Because they for the most part agree with them !

Very good rehash of this issue. I agree with you 100% here. I have been following politics pretty close for close to 30 years. ;) I know all of this but good for others to see. I like Trump. Not perfect by any means - but I had studied Trump before he ran for office. Most of my co-workers thought it was a scheme on his part to get publicity for his business operations - and when they asked what I thought - I told them he was serious and would go at it full force to win - and not to underestimate him. Then they asked who I thought would win - and I said Trump. They laughed :)

But yeah - the tactics and ploys the Dems have been doing since he got elected (and before) have been non-stop and relentless. I am surprised that he has gotten as much done as he has - but at the same time wish he had gotten more done in the first two years while he had Congress. But anyway - great post!

They were strategizing to impeach Trump before he took office, looking for an excuse they could get away with politically. Some of them did want to do it sooner. They saw Trump's early unpopularity over some of his personal antics and hoped to exploit it to get a bandwagon effect with Republicans in a "never Trump" movement.

After they got the contrived Mueller "investigation" rolling they held off formal impeachment, expecting Mueller to provide the ammunition, but still kept talking about impeachment.

When they didn't get what they needed out of the "report", and then Mueller's own personal near-senility failed to produce in the hearing, they continued with more kangaroo court "investigations" and re-interpretations of previous results. The "investigations" were intended to make Trump controversial, in addition to the specific goal of impeachment.

There was an ongoing internal battle over when to spring an actual impeachment. Some of them knew impeachment could backfire politically, as you say, which led to the infighting among themselves. Yes, they do all kinds of professional political polling and focus group research looking for the best timing, strategy and verbal tactics.

Pelosi was finally pushed into going over the edge with the formal impeachment even though some of them were still wary of the timing, but they all wanted it. They ran with the phony "whistleblower" scam, believing their own propaganda that they had found the smoking gun, even though some of them were still politically reluctant that they could pull it off based on what they had so far.

They knew that it was unlikely they would get 2/3 in the Senate to remove Trump from office because of the shift in Republican support after the earlier more personal controversy over him at the beginning of the administration.

They would take Senate removal if they could get it, but by then the process wasn't about that -- the purpose was too cause as much controversy and undermining of support as they could, partially to disrupt the administration's ability to function for the remainder of the term, and partially for the upcoming elections.

Some of them (apparently including Pelosi) did want to postpone until closer to the election, partly to influence Senate elections if not the presidency itself, and partly to pile on more accusations based on their belief that Trump must be doing something more impeachable that hadn't come out yet. They hoped that further piling on would swing over some Republicans, if not the full 2/3, thereby creating more controversy.

By moving too soon before the election they risked losing their desired sustained popular expectation and manufactured suspicion that Trump must have done something very wrong "under investigation". They peaked too early to hold that position.

Pelosi knew that when she was forced to formally convey the House impeachment to the Senate for the next round before she wanted to -- she was visibly unhappy about it. She and others wanted to drag it out for a continued sustained controversy, with more "investigation" and additional articles of impeachment, in attempt to build popular suspicions and controversy further into the election cycle.

It would not be surprising if they try a second impeachment before the election if they can manufacture some controversy to rationalize it and to vindicate themselves from having failed to make a political case the first time. They don't want a political backfire, but they are also very much on the offensive.

We speak in terms of more than one impeachment, but the last almost 4 years have been one non-stop impeachment process intended to create as much disruption and controversy over Trump as they can. It's purpose has been to disrupt him and Republicans as much as possible and drive them out of office over a perceived failure and swirl of controversy. That much has not abated and will not, before the election or in the next four years if Trump is still there.

Yes they are an "irrational bunch", but not so far gone that they can't be effective political "schemers", as you say. They are experts at the machinations of political manipulation as an art form, and fully motivated to go on a full offensive to get back what they lost after failing to solidify the Obama reign under Clinton. If they do that, with changes in demographics and media almost wholly behind them, they will have ratcheted up the statism to a new and possibly permanent level.

Yeah, part of why we are considering another location.

That's also a big part of the issue. It could be very expensive to start. I'm looking at a lot of things to try to overcome this. I have some good ideas - but implementing them will not be a simple task.

