a strict Objectivist would pursue a "rational" self-interest...neither repub or dem fit that definition...

They're forms of the same thing. They both want to blame their own problems caused by their own actions or random chance on others and hurt other people.

Rednecks/handout-seekers is not a fixed trait. Maybe most people at some point experience this feeling of their problems' being caused by some other group and wanting to hurt members of the other group. It's a nasty human foible.

Figuring out which form of this behavior is worse is to fall into their trick.

There are not just "Creators and Looters". Some people never have a creative idea in their lifetimes but just do work for others for a wage or are cared for by others or are born into wealth. They need not be looters or even pretend to have an explicit philosophy to maybe shame them into exorcising some form of creativity. Does one need to actually loot in order to be a 'Looter' or is it just that one has not created something?

Just be sure to not substitute the ideas of Rand for objective reality--they are part of objective reality since they were from a real person but are just a small part of it. Objectivism should not become "Rand is what objective reality is so no more thought is necessary!" It would then become a matter of religion or cultism with all kinds of shaming for the evil of not accepting the ideas as true by faith. That has happened in the past with Objectivism. The philosophy is excellent but not as dogma.

You might be a redneck if you think suspenders are a type of shirt.

The founding demoncrap? you mean Jackson? he started all the bullcrap here in America.
Most if not All demoncraps looooooooove Unions which is a marxist idea...not very objective.

You probably meant the Idea? We observe "objectively"...epic fail...every time.

Just the fact that they touted themselves for the "little guy"...shows me, they thought themselves Bigger, Better...when in fact, they are gutter trash and couldn't hold a candle to the "Little Guy".

There is a huge difference between endorsing a particular Democrat candidate in the context of the competition and endorsing anything else about them.
I also think it was a mistake to endorse her; but it was a tough judgement call whether to endorse one of two ghastly candidates, or nobody, or what appears to be a wishy-washy Libertarian.

I doubt it; but that doesn't mean that an Objectiv-
ist couldn't sometimes vote Democratic. I believe
I heard Ayn Rand on tape once campaigning for
Daniel Patrick Moynihan against Buckley.

Very true. Kennedy may have been more of a social liberal, but he was much more fiscally conservative than even many current day Republicans. Remember his quote that "A rising tide lifts all boats" was his deference to laissez faire capitalism.

Yes. Dinesh D/Souza exposes a lot of this in "Hillary's America". Highly recommended.

The short answer. NO. People who supported Hillary might as well wear an X on their backs in my opinion. I want nothing to do with them.

As much as today's Democrats like to laud the "Camelot" days of President Kennedy, if good ol' Jack showed up today, they'd curse him as a right wing fanatic.

"Progressive-Illiberal"

Fixed that for you . ;)

FORGET about the concept of Democrats & Republicans! THERE IS NO SUCH THING ANYMORE! You CAN'T "generalize" Objectivism into a Left or a Right paradigm! For example, Trump is ANTI-ENVIRONMENT due to his PRO-CORPORATOCRACY which can ONLY lead to an ANTI-HUMAN result! ! !

You might vote for the lesser of 2 criminals. Or not vote at all; but those are real options.

In my opinion, the drug issue encompasses an adult's right to do what he wants as long as he does not injure, force or harm anyone else. The same with prostitution between two consenting adults. Are these rational choices, I don't think so, but the gov't should not decide morality.

Re: “The disastrous Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were only the latest consequences of 40 years of LP intellectual and political failure.” Some disaster. The LP received 3.4% of the vote, three times its highest previous total, in the midst of the most hotly contested election in our lifetimes. And LP members won dozens of down-ballot elections by promoting individual freedom and giving voters a true choice. The LP received the endorsements of six major newspapers and many smaller ones. The LP emphasized many more issues than recreational drugs, reaching (and convincing) many more voters than it has ever done in the past. The drug issue itself has gone mainstream, and judging by the results of the November election we are winning that battle. While not perfect, the intellectual consistency of the Libertarian Party is light-years ahead of that of the “major” parties. By any objective measurement, 2016 was a breakthrough year for the Libertarian Party, and rehashing 40-year-old arguments by Ayn Rand does not change that fact.

A political party is an organization of people who gather around periodically to decide what they agree on, this time around.
By definition, no true practicing Objectivist could be a member of such a group.

Democrat and Republican are two sides of the same coin, they will drive the country to socialism albeit with different lies to get the country there. I don't think there is a party to which an objectivist could belong when it comes to a democracy as opposed to a constitutional republic.

You don't vote for a criminal.

You don't vote for a criminal.

You don't vote for a criminal.

No.

Matter.

What.

Clearly not. There are many reasons to vote for someone; e.g. being against the other candidate, sending a message.... Don't let emotions cloud your view.

You can't accurately label someone by his party affiliation. E.g. being liberal on social issues makes you just as much Dem. as being conservative on economics makes you Rep. One may also choose a party for general voting.

Ayn Rand spent much time in differentiating "self interest" and "rational self interest." The "self interest" that you mention, as used by the Democrats (socialists) and, to be fair, not limited to them, is an instant gratification, "I want it now" adolescent self interest that has nothing in common with Objectivism. It is no different than calling a thief an Objectivist because he acted in his self interest.

The Party in question uses the word "Democrat" on purpose to confuse people's perception of itself. It is a well known tactic - The Democratic Republic of North Korea, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the Democratic Republic of Germany and on and on. The fundamental philosophy that governs the Party and its leadership is socialist / collectivism. All other labels, which they change regularly, are a masquerade.

I have disliked Peikoff ever since I met him in one of the educational seminars. My reasons are only semi-rational. At that time (Possibly now?) he was a smoker and blew smoke in my face. Granted it was unintentional, and I still followed the precepts of his brilliant mind. However, over the years, I found him to be too rigid and concretized for my tastes. And as far as his birds-of-a-feather Hoenig, is concerned they think that giving the patient a diseas will cure him the next time. If he lives, that is.