligate spender/taxer is the wrong kind of person to have in the White House. Trump prefers more government spending and has proposed higher taxes on the "wealthy". Cruz went to Iowa and managed to persuade Iowans that leveling the playing field and eliminating subsidies was a good idea. That took guts and conviction and a plan. Now I will freely admit that I'm not a fan of his VAT idea - Cruz isn't 100% ideal - but what he is is a Constitutionalist who has advocated for the original intent of the First and Second Amendments in front of the Supreme Court - and won those cases. That to me indicates a record to support the rhetoric that no other current candidate can come close to matching.

That sums it up. Given that 1933 was indeed a banner start to "progressive" policy, I still believe there was a move back to at least the civil war (and some argument can be made for back to 184 and the National Bank) to fund their adventures through creative ways of taking what you have for their use. FDR just took a much bigger chunk up front and made it sound like a "new Deal".

The FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE came in 1933, when Americans embraced the idea that it was a "good thing" for government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another. That ended absolute ownership (private property) and instituted collectivism with its compulsory charity, compulsory labor for the benefit of another, and expropriation of property for the benefit of another.
Guess how they were going to enforce that? Wheedle, “Pretty please, with sugar on top?”
No.
They instituted a “benevolent” totalitarian police state, where everything not mandatory, is taxed, regulated, licensed, or forbidden. And now we have stooges like the Golfer-in-Chief to perform for the masses.

"my concern is what will he actually try to accomplish."

I agree.

I think the religious emphasis of Cruz is overblown. I appreciate that he is who he is and is unapologetic about it, as opposed to Trump who only became "religious" to pander. Trump should have stuck to being uninterested because his pretending to be Christian was completely and painfully obviously fake.

Here's my concern about deal-making: we already have a Congress who is eager to make deals. And most of them are BAD deals. I'd much rather have gridlock than the non-stop bad deals which come out of these gangs of X which laud "bi-partisanship" only to hose (insert much stronger synonym) the American people. I really don't want any more deal-makers. I want someone who has firm principles he isn't afraid to stand for, because the Republican Congress is more than eager to cave! I'd like to take advantage of that to either expose the Republicans or force them to split into two parties. I'd love to see a President who wants to return us to Constitutional values and can use the indecisiveness of our current Congress to get it done. ;)

Not one of his better ideas. They all try to hype their supporters to go out and vote. It was obviously a semi-serious spur of the moment idea that didn't come off very well.

I think you are right, it would be nice if he could actually say it though, it would remove the opportunity for attack,.

The PC term is "reflection"...

I find Trumps latest little fetish with the pledge thing to be disturbing. Your average sheeple even knows it is weird. Maybe he means well to have people commit to an idea instead of waffle, but it came out bad, looks bad and is bad.

Would he be able to successfully complete major construction projects in New York City without having good staff, listening to them and being able to work with people?

He has decades of history building things in areas where it is hard to get things built. I have a great deal of confidence that he will be able to succeed at many of the things he tries to accomplish -- my concern is what will he actually try to accomplish.

Cruz, on the other hand, I agree with many of his positions except the high focus on religion. I wonder if he will actually be able to get along with congress and get things done. You do have to make deals or go the Obama route and try to be a dictator.

I think you nail it on the head with "Very hard to predict how trump would do."

Would he hire good advisers? The bigger question is will he listen to them. Narcissists are not known for their collaborative abilities.

Would he consider the issues? I don't know. And that troubles me. I haven't seen a moment of serious contemplation from him on the campaign trail. He has to always have the answers so he makes stuff up to cover when he doesn't know. Impetuousness is not a virtue I want in a President.

Would he get along with other nations? I don't know. His foreign policy statements don't inspire much confidence (see Israel vs Palestinians or his comments on Putin, Mexico, or China).

Would he speak his mind? That's an unequivocal yes, but it's a double-edged sword. Trump is a lot of bluster and sandpaper. My question is: can he dial it back when necessary? Good managers don't jump into things with pre-formed opinions. They allow their advisors to present things and make recommendations, encourage discussion, then decide and move forward. That is an area of serious concern to me with "The Donald" - mainly because of his narcissistic tendencies and desire to be seen as a subject matter expert on absolutely everything.