I am also inspired by Lisa VanDamme - she started off with herself and one other person. She now has a very successful school. But that route took a long time too. So I'd rather go a faster route with more people to start - or at least to help with developing curriculum that a smaller number of teachers could use. We'll see. It's a complicated task no doubt and we have to do it right - by the kids foremost. We don't want to experiment and mess up. That's not fair or right. My wife is a teacher with nearly 30 years of teaching experience in many science and math courses - and has developed curriculum before. She even just got on a state level panel to work on curriculum development for the state. I am good at math, science, and in particular with computer sciences. Sticking with the core courses for the lower grades - we could do fine. But we both want more knowledge on Montessori for those lower grades. I have the most experience with studying Objectivism and Rand but my wife has also been there during all of that and has recently began studying Objectivism herself to get it better. But at the middle school and high school levels we need help or at least good sources and curriculum. We're still early in this though - and the foundational issues are the primary concern as well as other current home and job issues we're dealing with.

I honestly think they were intentionally holding out as close to last minute as they could politically to try to destroy him in the 2020 election. I think polling data showed it may backfire so the ran with it early in case it did - so they would have time to recover and push it below the radar. But, if they think doing it a second time near elections might work? Who knows - for the irrational bunch they are - they are pretty good schemers in political warfare.

So your solution is to let the reigning parties have full rule? That is what this equates to. The principles that the Libertarian Party puts out is much more in line with Objectivism than are the Democrat and Republican Parties. The members of their party are where I see the real breakdown for them. Besides the issues where the Libertarian Party do not align with Objectivism.

I understand that Objectivism is much more than politics - but it is also at the root of politics. And right now - the politics are what is causing the root of most of our problems as a county - trying to nationalize the health care industry, our bankrupting social programs, the nationalized education system destroying the minds of our youth, and a Bernie (well half dozen Dems) that wants to take it up to level 10. Politics cannot be ignored. @Dansail did not ask if he should start a school, or a local study group, or if he should stand on a street corner yelling a people driving by. A politician has the means to reach people and to use real life issues to demonstrate and explain another way to think about them that can promote Objectivism in the process. I don't understand why you are so bent against that. And even at that I brought up Peikoff's point that education is the answer (and distinguished it as education in the schools).

Ceding the position to a Dem, Republican, or a "who knows where they stand" Libertarian - to screw it up that much more verses promoting an Objectivist to attempt it if they are ready seems like a no brainer.

You clarified my point - they FOCUS their efforts on students - and you acknowledge it with your reason for why. You know they have other things besides articles. Notice how the prices for students is typically lower than for others? Until very recently - their student events - almost exclusively at colleges were restricted to students. Their internships are for students. Other organizations, that I won't mention here, have events charging 6 and 8 times more than they do for students. If I wanted to take advantage of the resources available at the rate I would have to pay (since I'm not a student) are un-affordable. I would be spending many thousands per year - to put myself in a position to help the cause. As I said in this thread - I am looking to start a private school following much of Peikoff's suggested methods a approach - so I am actively looking at events, training, ways to make better and deeper connections and the doors are surprisingly not very pro-entrepreneur - just very pro student.

And then there are some like you are being here, where you want to argue with me for trying to encourage others to advance Objectivism further by making assumptions and trying to tear apart my comments like I don't have a clue about Objectivism - because I don't chose to write a book to make sure every point is taken to the nth degree.

Again here - the idea is that we are a relatively small group trying change the direction of a huge population. It doesn't happen by stifling people who are considering ways of trying to do so. It doesn't help by tearing at me because I didn't flush out the idea to the degree you think I should and assuming because I didn't that I don't understand or can't think. Read what I said and stop trying to fill in the blanks with poor assumption or with negative intent.

"Saving" the country through "action" versus "Go Galt" is a false alternative. This is a very long term intellectual battle than cannot be won by running for office or dropping out.

Isn't it surprising that they have only impeached him once so far? They have been banging their spoons on their high chairs and slinging spittle everywhere constantly since before he took office, doing everything they can to be disruptive on behalf of their own power.

