no, her Foundation will support him to split the Rep vote so she gets elected, and payback might be to make him some foreign ambassador or something.

Follow the influence and power. Not the money, in his case... for maybe the first time, ever.

Hank Rearden did so.

That is interesting. I think the guy with all his brashness really loves his buildings. I think his personality is aggressive in a way to protect the things that mean the most to him. Kip was pretty bad, and stupid guy.

It is always good to hear from you! The individual is the most important element in this whole debate.

Y'all say he's a breath of fresh air - shaking up the corrupt political machine.
I say he's a loud-mouthed boor, better suited to the reality TV he so enthusiastically embraced.

By gawd I HATE Trump.
After 8 years of BO I'm tired of Emperators!
Who the hell is going to restore the checks and balances we've lost. Not Donald.

God save me, I'm watching a train wreck in slow motion. He has single-handedly destroyed us.
He WILL divide the GOP - he already has - and in doing so hand the election to the "progressive" (i.e. statist!) Dems.

We are running out of time. We cannot afford to continue losing the presidency.
The Dems anti-business legislation will continue to strangle the economy.

At current rates we add another $Trillion to the debt every 2 years. What happens when the interest on that debt starts to rise?

Donals Trump is a terrifying Perfect Storm. JUST the wrong man at JUST the wrong time.
---
"Largely due to the Federal Reserve's aggressive efforts to keep interest rates low, the U.S. government is paying historically low rates on its debt. In fiscal 2013, according to the Treasury Department, the average interest rate on the public debt was 2.43%." PewResearch.Org

So "[Trump] truly wants to save America, not just
to provide an ego boost for himself."?--Oh, please.
He doesn't seem to me to have deep-rooted philo-
sophical convictions; he has bragged about his
lack of principle in going along with the system,
the laws that were in place, as he said, and his
willingness to bribe politicians. I would still take
him over Obama (who, thank goodness, can't get in again) or Hillary Clinton, but it would be
dangerous to have him as the nominee. I'd
rather have Cruz.

As I recall, Howard Roark was a success by virtue of the quality of his work and only the quality of his work. I do not recall any instance where Howard Roark or that other HR, Hank Rearden, ever paid a dime to benefit from the power of political pull. On the other hand, Donald Trump relishes the fact that his hands are elbow deep in the political feed trough feeding the political pigs on both sides of the aisle.

I don't recall Roark or Rearden ever declaring bankruptcy and proudly telling their creditors what they can go do with themselves. Trump, on the other hand, despite being worth billions and able to pay his debts, is perfectly happy to spit in the face of the people that have ponied up their hard earned money to invest in his projects.

I don't remember Roark or Rearden ever threatening anyone with meritless lawsuits after meritless lawsuits. Trump, on the other hand, is only happy when he is destroying people. Sometimes he uses the truth. Other times, he is just a flat out bombastic liar who will say anything to get what he wants. Then again, when people stand up to him, he brings out his army of attack dog lawyers to ruin people.

Lastly, I don't ever remember thinking that Howard Roark or Hank Rearden were dishonorable, Machiavellian, soulless scumbags. I cannot say the same for Donald Trump.

There are only a couple similarities I can find between Ms. Rand's characters and Trump. First, all of these men were/are working for their own self interest. Roark, Rearden and Trump make no apologies whatsoever in pursuing their own goals in life. Roark and Rearden both got wealthy by providing value for value and by besting their competitors in the marketplace. Unlike Roark and Rearden though, Trump's goals are, as often as not, achieved at the expense of others. Another similarity is that none of these men make apologies for their success. So long as Trump stays a private citizen, I have no problem with him working toward his own ends. As a presidential candidate though, I don't see any scenario where he'd have the ability to do anything for me. In order to do that, he'd have to strip power from the federal government and give it back to the people and the States as required in the 10th Amendment. Can you see any scenario where Donald Trump would ever even consider limiting his own power? Moving on, Roark and Rearden never blamed others for the hardships they endured. Roark fought through it to earn a prominent place in his field, and Rearden ultimately chose to remove himself from the influences of an unfair society. Where Trump differs is that his name and blame go hand in hand. He is always pointing fingers in every direction but his own. Frankly, it's another personality trait that I have no use for.

It should be obvious by now that I have no respect for Donald trump whatsoever, and any notion that he is somehow similar to Howard Roark strikes me as insane.

I do understand, however, why Trump has some appeal. We are so starved for anyone to stand up and call out the political cowardice we see from the GOP in Washington that a bombthrower like Trump can come along and temporarily fill that hole. That said, my vote goes to Ted Cruz whether he's on the ballot or not. Unlike Trump, Cruz's conservative principles have been on public display from day 1. Cruz has not wavered an inch from his core principles as far as I can tell, and he has proven that he is willing to fight for those principles regardless of what price he is forced to pay either by the mainstream media or the political class in DC. Cruz, like Trump, is not bashful about calling out the go along to get along spineless political hacks in DC. Unlike Trump, Ted Cruz has not played both sides of the political fence. he has not hedged his bets by buying off anybody from either side of the aisle. Also unlike Trump, Ted Cruz has the intellectual ability to fully understand the issues at hand, and he can dominate any Democrat in a debate without resorting to empty self promotion, bombast and insults.

