Trump could be Hillary's worst nightmare. At the moment he is trashing his Republican opponents, but what happens if he gets the nomination and can concentrate all his firepower on Ms. Clinton? Until recently she was laughing every time his name was brought up, but recent news stories suggest she is beginning to take him seriously. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/...

Re: "If she was alive, Rand would be writing scathing editorials in the Objectivist against all these pretender puppets." A better case could be made that she would be reluctantly supporting one or more of the least objectionable Republican candidates. She did so with Nixon in 1972, a year after he instituted wage and price controls.

Cruz, Rubio and Paul have all cited Ayn Rand as an important influence on their economic thinking. I think she would likely support any one of them over Hillary or Bernie.

The rise of Trump would not have been possible if the Republican Party had not sold out to the Democrats on every issue and principle except the odious “social conservative” ones.

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives and thus the purse strings since early 2011. Why is Obamacare still around and well-funded?

In Nevada, where I live, two of the last three Republican governors (to the delight of Democrats) have created the largest tax increases in the state’s history. Most of the money thus raised is destined to disappear into the sewer pits of “public education”.

I have voted Libertarian in every presidential election since 1972, and I see no reason to do otherwise in 2016 whether Trump is the Republican nominee or not.

Michael, I utterly reject the whole Libertarian argument that Republicans are as bad as Democrats and that therefore neither is worthy of support.

There is only one logical consequence to that policy: support for some minor party (like the Libertarians,) which uniformly garners election returns in the single digit percentile, but frequently siphons enough votes away from (sometimes) worthy Republicans to hand elections goose-stepping Democrats. I will not go down that road, and submit that to do so is to actively abet the destruction of liberty.

If a large, established brand starts producing items of diminishing quality, the logical course of action is to improve the quality of those items, not throw one's support behind a lame garage start-up with a proven track record of failure and its own rash of quality problems. The analogy is not perfect - it is far easier to improve a product in the marketplace than it is to alter the intellectual composition of a political party - but I trust it's clear enough.

I do not and will not support Libertarianism, or any other minor party.

CG, this is my unwillingness to believe in conspiracies without ample proof, at war with my unwillingness to believe that the non-Democrat voters are... stupid enough to latch onto any principles-devoid juggernaut who knows how to "talk tough" and hit all the right populist buttons. I would much rather believe the former; unfortunately the facts argue for the latter.

I think that at present, Cruz is the best of the bunch.

If Trump gets the nomination, I'm voting for the Libertarian Party nominee. But I'd consider Cruz, and maybe even Carson.

Absolutely. But I don't think your stance applies to everyone within the repub. party. As parties, they are...what's worse than evil...ultra evil? I am aware of some of the horrendous hidden acts that make one cringe and I'm sure that there are wheels within wheels that I'm not aware of. But there are a few misguided but not evil persons who arise from that stinking morass and can certainly be improved over the current occupiers of power that you have so apltly described.

I must disagree that al the candidates are leftists. Several of them who are not don't stand a chance of getting the nomination. The most leftist, and scariest is Trump who is leading. Two whom I consider to be non-left but flawed are Rubio and Cruz. If you are looking for a lily-white Objectivist type candidate, you'll never vote again. That's your choice, but it isn't mine.

You are incorrect regarding the President's authority to restrict immigration. Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through the Carter era have restricted entry from other countries for a variety of reasons. Asian entry was restricted from the turn of the last century to the 1930s due to concerns about the opium trade; Italian entry was restricted during WW I as an enemy, and during the 1920s out of Mafia concerns; Middle Eastern Christians are specifically denied entry today because they're not being oppressed, tortured, and executed by a state, but by ISIS, while Muslims are being allowed in because they're being persecuted by Syria.

...in the same way a professional pick pocket can engage you in a conversation complaining about the police not doing a better job at preventing crime, then walk away with your valuables.

Trump isn't going to "make America great" with his Pragmatist rationales and juvenile persona. It is clear that individual rights are "negotiable" in his mind. His supporters are blind to this and do not tolerate these ideas in other candidates.

I'm an independent who sides with the Republicans against the Progressives the Democrats have become. Do I wish there were a viable third-party candidate? Yes (I voted for Ross Perot). Two-party politics have caused exactly the problems George Washington predicted. I would love for there to be a half-dozen parties or more including a Tea Party (for Ted Cruz), a Socialist Party (for Bernie Sanders), an Islamic State Party (for Keith Ellison), a Libertarian Party (for Rand Paul), and a Progressive Party (for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton).

Until such a time, however, I'm going to see the political arena for what it is and vote accordingly. I'm not going to vote for spoilers because as I demonstrated with Huckabee, that's what allows the extremist Progressives to win. I don't buy the line that there can be paradigm shifts in politics where the populace suddenly all realize they've been duped and will see the error of their ways in one turning point in history. I believe that people must be educated bit-by-bit. They must be persuaded to act in their own logical interest rather than getting distracted by hucksters shilling free toys in exchange for control over their lives (SQUIRREL).

The Constitution is the standard, but getting back to it isn't going to happen in a day.

