I am suggesting that Trump and the Patriots are not your "R" party. He just had to use what was at hand to get into a position to make changes. Look t how many R's did NOT run for re-election or "retired"....

Thank you, that was my thought, but I needed to have it validated. Any collectivist believer is clearly then, non Objectivist, and non Conservative, as I see it. Of course it is a party thing as well, their platform has not been modified yet that I know of to clearly articulate their Socialist change, but Bidens announcement today went a long way towards it.

He should have "checked his premise," lol.

In addition to the core principles you mention, is the most basic one. Rand always stated that the country will never change its course until it realizes and sheds its altruist morality. Many of Trump’s policies are framed around that, with America’s self-interest as the guiding factor, even if he cannot articulate the proper principle. MSM displays it as a Nazi nationalism, but it’s a fundamental ethical shift that should be identified and championed until shown differently.

That is why the likes of us (Objectivists) need to provide the intellectual principles in context and perspective, for the others to understand. The fact that there is such a schism is very disappointing. The formal movement should be all over today's events, yet they're playing hooky. They're hiding in their "ivory tower" while the cult wait to see how they're suppose to react. Much more divisive than at NBI 60 years ago. TOS showed some promise before they decided to ignore the politics. Hopefully they will get back on track staying consistent with the principles while being objectively relevant with today's application. The first order of reality is to acknowledge there is not John Galt in the current political climate.

Trump is absolutely "Equal Opportunity" on whom he hammers. Exploding heads come in all forms and party affiliations. I find him very entertaining with his right between the eyes shots.

Based on that quote, which I assume Yaron knew, I might take a more harsh view of Yaron's anti-position, missing a position.

Rs and Ds employ any trick to stay in power...

Exactly. The individuals are the ones at fault, and yet, the entire system is designed to make it a "group thing"...

Lets not forget ballot harvesting, look at Broward County, 2016/2018 for the poster girl.

Very true. Why is hatred of Trump "justified"?

Agreed, they are indeed the "looters". Yet how do "conservatives" match up?

RE: "How does this change if say, Obama was his VP"
Obama, Michelle, and Kamala are all all collectivists. It would change nothing. It would still be a question of Collectivism vs. Individualism.

Yes, and that is why I have not seen Trump as theater, like he is presented as, and a lot of people think he is. He uses their own weapons against them, so well, most people fail to notice it. Remember, in his 2016 campaign, he labeled China as an adversary, but he did not go to the word "enemy". I have seen him label the "Elites" as member of both parties, indicating there is a distinct manipulation in the background. I believe there are reasons people like Paul Ryan did nothing 2016-18, and he did not run again....amongst others.

Scott, then from an Objectivist view, Trump is that "best" choice, assuming Biden is the other. How does this change if say, Obama was his VP (there is nothing I am aware of to stop that), or if Michelle was substituted with Kamala Harris? (Thatis the "Biden is too sick to run now" scenario. I know it is speculation, but from what I have seen here we have people who do not like Trump, so will not vote for him, yet the Ayn Rand position is that you need to pick the one closes to your own moral views? That seems like a big conflict.

That is truly alarming that respected people could be so wrong.

Thank you, I believe that was what I saw too, McGovern was a deep state disaster, almost a test to see if a rabid socialist could survive, and revealed the people were not yet fully educated. Look at today, proposals such as "defund the police" get full power support, despite being self defeating. Yet in 68, they would have been viewed a insane. I think there is a lot of background material that is needed to fully understand how things have changed. One thing for sure is the education system has had a big part in it.

I like that statement, it is a lot of what I was seeing. I was not swayed with his argument, as it seemed he was making an emotional based decision vice a logical, factually supported one. I do need to watch the whole thing when I get time, as he may have changed his position in the longer interview.

So, Freedom, how doe that fit into the question of how Objectivism fit into Conservatism and Liberalism as a political philosophy. I am openly saying my total knowledge of Objectivism is pretty limited, mainly through Atlas Shrugged. My main takeaways from the book/Movies were:
1. A persons intellectual creations are theirs, the fruit of their mind and knowledge. Yet anyone who works for a company almost always has to sign away their work to the company (at least at my company thats true).
2. Government is almost always doomed to become authoritative and despotic simply because power is concentrated at a small level, and people are easily corruptible.
3. Democracy is a dictatorship of the 50.1% over the other 49.9%.
4. Government control of anything (i.e. Hank Reardons steel) is almost always doomed to mediocrity or failure.
5. You cannot force me to produce if I choose not to.
6. The individiual is th most important person in the world. EACH individual is important. Placing them into groups and classes and labels is demeaning and manipulative. You move from a concept of "I", to the concept of "We" and then to a "You owe me" groupthink. The individuals in Atlas Shrugged were the ones who succeeded and did not end up morally compromised.

I don't have a lot of free time to dig around into Objectivism as a total philosophy, and a lot of that is because I have yet to find anyplace that talks about Ayn Rands concepts in plain language, sorry to say. It seems it always devolves into high level talk with a lot od "isms" included. So I thought to ask the question after a discussion with a person who is very well educated in it. I do see a lo of parallels between what I think Trump and the Patriots are trying to accomplish, and what was brought out in Atlas Shrugged. The real issue is it seems a lot of people do not understand the current state of our society, where the huge political machines took over, and have been in control for a hundred years. The individual and personal responsibility has been crushed under propaganda and skewed news.

OMG! She is obviously part of the Deep State. How could anyone support her that has half a brain? Or morals? Trump is innocent of all of that evil and he truly loves America and what she stands for. I don't agree with him on everything. Far from it. But he really is trying to save our country.

In answer to the original question, I would say that the answer is obvious. There is nothing objective about the leftist mind or their "policies."

The government has no place except when an individual right has been abrogated. Only on “government” property should civil rights be legally upheld. With private property one certainly has the right to discriminate (racist is too subjective), whether he should or not is a different discussion. Any form of systemic or institutional racism (a frozen abstraction) perished with the election of a black president.

Vote buying and crony capitalism...

Leftist Liberal double-speak objectivist pretender, imo. CG reminds me of people who pretend to be libertarian but support big government force with every action.

Leftist Liberal double-speak objectivist pretender, imo.