Hello overmanwarrior,
Long time no hear. That was a very interesting piece and bit of analysis. I wish I knew what was truly inside of the man's head since he has said and done many things anathema to the the capitalist ideal and objectivist ethics. Still, I want other candidates to recognize the widespread disdain and contempt for politicos that Trump has tapped into. He is stirring the pot and pointing fingers at the establishment panderers that do nothing, fire no one and just keep talking the talk for votes. The taxpayers are sick of being reamed and taken for granted. Is it any wonder that they cry for someone that will say "you're fired!" It has been a long time coming that some heads should roll in Washington. If I could see inside his head, knew the man had truly evolved, knew the error of his past I could forgive his record and get behind him. He needs to explain much and convince me, but as I said, if he doesn't, I can only hope the other candidates are recognizing his allure and what so much of the electorate appreciates in him. It is as you have said, the Individual who is confident, assured, unabashed and willing to say no to the status quo.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I don't know why I found this with a "0."
You get a +1 from dino do right.
I think Megyn Kelly found a chink in The Donald's armor, though.
I'm a bit turned off by the revelation of his thin skin and the spite he's been spitting at her ever since.
I was cheering The Donald on up to that point and partly due to his confidence and being the opposite of PC.
That said, I don't believe you deserved that -1.
Now I think maybe you got whacked by a drive-by Obama loving troll who doesn't belong in the Gulch. . .

Surprised no one has pointed out that Reardon, like several Rand "heroes" was a flawed hero, partly because he did not fully understand, as Galt did, the nature of the world he was fighting. Dagny was also flawed, so were many others.. They all had strengths, but significant weaknesses, too, and all were all learning and grappling with the evil of collectivism - but they were not fully aware. Rand leads us through, and, in several major speeches,clarifies her philosophy and displays her more perfect heroes, Roark and Galt.

Some characteristics of some of Rand's characters match up well with some characteristics of Trump, but others do not, and there is no particularly solid match that I can see.
Trump is also a flawed hero. Many admirable qualities, but others, not so much.

His ascendancy, and his presidency, should that occur, would be a mixed bag, to say the least.

That's not to say it wouldn't be our best option.

I did.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I think Rand would be horrified by attempts to compare Trump to Roark. Not so much because of accomplishment, but because of demeanor. Roark is the archetype of the hero who doesn't allow others to influence his goals or his feelings. ("But I don't think of you, Mr. Toohey.").
To me, Trump is more of a Hank Rearden, but with more self esteem and confidence in the rightness of what he does. That rightness may be misplaced at times, but it serves him well.

Keep living in fantasy land.
This video even though a comedy IS reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDG...

Hate the game not the player..

Roark lived by a different set of standards which was the appeal of his character. Trump followed the path you laid out which is another reason I don't think it is valid to compare the two.

Wandering around a poor analogy using fictional situations to justify real world corruption is not a good reason to endorse someone.

Is 'paying off a politician' only corruption when a Democrat or Liberal does it?

Agreed; Wynand has more class, but he does have much more in common with Trump than anyone else in The Fountainhead. I see Trump as a more flamboyant version of Orren Boyle.

Big difference between asking for a "Favor", accepting a "Favor" and "Paying" for a favor or service...It is the direction of the indebtedness...

Value for Value. I pay off a politician, I expended X in value. I expect X in return. Once I receive X, transaction done.

Dominique offers to do favor, Roark is not indebted to her for "who knows what." Also he did not expect help and did not "ask" for help either. Why ask if you can grease the wheel yourself if needed.

I am totally amazed at how little you people understand human nature, pride, value for value, and how to get things done.

You all live in this little fantasy world...

I think Wynand had too much class. At a recent talk I gave, someone asked which character in Atlas to compare Trump with. Matt Faherty came up with the best answer: Kip Chalmers (of the Winston tunnel disaster).

Roark was fiercely independent and gladly turned down work if he couldn't do it his way and his way was on his own. He didn't expect help from Dominique whom he was sleeping with why would I think he would expect help from a bureaucrat. .

And THAT is the difference between Fiction and Reality...and please detail how you think there is little equivalence, notwithstanding their very different industries...

Sorry Mr. Trump, but you are no Roark!
This article is absurd.
Of course Rand's characters "pointed to" Rand; how could they be "just who they were" without her philosophy?
What Hoffman does not understand is that Trump is not the egoist he imagines (e.g. his "I" does not equate to rational selfishness...just consider how he sacrifices others). And he certainly is not a true capitalist.
Objectivists need to make sure that he does not get linked with Objectivism. Ditto for Rand Paul.

You are right, Reardon "enabled" Mouch. BUT, Reardon HIRED Mouch to do what exactly?

Grease the wheels...He was paid to "buy" the clout to get stuff done, to get inside information, to help push legislation his way.

Yes Mouch betrayed Reardon, BUT that was NOT the point. Anyone who bemoans Trump "buying" and "selling" politicians may as well criticize Reardon too.

Remember Taggart, did not "buy" politicians, he helped manipulate everything, he allowed himself to be manipulated by the politicians, Taggart was BOUGHT and controlled by politicians, Reardon and Trump have not been bought BY them, Readon and Trump BUY the politicians.

Rearden's "Man in Washington" was Wesley Mouch, who betrayed him in order to get his big job in the government. In effect, Rearden enabled him to become a top-rank looter.

I know that. Who wrote BOTH books.
You make a statement. "I don't think Roark would have contributed to politicians with the intent of calling in favors when he needed them."

ayn Rand NEVER went into great detail in the Fountainhead on the building permitting the zoning and the gorey details. I was drawing a comparison, that Ayn Rand and Hank PAID a man in Washington. You "doubt" Roark would have? If Ayn Rand the author of both clearly had one of here Atlas Shrugged hero's BUYING a man in Washington, how can you even remotely think Roark would not do the same if it meant getting HIS work done?

There is very little of equivalence between Hank Reardon and Trump. This comparison is superficially insignificant.