I agree. The history of making promises to defend individual liberty and free markets, and doing exactly the opposite conclusively proves the GOP is evil. imo, socialism is evil by definition and that the Dems are evil by their socialist policies.
By their actions, the intent of both is to gain power for themselves by lying and stealing from the people. Evil, without doubt.

Of course principles matter and ethics matter. It's a fight I've been engaged in for 60 years. What we must be careful about, without getting too semantically entangled, is the difference between being evil and just being wrong. It leads to the question, is a person who is wrong always evil? Or if that person is wrong on certain topics, but right on the majority of topics, can we call him misguided rather than evil? Much has to do with intent. Intent can be understood by checking the past actions of a person and blatantly evil acts such as performed by Obama. Sometimes, ancient sayings, are a gem of truth, such as "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

My use of Monroe was not to equate her with a politician, but to illustrate that Rand could be surprising and one shouldn't be too sure about what she might say or do.

Marilyn Monroe was not running for office, so Rand's comments were not considering a person who was asking to be trusted as president of the country.
I can't be more definitive than:
Don't Vote For Evil.
The major parties are really just the Devil and Lucifer. Two names for the same thing. They have both been consistent at lying and looting.
I didn't say abstain. I said don't vote for evil.
We give them the power. They can't get it without our consent (yet.) Don't consent. Don't agree to play the rigged game. If that means abstain, then abstain. If that means vote for a non-statist candidate, then do that. Either of those decisions retain your integrity and maintain your principles of rational philosophy and ethics. Voting for evil, either evil, does not.
Principles matter. Ethics matter. Don't consent to evil.

You talkin' to me?
Siding with the Left? You cannot be serious. My point was that if you are so Objectivistly orthodox that you dislike all the candidates, you'll have to abstain from voting and leave the decision to primarily low information voters. I'm of the 1/2 a loaf is better than none. If half the loaf is rotten and you have no other choice, then cut away the rotten part. You can work to change the thinking of elected officials, but you cannot change the thinking of a non existent person.

I don't believe for a minute that Fiorina is a Democratic shill. That I worked at HP during her tenure and saw the disaster she wrought on that company as she pursued her goals of collecting a war chest which would enable her to challenge Barbara Boxer for a California Senate Seat is an aside: I've listened to the woman enough to know she's no Progressive. She's a terrible business-person, but hardly a progressive posing as a Republican. I don't really think she's relevant in this race anyway. I think she drops out after New Hampshire when she can't get above 3% in either NH or Iowa.

Trump, however, is a far more likely sleeper-Dem candidate. He waves off his donations to Democrats in the past as "business necessity" and he talks a provocative game, but I won't vote for him. He may rail on about border security and immigration (both of which his base stance - minus the bluster - I can get behind to a degree) and he talks tough about the Second Amendment, but I don't trust him to deal with the rampant cronyism in Government. His stance on Eminent Domain is enough to cause me to back away.

Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are just RINO's after the mold of most recent Republicans: Boehner, McConnell, Bush I and Bush II, and more. I can't wait til they drop out. I'd lump in Kasich here too.

I like Bobby Jindal. He led his state (Louisiana) through the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He's been working to make his state more business-friendly while holding down government expenditures. I just think that he's going to have to wait a few more years to get name recognition.

I think the voters were initially enamored with Ben Carson because he was a non-Establishment player and he was black, but I think several of his recent media gaffes have hurt his stock and the polls are showing it. I think he'd make a great Surgeon General or Secretary of Health and Human Services (because I think he'd put himself out of a job), but I'm not convinced of his Executive credentials.

I'd vote for Rand Paul, but I don't think his campaign has the legs. I'd LOVE to see him as Secretary of the Treasury though!

I'd vote for Ted Cruz. I think he's the only one who has the political savvy to go head-to-head with Trump. I think he'd make a great Attorney General, too. Or Supreme Court Justice.

I just can't decide what to think about Rubio. His earlier stance on immigration and support for the Democrat's immigration bill pretty much poisoned the well for me, I think.

I'll never vote for Mike Huckabee. He's the reason we have Obama in the first place. In 2008, it was a four-way contest between McCain and Guiliani (RINO side of party) and Huckabee and Romney (evangelical side). When Guiliani bowed out, it only helped McCain. Huckabee only had support in two states, but insisted on staying in because of his hate of Romney as a Mormon, when all the polls showed that Romney would win head-to-head against Obama while McCain would lose. When Huckabee finally bowed out, it was only after several more states had been decided by the slimmest of margins in favor of McCain. The damage was done and McCain would go on to lose to Obama in the General Election as everyone knew he would.

You cannot be certain what Rand might say or do. She certainly has surprised me in the past, like her defense of Marilyn Monroe. So...can you give me a definitive answer? Is abstain your only alternative as of today?

I agree with you on Trump.

As far as Rand Paul, I think he's very adept and that is why I no longer support him. Had he simply stuck to his beliefs I would have still been a supporter. But he started playing politics and he lost me. I so wish he had stuck to his values but then again, maybe he did and that is why he is not going anywhere in this election.