How many interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy because of Ron and Rand Paul? Close to zero. It's more likely that someone already interested would see their politics and look into them, only to find the inconsistencies and lack of support for Objectivism. Those who might start with Ron and Rand Paul would only be very confused about what Ayn Rand stood for. Politics is not an Ayn Rand publicity stunt.

But how many people have Ron and Rand gotten interested in Rand and Objectivism? as I said in my post to @ewv, I want to start a private school to advance Objectivism - but how many people can I influence in my school compared to the national attention those 2 have brought to the table? Now the election being discussed is a state level position - but it still opens the doors to a LOT of people.

You also would have to find people qualified to teach in the way you want, and be willing to do it in your location.

Right now I live in WV. But not sure that this is where we will start the school. Looking at different states, regulations, tax policy, etc. It can be done. Surprisingly, the regulations in most states for private schools are really very lax. It surprised me actually. I think it is even easier in a lot of cases than home schooling. At least for the time being. Let a Bernie get into office and I'm sure that would change quickly - but for now it is very much a state issue. I would not call it an Objectivist school per se - but it follows Leonard Peikoff's suggested model very closely - and his daughter attended the school - but look at the VanDamme Academy: https://www.vandammeacademy.com/home
They appear to be doing very well in California. WV regs are very open to private schools - but the economy, volume of people interested per area (especially where we are), and doubly the number of them that could afford the tuition is a very limiting factor here - thus why we are looking at other better options.

And, just to add. If we do this - the longer term interest would be in franchising and doing our absolute best to spread as many of these schools across the country as possible. Without large numbers, it would be ineffective. Think Montessori. It may have taken a long time - but it is very popular and spread well. Rand, Peikoff, everyone, knows this is a long game.

You didn't equate the Libertarian Party with Objectivism, but didn't distinguish them either, or distinguish between educational philosophical advocacy and politics. That is why I added it. It is important for Dansail to understand.

You also accepted his running with the help of the Libertarian Party and still only say that it is not "fully aligned". The problems with the Libertarian Party and its methods undercutting intellectual reform are much deeper than that, including the notion that elected office (and keeping it) is a way to "espouse, promote, and explain" "Objectivist principles".

Objectivist principles are much, much more than politics, and the Libertarian Party can't even get the politics consistent. To think that elected political office, and keeping the elected position, is a means to educate with radically different philosophical principles, on which politics depends, is hopeless. This is not about "getting Objectivists elected", let alone Pragmatist means of doing it and exploiting it.

It is not true that the "Ayn Rand Institute and other pro Objectivist operations focus ALMOST solely on the young and ignore the adults." It is true that a bigger long term impact is possible by educating the youngest before they have ingrained false premises in ideas and method, which are more difficult to uproot later. The benefits from a younger intellectual are also leveraged for a longer period of time, including time running organizations like ARI in the future. But articles and explanations are provided for everyone -- anyone who can think.

Well, that's true (as far as it goes).

He's trying to, but the Republicans and conservatives won't challenge his basic premises.

Ron Paul couldn't convince politicians who already held statist/collectivist/altruist premises with his political arguments. And if he had tried to argue philosophically he would have made no headway in such a political environment. Congress elected by and beholden to voters and lobbyists with wrong premises is not the place to try to change the philosophy of a country. The "politburo" mentality is even worse.

Ron Paul was also inconsistent, for example promoting religious anti-abortion violation of rights of the individual, further muddying the principles of individualism.

They're not classical liberals across the board. The founders of the country were not conservative, basing policy on tradition, faith and family -- they were radical individualists who instituted a radical new form of government. Today's conservatives can't even stick to the "tradition" of what they accomplished and stood for; they are inconsistent welfare statists and mixed economy interventionists. They generally stand for losing less freedom in some areas than today's "liberals", and are worse in others.

And do you think you can really start a private school based on Objectivism and Objectivist epistemology? Best of luck if you really do try it. What state do you live in? (Not that I could move there, and I don't have any children anyway, but I'd like to know how you succeed).

Except that the "conservatives" are not really classic liberals when it comes to the issue of Church and State.

Trump is probably not going to live long enough to be elected in 2030, and neither is anybody else now alive.

