I won't argue this with you! Either a dem or rep. candidate will win the WH and any third party will simply detract. No rocket science here!

I think Ayn Rand would be disgusted by Donald Trump.

Has Donald Trump ever earned a single dollar that didn't involve greasing the wheels of some politician or another with a bribe? Is Donald Trump the living embodiment of the politics of pull? Does Donald Trump want to use his power to impose his will on to others?

While she may have respected his forthrightness and unabashed candor, you could say the same thing for Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Un. He may have the balls to come out and say what he means (which I actually respect), but at the end of the day, Donald Trump is nothing but a self promoting windbag with a lot of bought and paid for political muscle behind him.

Rand might cheer him for his outspokenness and willingness to take an aggressive stand against the PC pablum so prevalent in the mass media. On the negative side, he is very cagey about policy issues other than immigration and certain international relationships. Last night he hinted that he would be in support of federal assistance on women's health issues, although he was, again, very unspecific. My guess on Rand's net evaluation - negative.

You can be opposed to Social Security and still accept the social security checks. Being opposed to the law does not prohibit you from taking advantage of it.

How does not voting at all become magically transformed into voting for the Democrat? To reach that conclusion you have to assume that my "default" position is Republican, which is not the case. My vote also goes to where I think it will do the most good, and currently I plan to cast my 2016 Presidential vote for the likely Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.

While I agree with your sentiment in general, I do think you are missing the boat on one very important factor. This is completely subjective with a very healthy dose of wishful thinking mixed in, but there is one GOP candidate who has won federal office convincingly against a much better funded and establishment supported candidate. The man I am talking about is Ted Cruz. When he ran for Kay Bailey Hutchison's Senate seat when she retired, he was an underfunded unknown versus David "Super rich, Good Ole Boy, GOP establishment handpicked, Don't rock the boat as along as you can win office" Dewhurt. What's even better is that Cruz didn't just beat Dewhurst from a crowded field with a dozen or so other challengers. He beat the crap out of him in the runoff primary heads up.

No matter what the polls say right now, when it comes time for the votes that matter, Ted Cruz wins the GOP primary in a landslide and destroys whatever Democrat the jackass party wants to send into that slaughter.

I suppose that you could make the argument that because he is a GOP Senator, he's technically part of the establishment, but anyone paying any attention at all knows that he will stand up loud and proud against the GOP machine when it violates or fails to fight for conservative principles.

I guess what I am saying is that Ted Cruz (and, frankly, a couple others who I think will fall by the wayside along the primary trail) is someone who I can be very proud to vote FOR. With McCain and Romney and pretty much every other person in the 2008 and 2012 GOP primaries, at best I was voting AGAINST the other guy (Obama or some other GOP primary candidate). At worst, as with the 2008 general election, I just stayed home or voted for whatever candidate happened to be wearing the Libertarian tag at the time.

This time around, there are 3 or 4 candidates that I could be happy voting for (1. Cruz, 2A. Rand Paul, 2B, Scott Walker, 4.Rubio) and another 2 or 3 that I respect and would at least listen to (5. Jindal, 6. Huckabee, 7. Kasich - that one's a stretch). There are also the usual cast of clowns who I'd never vote for (Trump, Bush, Fiorina, Patacky, Santorum, Graham and no doubt a couple others I can't remember right now). Ben Carson gets my respect but not my vote for two reasons. He doesn't hold to deeply held, Constitutionally based poltical beliefs and has some progressive leanings I dislike, AND the White House is no place for on the job training. While is may be super intelligent and accomplished in his field, he doesn't have any of the political savvy needed to get anything done from the Oval Office bully pulpit. Ted Cruz, like Ben Carson is extremely intelligent and extraordinarily accomplished in his chosen field (law). Unlike Carson, Cruz's political ideals are deeply rooted in the Constitution, he has political savvy oozing from every pore, and he has the backbone to fight for what he and I believe in.

Anyway, the point of all this is that we FINALLY have some legitimate GOP candidates that people might actually want to vote FOR instead of simply settling for whichever establishment, hand picked unprincipled windbag is next in line. You mentioned in your post the 1980-84 thing, presumably in reference to Ronald Reagan who was the kind of candidate that you see way too rarely. He didn't move to the center and sellout his beliefs for votes. He convinced the "center" to move to him. For my money, Ted Cruz is the one and only guy that can do the same thing, and no matter what the pools say when it comes time for me to pull the lever, he gets my vote.

"He does what he has to in order to get things done." So does Obama. The desire to make a profit does not justify seizing the property of others against their will. It might be a viable "business" strategy in the short run, but in the long run it leads to the lawlessness and contempt for individual rights that we see all around us today.

Yes and I do agree but there is the other side of the story. Standing on your principals and only voting for one republican you can stand and no others such as Huck or Santorum means that you might not vote at all and that in itself is a vote for the democrat. I see it the same as you but a bit different, my vote goes where it will do the most good even if I have to pinch my nose going in!