Would he undo Obama's excesses? I don't know, but his acknowledgement that he would use Executive Orders leads me to believe that he would continue the precedent set by Obama to rule by rules.

Very hard to predict how trump would do. He would hire good advisors as he hired good people in his companies. There would be good consideration of all issues. He would get along with other countries and speak his mind. I think if he used exec powers it would be to undo Obama,'s excesses

Words on paper don't limit the human soul. Self-control and principle come from inside - they can not be constrained or coerced. This should be the biggest lesson we learn from the past twenty years.

Do I want an administrator in the office of the President? Yes. Is Trump the most qualified? That depends on how closely one wants to look at his business deals. In all four bankruptcies, one of the conditions imposed by the judge was the Trump be tossed from management. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. He's a great celebrity figure, but hardly one of quick and disarming wit like Reagan. I see in Trump another GW Bush - at best.

"I think you are somehow fearful trump would misuse the powers of president."

Absolutely I am and I think anyone would be a fool to think ANY President is going to repeat George Washington and turn down the siren song of power. What I am evaluating is whether or not a candidate has the self-control to stay within the Constitutionally proscribed powers of the office. Narcissists do not have such self-control and Trump himself has said that he will rule by Executive Action just like Obama did. Hillary isn't as much a narcissist as just outright power-crazed. Could Rubio run the country? Who knows, but he's really not in contention for the nomination right now, so I'm going to shelf that thought. Cruz is hated by his own party - probably even more than the Establishment Republicans despise Trump. But the fact that he has won several states and is poised to win several more today says that he does have popular support. And current polls (if you believe them) have Cruz beating Hillary in a General Election. Rubio also wins. Trump loses.

"The GOP is going to risk alienating a lot of voters"

I don't care about the Republican Party. A win of either Trump or Cruz forces a re-structuring of the GOP which IMHO is long overdue. Trump alienates voters as well and so does Hillary. That's not a good reason to vote for any of them.

Trump is an abrasive, blunt orator. Some people like that. But I'm looking for substance - for policy backed by history. In Trump I see just another political opportunist and power-monger. I see someone who has already used the long arm of government to get what he wants and is unrepentant about it, which indicates an intent to do that again. I see someone who likes the idea of big government because it fills his lust for power and self-aggrandizement. In short, I see Obama with a different label. That is decidedly unappealing.

It is nice to learn that we still have a lot in common.

I place a lot of emphasis on self-awareness and self-knowledge.

Mike; to a point you are correct. My interest lies in the day-to-day activities and decisions and the 'life' applications of an Objectivist's life (Those I think of as your sense of life). Rather than being a 'Gulcher', I'm much too involved in the life and environment around me and as you note, the psycho-epistemological foundations and the work at that level to investigate the process of awareness and integration. As I've aged and reached retirement, I've been able to refresh myself in more of the academic philosophy, but I'm still enthralled and continually engaged in the hows and whys.

I've always been engaged in and thinking about consciousness, what it is and how it functions as well as the apparent differentiation between men and how to, not overcome, but rather work through the awareness and cognition barriers resulting from that differentiation. Those levels of separation almost seem at time to be quantized, but all study that I've accessed to date doesn't seem able to identify or determine an input that can 'leap' that separation and barrier or reach through it.

It may well boil down to Rand's identities of awareness, integration, movement to the sub-conscious, and automation with some biological restraints mixed as well. But that's my academic interest.

Trump is the start of. A new party actually. Supporters of trump Are tired. Of establishment politicians and should be.

So do the objectivist view of the other GoP candudates and none of them are better. On the other hand the view of the Democratic candidates is far far worse. If you trash trump we will get Hillary or Sanders and destruction of our country will be much faster

Don't pay attention to that, just pay attention to the fact he will become a wrench in the machine, which will either slow it down or break it. Hopefully he will break the republicrats, and HillaryBeast will break the dumbocraps and we can rebuild different ones.

Trump promises more undeliverable crap than Bernie and the others could ever dream up. Every day, he implies how he will use political power against private companies and individuals. Those that listen to his king-like pronouncements should be smart enough to see he is selling a lie, or he thinks the President can force his will on private citizens.