You are defending the indefensible. Take away the name Ayn Rand and you would not be so willing to pronounce her virtue. It certainly is not my intention to besmirch either Branden or Rand. I think Rand made a big deal out of a very small situation. Could you tell me how he was dishonest or irresponsible? I'm a fairly perceptive person, and I didn't find any of that to be true.If you think that all that happened after they stopped their "time together" (Her words) you are mistaken, it was going on when Branden finally confessed his love for another woman. You sound exactly like the people of the time who refused to believe in the affair until they could no longer cover it up. And, if you think that Branden's wife and Rand's husband weren't terribly hurt by the affair which they were completely aware of, you are sadly mistaken. They were people not carved out of wood, and both of them were hurting. The insane degree to which Rand kept the relationship was one of total disregard for the spouses, but the moment she was placed in the same position that she placed them in, she blew a gasket. As much as I and everyone of that group loved her, she cared not for a bit about them at all. That's OK with me, but let's at least be honest.

If he was dishonest and irresponsible so was his paramour.The entire situation was sleazy. Neither of them was willing to put it all up front. When the truth came out it was a total surprise to most of us, many of whom refused to believe it at first.

Or, maybe not.

More openess and transparency than any previous president.

Our group called itself "The Ayn Rand Society" and she let us know that we were not to use her name under any circumstances. There was no discussion or help from above only a terse edict. Which illustrates the kind of attitude that turns off people, even those who want to help. Branden would have handled it more diplomatically.She was not exactly what you'd call a "people person."

The very fact you use such terms as "excommunicated" explains a lot.

To me, he appears to be doing the right thing 80% of the time. Compared to previous Presidents -- I'll take it.

They'd love him the same as Lincoln was loved. With hatred.

Yes, we are a long way from a turnabout, but Trump continues to do the right thing.The result is the same whether to a great intellect such as Rand or a man who learned how to become rich but is by no means erudite.If the house s on fire, I don't care about the intellect of the only owner of a fire hose in the area.

So does a computer.

Why not? To an alien, one face is pretty much as good as another. The only significance would be to us, which is a bit silly.

I would suggest he was the same person all along, but perhaps different sides became more prominent based in outside influences.
Wasn’t he married to Barbara branden while he was involved with ayn rand, and then eventually dumped Barbara for another wife later?

Politically it was a smart move. He did win the election, which was his goal. In order to carry out the job of president, one has to get elected first

I would postulate that the so called potential allies he might have had to help with his agenda but who were turned off. By his personality werent committed to his agenda anyway. ( like mc Cain for example)

Here is the problem with those proposed faster than light methods. They are the result of believing that whatever can be conceptualized as math must be physically possible. If something is possible physically, then math will be able to describe it but the math comes after the physical or a math discovered conceptually may be used to describe that physically real existing thing. Other than that, math is purely something of a mind of a brain and it is not possible to reify math to being some actual existing physical thing. Only very small subset of math will ever describe something physical. The rest has absolutely nothing to do with the real world but just interesting conceptualization.

I understand that at least from her side, the association was over forever

This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism. It is not a place to promote religion, which is the opposite. Primitive myths from thousands of years ago about the supernatural promoted as sacred text is not history. There are places you can go to promote your faith. This isn't one of them.

The Bible teaches how the earth and man were created. These fantasies are history by people who saw events. If you believe in history then you should believe in the Bible.

Buckley's personal, sneering, viciousness towards Ayn Rand can still be seen in youtube videos documenting his appearances. Buckley was an ardent religionist who tried tie capitalism to religion; he hated and viciously misrepresented Ayn Rand, who ignored his pseudo-intellectual personal feuding and juvenile mocking and taunting for what it was.

Religious conservative Buckleyites lashing out with 'downvoting' and nothing to say is not rational discussion. Buckley and his followers like Whittaker Champers hated, misrepresented and sneered at Ayn Rand with no intelligible response to her as long as they lived. An Ayn Rand forum is not the place to try to revive it, with or without cowardly hiding.

Emotional 'downvoting' on behalf of Trump idolatry is not rational discussion.

Trolling through the thread with emotional 'downvoting' on behalf of Trump idolatry is not rational discussion.

Whatever the claim that the "Bible says it all about the Earth and mankind" was supposed to mean in somehow representing earth to an imagined alien, adding ancient fantasy as "examples" further departs from reality. Expecting a serious answer to Herb's (perhaps rhetorical question) is far too optimistic. This is not the place to engage in Bible thumping.

A lot more is required than name-calling against enemies. For every person who likes it out of his emotions other potential allies are driven away and it accomplishes less than nothing in addressing the causes of the problems.

After Branden's self-destruction there was no option for them to work together. He was not the person he once was.

it would take more time to answer your question here but allow me to give some examples.
A Creator is the one responsible for the Earth and the universe, not some happenstance crazy boom. The Bible takes you through the various stages of God's chosen people and their peaks and valleys. Man was trapped by sin from the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and were doomed to die as a result. God told of His plan for a Savior throughout the Old Testament and as a result Jesus comes on the scene promising people an eternal life if they believed on Him as their Savior and through Him they would be able to attain eternal life in Heaven. He did miracles while he was here on earth. A perfect example of Him feeding 5,000 men pus women and children with 3 fish and 7 loaves of bread. That story was told there is record of anyone disputing it so by that record alone you have to conclude that Jesus was who He said He was, God's son. Many other miracles occur in the New Testament if you will read it. None have been rejected by the people that knew if they were true or not, the people of His time. There will be an end to this earth one day and no one knows when that will come. Remember, it takes more faith to believe in nothing than something and God sent Jesus, a living, breathing man here on earth to live among us to show us the way to eternal salvation. don't forget that the 11 disciples that followed Him were all put to death in a very gruesome way except for John, They could have all rejected Christ if they renounced Him but none did. If that doesn't convince you then I pray that you will at least ponder on what I have written.
It's really simple to be saved. If you are saved or become saved it will change your life forever, today while you are here on earth and later in your heavenly home.