The Trump phenomena puts me in mind of the Chinese curse; "May you live in interesting times." Trump is a thoroughly mixed bag of seeming contradictions. He is clearly a capitalist but is not above "capitalizing" on his ability to buy politicians (whom he obviously considers weak). He says he evolved from being a Democrat to being a Republican but I suspect that his personal ideology does not fall into either camp. He obviously has the ability to get things done and is not particularly concerned about anyone that gets run over in the process. He has an extraordinarily high opinion of himself and his accomplishments which, while annoying, is justifiable and accurate. I think the word that best applies to Trump is "Pragmatist". He evaluates a situation and uses what ever resources he finds at his command to gain control of it. His "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach to life is engaging but may be a bit too exciting for many voters. One thing is for sure, we do live in interesting times.

"We, the GOP?" I'm a proud lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. I might vote for certain Republican candidates under certain circumstances, but I wouldn't vote for, say, a Huckabee or a Santorum under any circumstances. If this is selfishness, so be it. In this forum the word is usually considered a compliment. :-)

"Dr. Ben Carson: No ‘Philosophical’ or ‘Religious’ Exemptions for Vaccinations"

Ben Carson is no champion of individual rights:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

The GOP and all of us here are having a round table duel! Who will be standing after the last bullets are fired is yet to be seen. I just hope there is at least one who is not so damaged that he/she can carry it to the finish line. At this point in the game I keep saying we all have to speak our minds and pick our primary candidate. Right after that race is decided we then must, and I do mean MUST, stand behind the chosen one or we will surely loose again. We, The GOP, tend to enjoy shooting our own feet right off once the candidate has been chosen and we have no one to blame but our own selfishness because your candidate did not get the nod. I have no clue if it will be Bush, Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina or any one of the others but I know for absolute certain I will support who ever it is over any democrat and I will read what is posted here in complete disgust as we destroy even the one we pick. The name of this game is Divide and Conquer and the Dems have that all over us.

He does what he has to in order to get things done. To make a profit things need to get done quickly. Trump could sit back and say, "I''m not going to do this or say that because of the principle of the thing or how it might look on my record if I run for politics." But that won't cut it in the actual business world where profit is life or death for the company and payroll for its employees. You actually need to cut the bull (or give it) to get it done in reality not just on paper.

He learned a hard lesson about growing too fast and got caught a few times with devaluated assets. One thing that is interesting about his billions in value is that it is built on personally owned assets. He could have been worth a lot more if he had went public, like Gates, Soros, and Buffett. But he insisted on personal ownership. That did leave him vulnerable to market fluctuations, but ideologically very individualistic. I think he could do more than just move money from one bank to another, the way Kasich plans to, but will actually pay down the 19 trillion debt with real value instead of smoke and mirrors instigated with devalued currencies.

Opinion well stated Ron

Trump does appeal to the dock worker, the truck driver, the blue collar guy because he tells it like it is. This fact could bring together some of the old Reagan Democrats to make for an even more interesting journey through the primaries. I am going to look back at these posts a year from not and ask this question again and see how peoples opinions have changed. I agree with you on Walker. He appears out of his league with many of the others. Then again I believe Trump has helped expose this.

Excellent Point. If Trump falters he maybe setting the stage for Fiorina to fill the void. She is not someone to underestimate.

good points

Watching the dynamics between these two is very interesting. Cruz has been one of the few to actually compliment Trump in certain areas. You could be right. The two could find themselves together at some point. I would not be shocked.

....and rescind hundreds of executive orders and fire needless czars and enforce the laws that are already on the books rather than selecting which laws to enforce. I think a President sets the tone of our nation. I have my doubts about Trump but he is dominating and making everyone else adjust to him. I don't think Trump is dumb. We shall see how it all plays out.

I think she might see that Trump's just like Obama, arrogant, my way or else, ignore the facts, and makes stupid decisions based on his own prejudices and force them down the throats of the people. HIs characteristics are definitely beneficial for his personal life, but how would they be in a republic? World wide he might be a disaster. Like I said just like Obama, just that his intent would be in the other direction on may subjects. I'd have to reread it to find his nearest character in AS.

But does that put him closer to a Hank Rearden or an Orren Boyle? Just because he is a capitalist doesn't preclude him from looters status. He seems quite willing to throw his lot in when it comes to looting the little guy if he uses eminent domain. This I believe would put Trump into the looters catagory as far as Ayn was concerned because she believed in a fair exchange in commerce. Eminent domain is government sponsored theft and going along with it make Trump closer to Boyle in the business world

I think Rand would admire Trump's independence and financial success and his refusal to knuckle under to political pressure. However, the POTUS is often confronted with sensitive national and international problems, US response to which may have significant long term consequences. I think Trump is a bit too much of a bull in a china shop where such situations occur, and I suspect Rand would agree.

I have high hopes for Rand Paul - he has vast experience with our gov't and its problems, is courageous, principled and not corruptible. Our Constitution-based government is sick and we need a doctor at the helm! I also like Ben Carson (have just finished reading One Nation,) but he may be too intelligent and reasonable for our electorate...

I'm a Dr. Carson backer, but I do like Cruz. As far as Trump goes, if he can wake up Boehner and McConnell, he will have served a purpose.

But I've found something really scary.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/michelle-o...