Was a vote for Trump anti-Objectivst?
Posted by richrobinson 7 years, 5 months ago to The Gulch: General
I voted for Trump and I do think he has the potential to be a great President. That being said I would stop far short of comparing him to John Galt. Clearly he is not John Galt. I have heard it said that voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil. However, Ayn Rand said that there are 2 sides to every issue but the middle is always evil. I felt that not voting or voting 3rd party was falling in the middle. Wonder how others feel about this.
A few years ago he used imminent domain to take a family's home to expand the parking lot for one of his casino's.
That is not a small government view.
Was that his genuine view of the use of government or just a "get it done" method proposed by his lawyers?
We don't know........ still think he's better than hillary but....
The bottom line is that even though the Johnson/Weld campaign was far from 100% libertarian and far from 100% perfect, it was powerful enough to decisively break through the 1% ceiling and lay a foundation for the LP’s continued growth.
He is a pretty strong willed person and he DID make it past the establishment roadblocks, so we will see.
I saw Hillary are a very evil and supremely crooked influence in our country and I just couldnt just allow her to take over and run us faster into the ground. I hope I never see that phony smiling face ever again that she put on to look more acceptable. She has evil in her heart I think.
On the other hand, if they secede then California will lose its 55 reliably Democratic electoral votes, and the newly formed country can become the magnet for "open immigration" while the U.S. adopts more sensible policies. Maybe not such a bad idea after all!
Where we as Objectivist fail, is in getting a more like minded canidate elected to run during the primaries.
I do agree that the Supreme Court should be the first thing he should tackle.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fiv...
Libertarians and other third parties won't have a real opportunity until we get instant runoff into our electoral system.
In this case, Trump's winning of the election may just give us the breathing room we needed to slow, if not reverse, the degradation of our country. Perfection can never be attained, only approached, and it will take our continued efforts to hang on to every positive change we can.
If nothing else, my days will most likely be brighter for the next 4 years.
Weld on the other hand is the best governor we have had in my 20 years in Massachusetts. So please explain why Trump is better.
I did!!!!!!!!!!
Last night I named my AR-15 looking modified 9mm carbine Hillary.
I would not even have it if she had not run for president.
My objective vote was for Evan McMullin.
But I will give trumpet a length of leash.
Both mainstream candidates this year appealed to people's fear on emotional levels and then had policy ideas of using gov't force to prevent people from trading freely. Johnson was the only one who clearly opposed gov't solving people's problems. I and the plurality of voters thought Clinton was far and away a better choice, but I don't think voting for anyone, even third party candidates is anti-Objectivist.
I guess it's like what's the most Objectivist brand of vodka to buy. They're in different domains, IMHO.
He is certainly not a Capitalist, not an egoist, and often not rational. Voting for him could have merely been a vote against Hillary or a vote for change without knowing where he truly stands on most issues.