Ayn Rand repudiated the Libertarian Party. I didn't understand why at first, but I was told that they took
her principle of the "non-initiation of force and appl[lied] it as if it were an axiom, which it is not." (Harry Binswanger; memory quote on my part). Also, Peter Schwartz wrote a long article on it, which appeared in "The Intellectual Activist". Apparently, the idea is that they do not point to a philosophical base, and thus make the ideas of
freedom and free enterprise appear to have no foundation.

Yep

If you want to hear something funny and interesting....look up Howard Stern's comments the day after the election. He talks about how he'd bump into Trump at Mira Lago while having dinner during the campaign and ask him, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO YOUR LIFE!?"

Not taking side on this, really. But, I agree with your point ewv.

Ron and Rand Paul are unique people. They have the intestinal fortitude of Jefferson. Most don't understand what a cesspool politics is. It's the lowest of the low in there. Many an Objectivist would opt out, choosing to spend their time away from it. (me, for example)

And where did you read anything about me supporting the Libertarian Party? I don't. I don't "support" any of them at the moment - they are all flawed. Read what I said again. If @dansail is an Objectivist, truly, and non-collectivist (as some here cannot tell the difference) and if the Libertarian Party is willing to help @dansail run for office - then it is a consideration. @Dansail could definitely use the help with the short time frame left in terms of campaign financing, logistics, promotion, contacts, events management, etc... If @Dansail understands what it takes to run and win, is willing to do it, and understands what they are getting into. As I pointed out too many people get into politics thinking they can change the world and find out there are a million obstacles in the way.

Notice in my first comment - I brought up what Leonard Peikoff said about education. Where did I say he was pushing people to run in elections for any party or that campaigns were the choice for Objectivist communication? I didn't. I know what Peikoff said about it. I and my wife are very seriously considering starting a private school based on the principles of Objectivism, Objectivists epistemology, and using much of what we have already thought for years about what and how students should be taught - that Peikoff has also stated - confirming out ideas and approach. And we are considering this route as we have decided that the education system is where things really need to begin - as Peikoff also states. This point was an aside to running for office. AND, as you surely would agree - we cannot go and force voting adults to got back though K-12 to be re-educated properly - so do it the best you can by example, applying Objectivism to real topics confronting the voters, and clearly explaining it from the Objectivist perspective. Adults can learn too. Adults can learn very well when things that matter to them can be given a deeper understanding with a proper philosophical basis in the explanation. Practically no politician out there does this. It's slogans and talking points - but could be much more. That's all I'm saying in this regard. I personally think it is a mistake of the Ayn Rand Institute and other pro Objectivist operations to focus ALMOST solely on the young and ignore the adults. For example, I am looking at trying to start this private school to help promote rational thinking and to give an Objectivist education - while also including Objectivism as a topic of the education as well - following very closely to what Peikoff has said - but when these Objectivist organizations see I'm not a 20 something - the doors shut. At least so far. And I get that the kids are of the utmost importance - but the kids are not the ones starting schools or setting policy either. We need Objectivist education in mass - and it won't happen without Objectivists helping each other and supporting each other in doing that.

So tell me, if @dansail wins and is in office - that would not give @dansail an advantage in drawing crowds for grass roots meetings and events where Objectivism could be the topic via applying Objectivism in discussing issues with the voters to get them thinking about things from an Objectivist perspective as well? Unless @dansail in already very prominent - this would give @dansail a much better position to do these kind of grass roots events with many more people willing to attend.

Our government is a Republic - not a democracy. If @dansail wins office - it does not mean that every whim of the voters is what @dansail needs to vote for. The point of representative government is to allow them to make the better decision when they know better than the public at large - otherwise we simply have a democracy with democratic mob rule via voiceless representatives. Now, might @dansail get booted from office in the next election cycle? Possibly - it depends on how much time @dansail spends with his constituents educating them about why particular issues should pass or fail - again with Objectivist principles being espoused, promoted, and explained.

The Libertarian Party is full of confused people that are frustrated with some issue of the Republicans or Democrats - but really still align with those parties - including their collectivist and altruistic flaws. And I understand that the positions of the Libertarian Party do not fully align with Objectivism - but if it can get Objectivists elected - so be it. It's not like Objectivists are going to be elected by the other 2 parties.