I don't disagree with your aim, but to be successful you have to have a means to convince "the masses" to rebel against the system. Ranting about the need isn't the same as spelling out a convincing plan on how to execute.

There is a very uncomfortably real set of circumstances that could lead to violent revolution, but I don't think it will come from a purposeful, planned event. The collapse of law enforcement would drop the demand for security on the individual, fighting against criminal elements. If government chooses to view individuals defending themselves, their family, and their property as a vigilante force, a battle between government and the people could very well ensue. Who knows what happens after that?

Unfortunately, we've had too many political power figures who've viewed their positions in exactly that light. I have the impression that the only believably ethical candidate running for the Presidency is Dr. Ben Carson. The question is whether or not Carson can overcome the image of his inexperience against the political machinery that's weighted in favor of the Party animals.

Remember, the original question was that if the only choice was between Trump and Clinton, who would we choose. I'm uncomfortable with Trump, but absolutely fear the destruction of the republic will be completed with a Clinton Presidency.

I disagree with your conclusions. The power of the parties is based on continuing to get votes from people who fail to see they are being betrayed repeatedly. Is it easy to change this? No, but the alternative is continuing enslavement. The choice is simple.
1) Continue to consent to the existing system. Be a slave.
2) Peacefully resist by doing the thing that the parties fear the most: take your votes elsewhere. Your votes are the only thing that disguises the slavery for the evil that it is.
3) Revolt using force.
You go ahead and consent. Be a slave. Lots of luck with that.

To think objectively, it's best to deal in facts. Unless you have documented proof that Trump committed fraud (a chargeable, criminal offense), I would say he acted legally, as do many other business owners every year. Investing is a gamble, just like a spin of the roulette wheel, and anyone who thinks their losses can only be the result of conspiracy is at least naive. As a major stockholder, Trump incurred far more loss than most of the other investors, but his wealth from more successful ventures more than offset his losses. You seem to project a hatred of capitalism.

You think the office of President is supposed to be a source of wealth and power to the individual who holds the office at the expense of the American people? That is what Trump thinks, based on his past actions.
Or do you think objectivists have no ethics, and do not take fiduciary responsibility for the public service jobs if they hold them?
When he is running for an office where his actions must be to represent the American people, not himself, Trump can be depended on to dump his failures on the American people, and take the profit of any success for himself, exactly as he has done in his businesses. He can't be trusted in any position with fiduciary responsibility to America.

Yes, Trump does know how to give himself a way to dump any failure on other shareholders. Reminds me of Goldman Sachs in that respect. Suck in other investors to lower your personal risk and if the venture fails the small investors get destroyed while Trump goes on his way virtually unscathed. If the venture succeeds, Trump gets the glory and the lions share of profit. This is the way that wall street has worked for 100 years, and it's disgraceful. Should a person use his wits to give himself an advantage against his competition? Yes, of course. Is it ethical for a person to lure investors into a project that he promotes and treat the investors as his enemy, contractually imposing all the penalties of his failure on the investors? Emphatically, NO. Trump is a disgusting, unethical whore. A contractual vampire squid. Just like Hillary.

The problem with your solution is that it doesn't answer the question of how to overcome the power of the established political parties. As an intellectual exercise, fervent independence is fine, but you wind up waving banners that don't even draw backwater media attention. You have one of two choices to have any significant impact: create a new mass movement, which means overpromising what your party will do differently in a way that has the emotional appeal to draw strong public/media support; or infiltrate one of the major parties and change the message from within. Rand Paul is trying to do the latter, and seems to be failing. Creating a new mass movement would require a greater marketing skill than that of Trump. Lots of luck with that.

"Trump will do what's good for Trump." Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that sound like an Objectivist?

Trump's bankruptcies were business, not personal. When you're involved in as many businesses as he is, some are great hits, some are self-sustaining, and some are a bust. The guy is worth $9B, so he must be doing something right. If Trump was as megalomaniacal as some paint him, he wouldn't be able to let go of anything, and would have failed a long time ago. I'm not a Trump fan, but looking at his professional performance objectively (isn't that what we're all about?), he is very successful. Given only the Trump-Hillary choice, I'd have to go with the one with the most demonstrated success, "the Donald."

Then you will be a slave by your own consent.
I will not.

Sun rand was right . Arguing Politics is pretty much useless without a firm philosophical base. So my vote today isn't worth much when there are so many people who do not think. I have to choose the lesser evil or just don't vote at all

Take control and get behind the cannon by voting for independents.

She obviously lied and hid bad behavior, and she is not backing down on her campaign. She SHOULD withdraw her candidacy.

I think you've got something there. Let's sign them both up for Ashley Madison and have them both receive steamy e-mails from one another. They were meant for each other.

Heinz 57 with Ds and Rs mixed together, all dead-set
Against Us. . you are right about that, sir!!! -- j
.