Talk about a "conflicting" title as a attention getter!

1, 2 & 3. Trump. Not without some reservations. He's got the right ideas, he reaches for the prize, he seems to have a good feel for what it is he's doing...and his stats are amazing. I think it's marvelous that he's NOT a politicianl

Standing in the way is infinitely better than going along to get along.

He has managed to get some things done in spite of all of DC plus the media. That is impressive to me.

Big issue for me as well. The issue for mass shootings is mental illness/problems. No gun laws would have stopped them.

People determined to break the laws will do so, no matter how many you pass.

Trump was the best (more accurately, least bad) candidate for the simple reason that the Establishments of both parties hate him. No matter who controls Congress, he's not going to get any big expensive boondoggles passed. By contrast, for an example of what happens when a Republican President has the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, look no farther than Dubya.

If you think someone else could've made it through, make your point.

I meant in the general election.

He has certainly reduced executive branch use of power, Dept of Education, EPA, FCC, et al.

You and I argued about Trump, and you were right. A learning exercise for me.

Rand is not his dad, unfortunately.

Agree, in the present environment, the only way a person not selling other people's money survives is on the offensive.

In the primary, I thought Trump was a clown and had no chance, but looking back, he was the only one that could discuss taking on the deep state without failing the election.

"Could have actually gotten elected in 2016" requires some definition. First, to what point in 2016 does the question relate? Obviously once the nominees were selected there were only two choices, but at the start of the year there were 11 Republicans other than Trump who had filed and participated in debates. (Also some Democrats other than Hillary, but I think we can exclude them from consideration for "best".)

Next, do we take it that any of those 11 could have actually gotten elected? Clearly not all of them thought so; more than half (including Rand Paul) had withdrawn by the middle of February.

It is probably an axiom that one must vote for someone who is not perfect.

I totally agree, we have to get these manipulative, lifetime-tenured lawyers out of government.

I dont think Trump has really reversed the march to socialism, but he is standing in the way of that march. I can tell because of the HATRED shown towards him by the left. Its encouraging.

ALL of the democratic candidates are TERRIBLE.

Agree totally. Trump is intellectually compromised and inconsistent (repeal but replace obamacare with some other stupid government program), but the fact the left HATES him so much is encouraging in that he is opposing them and they know it.

I learned a lot of law, history and politics here too. Long way to go...hopefully learning right to the end!

Lot of smart people here. A couple are too "smart" to learn new things. Just ignore them.

I was a Rand Paul supporter, but was amazed at how poorly he performed in the debates. Trump proved he could manipulate the media like puppets, and I realized over time that he was unembarrassable and bold, and would be the most likely to do exactly as he said he would. We got the best President available.

A true Objectivist candidate would be ripped to shreds by the media as heartless and mean spirited. I don't anticipate any such critter to ever show up for the contest.

There is one big difference right now, gun control. That is a big one to me.

I was a Cruz fan too. Totally agree with the rest.

Still waiting for the Ivory Tower to weigh in. My guess is, they can't deal with this necessary compromise.

That is a great point. I do think:
If you are one welfare, you should not be able to vote in any election following a period you accepted welfare. Why are you voting? You are a parasite.
Welfare should not be a handout. It should be transformed to a publicly funded, privately executed programs (not plural) to train, educate and get people self-sufficient, with appropriate incentives for getting people off welfare long-term.
There will be a group that can not be brought to self-sufficiency, or will resist it. Those need to be in a home, again, privately run.

This would have a massive effect on poverty, which will have a massive effect on crime, and gun violence (70% of which is among the poor, with handguns, not ARs).

Libertarians and true capitalism have never had an answer to the emotional angst many people feel leading a comfortable lifestyle (and being told they are without compassion) while about 10% of the population either can not or will not survive on their own in a meritocracy.
Perhaps the answer would be for government to establish a minimal budget each year, then add a percentage for the care of the members of the "can not" population. The "will not" portion should be denied assistance and separated from the general population to feed, like the cannibals they are, off of each other or become hunter-gatherers). We put Indians on reservations; perhaps we should have the same for the "will nots." Then let them earn their way off the reservation, if they're so inclined.

Honestly, I doubt we will ever see a candidate for any party that espouses being an Objectivist. Some have been influenced by the Objectivism or claim they have but actions that align with it are vanishingly rare.

That said, I was an early Trump supporter because every choice in the last 40 years has been socialist vs socialist lite. There is almost no difference between the two major parties at this point. A Populist on the other hand, is more likely to support more individualist policies than either of them.

From a practical perspective he has been far more effective than I expected given the resistance arrayed against him. From every direction.

Hiltery was the worst candidate ever.
I liked Cruz.
Trump was not beholden to anyone and didn't not need to enrich himself...he did not need a job and he, a businessman, that had to deal with all the bureaucratic idiots, knew exactly what needed to be cleaned up and what creatures needed to be held accountable.

All toll, it was our best choice, not perfect, but our best alternative.

I have lived my life voting for the lesser of two evils. We cannot expect to get a candidate for president who embodies everything we may want. Trump has been surprisingly good.
As to your questions: I think the key phrase in your first two questions are “we could have gotten elected”.
If the American People were going to vote for someone enthusiastically, it had to be someone from the outside who spoke truth to power, didn’t care about political games, and who would challenge the power structure and the status quo. Enter Donald Trump. The above is some of the reasons he got elected. I firmly believe that were it not for him we would have President Hillary.
What should we do to improve our freedom? We should vote out every office holder from Congress on down, and replace them with non-lawyers and ordinary citizens who have common sense.

Ok, 1999 left, then. I started off looking at Trump askance, and only voted for him because I was so scared of Hitlery. Since the election, although there have been some cringe-worthy moments, it seems to me he has grown and matured quite a bit. Not that I ever was even tempted to vote for the Hag. But there was a point at which if they had given us an actual candidate to vote for, I might have considered it. Since the election, I feel like we all dodged a bullet. So much more has become obvious just watching their reactions that I know I did the right thing!

The very fact that he's NOT "presidential" and he doesn't do things "the correct way," is, in the vernacular, a feature, not a bug, as far as I am concerned.

I am not a super-politically-knowledgeable person. I have gotten more so since I joined the Gulch, but I still have a long way to go.

All of which is why I didn't answer when you first asked the question.

Looks like a small cross section of the Gulch has actively responded. The ivory tower either doesn't know how to respond (practical cowards, unsurprising in their comfy chairs/computers. incapable of "gulch", unwilling to compromise), or they approve.

In the absence of input, we should assume the Gulch overwhelmingly supports Trump. Excellent. Then all other discussions are academic.

Anyone else want to weigh in, or just let the conclusion stand?

Totally agree! Now, just 2,000 positions.