Trump IS an alpha businessman success.
But POTUS? I dunno.
Better than any socialist Dem? Hell, yeah!
Better than the proven conservative Cruz?
That depends. I know what Cruz wants to change but can he pull it off? But what the hey?
Watch the GOP crown Kasich or maybe even Romney the front runner.

Trump is more like Gail Wynand than any other of Rand's characters I could name.

I think Trump is saying things in a bombastic way to get free publicity in a pretty much rigged election process where the media acts just to make money on advertising at the expense of everything else. I really doubt he does things irresponsibly in business when it comes right down to it. From what his kids said, they were around him when business was going on, and I suspect they act they way they do in response to learning from that.

Could be Trump's kids learned first hand from a negative why one should think before they speak.

I say the apple doesnt fall far from the tree (usually). I was most impressed by Ivanka, Trumps daughter. She was really amazing on that town hall. Anderson Cooper (liberal asshole) tried to make Trump look bad by questioning her and her father, but failed so miserably at it that he eventually just gave up and did a good interview.. Ivanka just shut him down, but not in a nasty way. It was great.

Having finished the book for the umteenth time, I alternate it with 'Atlas' every few years, I would go with Gail Wynand and whomever his Ellsworth Tooey is! Howard Roark was about the vision of his work, not fame or riches, but credit for that vision on his terms. Gail Wynand was about overt success, showing what he could have built, what he could buy, whom he could control. There is a third character, a shadow more powerful than either of the other two. Ellsworth Tooey was behind the scenes, he could make or break the other two because he 'made public opinion'! Wynand (I mean Trump) needs a Tooey to remain successful, Roark doesn't care because the work he does stands on its own. Find Trump's Tooey and we will find who and what Trump really is.

Hillary is a consistent liar. Her forked tongue darting all over the place is the essence of her consistency.
As for the other Demo dangerous jackass, I agree with you.
I heard one of Trump's sons talking to Hannity on my car radio yesterday and I have to admit I was very impressed.
I will also admit to the possibility that I may vote for Trump if just to vote against Hilliary. It's an open option.
Nevertheless, I live in a blue Birmingham area that's a dot on my red state. My conservative vote really won't matter. It will be drowned. So I just may as well give it to Johnson if Libertarians get on the Alabama ballot.
And it remains to be seen who the power selfish mainstream of the GOP will allow to run for president.

No, I wouldn't classify Trump as a Howard Roark type. Roark was an innovator in his field whose technical skills were unmatched. Roark's integrity was unbending, and he would rather close down his practice and break rocks in a quarry than compromise the design of one of his buildings. Roark would refuse to make a deal with someone that had nothing of value to offer in return.

I don't think any of those traits apply to Trump.

Trump is far from being a total statist. On his website, Trump's detailed positions on health care reform, tax reform and gun rights are close to libertarian:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

In the movie when Toohey asked Roark "What do you think of me?" Roark replied "But I don't think of you." I don't think Trump would ever be able to make such a reply. Trump expects and gets fawning admirers Roark only expected to deal with people on an even level.

Hillary isnt consistent. She is bought and paid for by her contributors and says anything to get elected, but does nothing of what she said after she gets elected.
Sanders IS consistent. I have to hand it to him for that. His ideas are very ignorant at best, and evil at worst.
Trump isnt nearly as erratic as you have concluded. If he did, he would NEVER have gotten as far as he did in business, and he would NEVER have raised his kids as well as he has. Check out that CNN town hall last week with Anderson Cooper and listen to his kids talk.

One has to remember that Roark, more than any other Rand character is an archetype. A model of the perfect artist/creator whose talent affords no criticism. There are no Howard Roarks extant in the world. This does not mean that he is not a model to aspire to. Everything that a creative human can be is found in this character, and don't make the mistake of thinking that if you're not and artist of some kind you can't be creative. For those of you who don't have the creative gene, it is important for your ego and sense of life that you strive to do the best within you in order to attain the greatest satisfaction life can offer. It matters not if you are a car designer or a burger flipper, you attempt to be the very best burger producer or car designer that you can be. That, I believe, is how Trump looks at Roark. Unfortunately, he didn't get inside the character in order to find what made him the way he is. As a result he has deluded himself that his successes prove his integrity. I don't think he is an evil boogyman, but is uneducated in the moral principles relating to good, evil, truth, untruth, and just plain old right and wrong. Unlike Obama, I believe it when he says he loves this country. Perhaps he'll learn on the job. This coming election looks like the 1945 World Series. It was thought that neither side could win.

I have.
"Who'd elect someone with a face like that?"
"Lying Ted! Lying Ted! Lying Ted!!"
"I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for. In fact, they will want to."
He calls Megyn Kelly a bleeding bimbo or something (that's close enough for just as gross).
Speaking of Megyn, Trump was stupid enough to display a couple of risque photo poses Megyn once put on while he's married to someone who used to be a professional model.
The disappointment of Cruz people also lowering themselves to dig up a partially revealed totally nude shot on a magazine cover only confirmed a conclusion I had already jumped to.
All things GOP have been disappointing old dino.
The Dems are at least consistent with their Constitution-tearing free speech stifling gun-grabbing commie crap.

He is definitely NOT a Howard Roark!

"Sophomoric" also comes to mind.

I'm thinking Trump has little time for books and I'm supposing that Trump vaguely remembers that movie he saw maybe way back when.

Toohey was FOR the establishment; Trump is anti-establishment. Listen to his speeches.

I have to say that although I totally agree with Ayn Rand on philosophical grounds, her works are a bit hard and long and pedantic to read. AS#1 did a good job in film, but AS#2 and AS#3 were pretty boring examples of movies.

Another of the Trump hating articles/ Maybe that author should write about whether Hillary is Dagny Taggart.

Its so obvious that a Roark or Galt could never even want to be president of the USA at the present time, nor would ever be even close to being elected. It will take a lot more than Ayn Rand to wake up the populace here to the lack of any sort of rational philosophical base.

All we can expect now from a candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is a slowing down of the now inevitable slide to complete statism. Whether one likes Trump or not, he is the ONLY of the electable candidates that fills this bill.

To suggest such a comparison is an insult to Ayn Rand!!!!!!!!!!!

Landscaping, and Trump didn't create any of it either.
Trump's feature would have been to spell out "Trump" in the layout of the course so it could be read from space. (Oh dear, now I have given him the idea.)
;^)

Indeed. Howard Roark laughed.

I wouldn't say that about his golf courses. Trump's golf courses definitely have a unique style.

“Which approach works better: Roark’s career built on dealing with people based on reason, or Wynand’s career built on treating people like idiots?” It depends on what one is trying to accomplish. In today’s political climate, the question could be recast as “Which approach works better: Rand Paul’s campaign built on dealing with people based on reason, or Trump’s campaign built on treating people like idiots?”

Actually, Trump's campaign is not based on treating his supporters like idiots. Looking past the tone of his remarks, there is plenty of substance that we could agree with. The health care and tax reform proposals on his website are giant steps toward a free market.

As for Trump’s tone, most of his cutting remarks are directed at “establishment” politicians and their lapdogs in the media, who richly deserve such scorn. Much of his support comes from voters who feel betrayed by politicians of both parties who have mismanaged and looted the country for the past several decades. They perceive (correctly) that their values and views are being disregarded by a corrupt power structure, and rightly or wrongly they see Trump as the only candidate with a realistic chance to overturn it.

In keeping with the fictional nature of the post title, I think 'Howard Roark's' response would have been the first line in the novel. ;)