Thanks, that would be a good photoshop opportunity. Maybe even a campaign tool.

Great visualization Nickursis:
"...must strike back!"
Gotta love it.

"I agree he is honestly different [in that he is himself and real at debates]."
I wonder if anyone unscripted can win a national election. I wonder if anyone states what he thinks, whether it's me, Trump, you, or anyone, if it's going to make him un-electable. Maybe when anyone states all of his ideas on policy, it comes off as absurd to 70% of the people.

I keep thinking about the Rand essay posted here a week ago: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
If the gov't has broad powers, Rand says, we're tempted to find a centrist who will consider everyone's interests. I say it's actually prudent to elect centrists, until gov't powers are limited. (No-kidding-Sherlock to those who respond this isn't ideal every time I say it.)

I see no way someone like Trump will be elected, for the reasons I said. I think people who work every day with people who find him reasonable are kidding themselves about how much the rest of the country is like them. I estimate maybe 80% of the people I interact with are Bernie Sanders supporters (we avoid talking about politics), but I can step back and see that what seems like "everyone" to me is actually a narrow segment of society.

My dream scenario is Trump, who I say is un-electable, gets the nomination and implodes, making way for the Libertarians to become a mainstream party. In this dream, Gary Johnson could say what he thinks but also say, "we don't have to agree on everything because all of this is outside the purview of government. You work with vendors, customers, employers that don't share your opinions, and it doesn't matter b/c they're not a part of what you're working on." That's probably a pipe dream. It will probably be a centrist politician who considers everyonne's interest, like the Rand essay talks about, and I think Clinton is far-and-away the best choice for that.

Shot, we have tried all kinds of establishment politicians and they all seem to just let the state get bigger and more inefficient. People want an anti establishment one now. There's Sanders on the left and trump on the right. Sanders is a wacko job but tells it like it is. So does trump- not perfect by any means but for 4 years I think he would at least shake up the establishment

But it's so obviously a conflict of interest it might get traction. I could argue it should go to support shorter waits in emergency rooms, maybe disease research, etc. But definitely not to pay bloated civil service salaries and perks, or to increase the number of policemen used to write tickets

I agree he is honestly different, and that is a good thing in some ways, but he is basically the only thing that will be left standing unless the RNC nukes him. Even then, I can see him doing a Schwarzenegger, crawling on the floor saying "must strike back".

I am not sure how that would work, mainly because they use the same lame arguments the Dumbocraps do when they come up with their pocket grabs: It's for the children, It's for law enforcement (Genghis Khan will come kill you if we do not have your money), It's your duty (that's a joke).

sadly agreed...

I almost think we might have a good enough argument about fines not going to the people assessing the fines to get the practice stopped. I think police today are primarily cash registers for local government

I would rather hear what people actually think in debates and news conferences. It's refreshing to just be oneself and real. Im sure in business dealings he is very thoughtful and specific, and would be the same when representing the country on important matters

Indeed, just as we discussed in another thread about the impoundment dilemma. The efforts by locals to squeeze money out is almost as outrageous as the feds.

Agreed, although I had to laugh when one of the Fox commentators called it a cross between a news conference and streaming consciousness event. It actually seemed to fit him. Just do not tune in for any State of the Union addresses.

I do not believe that to necessarily true. I do agree that there is no codified political philosophy, but maybe there cannot be one, given the emphasis on individual concern with it. I find this statement to something that would be an excellent starting point for any party, let alone and Objectivist one:

Objectivism, in contrast, the moral principles of politics are an extension of the ethical code of rational self-interest. Because there are no conflicts of rational interests among individuals, the proper society is one in which individuals cooperate for mutual advantage, exchanging value for value.

If a party valued the individual, and the legal code defended the legal rights of the individual, instead of the current "rights of the state above all men", I could do that very nicely.

Considering the legitimate policy disagreements among Gulch members (on immigration, for example), I doubt that an Objectivist political party could generate a coherent platform that would satisfy most of those who espouse Ayn Rand's philosophy. As an Atlas Society article points out, "There is as yet no comprehensive exposition of Objectivist political philosophy. . . "
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

Without a more fully developed political philosophy, an Objectivist political party would be premature.

I think Romney may be the secret anointed one (for another losing round) and the RNC trotted him out with a preprogrammed message. It seems more and more there is a group at the top who seem to have a collective IQ of 3. They need to dump them fast....This is Allosaur vs Brontosaur, and Bronts always seemed to get eaten.

I would say that the days of a party having an actual "philosophy" are gone. Mainly due to the reaction times needed due to rapid media and information flow. Now they just knee jerk and have descended into an archaic "blessed one" approach to who is nominated. I get the feeling Trump is not in that group. In fact, only Jeb, and maybe Cristie were. Jeb acted just like he knew he was to be the anointed one, and would have been creamed by the HillaryBeast and Dumbocrap machine. Where the Republicrats have finishing nails in their maces, the Dumbocraps have railroad spikes. The RNC has been at a loss for what to do for at least 12 years now.

good question...Trump is a populist/opportunist/pragmatist...no philosophy...
i was censured by the Tea Party for my criticism of their lack of philosophy...
i will have to wait and see who emerges...and what path they take if they can get by Hillary...

I don't think Cruz has enough support to actually win the nomination let alone stand up to Hillary. Principles are not IN today

I think I would have to vote for Trump over Hillary
Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I just think that it would
be horrendous to be faced with such a choice. I
voted for Cruz in the primary, and I am still hoping
for him.

With every member of LBJ's family named LBJ, including his dog, I suppose that was kind of obvious...

So, you probably will have to live with the principles of Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. I guess you think they are better than Trump.

Yeah. What "philosophical" direction?

Ayn Rand once remarked about LBJ a suspicion
(or that she thought) his goal was simply "to be
President", rather than to carry out any particular
policies. Now I do not know what she would have said about Trump, nor can I speak for her, but for myself, I strongly suspect the same
thing about him.

I should have said "Not only did Trump praise
eminent domain," not 'affirmative action'.
I did not know that the property was eventually
sold to that casino. I am sorry. But, of course, I
despise Trump. Either you have principles, or you don't.
As to the Civil War, if there had been no
slavery, there would have been no Civil War.

She greatly dislikes Obama and rails against him with everything she's got whenever she gets a chance. She also points out the foolishness of the Republican insiders.