The Democrats will not commit national political suicide. They support and use Waters, Cortez, and others where they think they can get away with it. It shows what the leadership is as much as what should have been fringe candidates are. They will openly do it everywhere when they think enough of the public is ready for it. Meanwhile it is spreading.

I am not arguing that a coherent plan to change the course of the nation is required. That in itself will change the politics.

What I am saying is that until a fountain of youth is discovered, I will be LONG LONG dead before that process even gets a foothold. So, why would I be interested in supporting a process that will most likely take generations? Short term fixes to make MY life better seem to be a better bet. I am changing my mind about the voting for the wildest socialist (and havent done that in the past)- in thinking about the time frames, it would take too long for that approach to work for me to benefit. It is enticing to find a shorter term solution, but perhaps there is none, and I will have to just live with a declining society here for the rest of my time. Maybe I can find a better place to live out my days, either in a remote USA location with less collectivist leanings, or somewhere outside the USA

Collectivism always fails, which does nothing to increase understanding of why it fails and what is right. The dramatic failure of socialized medicine in Britain, for example, has done nothing to create a demand for freedom, let alone "real Objectivist thinking". The collectivism is entrenched because it is what people accept despite its failures.

The "point of voting" is to support an occasional good candidate and slow down the worst as long as it does make a difference. That in itself is no more a long term solution than deliberately causing a suicidal collapse. It buys time, while it is still possible at all, to spread better ideas.

American people have resisted tyranny in the past because of their sense of life of American individualism, not "guns and religion". That American sense of life, with its historical roots in the Enlightenment of centuries ago, has been progressively decaying under the onslaught of the intellectual establishment and its counter Enlightenment collectivism, and cannot survive without explicit intellectual defense.

Ayn Rand discussed this several times, such as in her analysis of the Nixon-McGovern election in which McGovern lost by a landslide despite the intellectuals supporting him, while she warned that there is inadequate explicit opposition that can sustain the American sense of life. Today the Democrats are even more extreme, open collectivists than McGovern was and are winning elections, with many more very close. Ordinary people are increasingly wondering if we should "try socialism", in health care and much more.

You cannot count on the American people continuing to "step in to straighten things out" indefinitely without explicit, philosophical defense of reason and individualism.

Its really an indication of the people who live in her district. Real idiots. I can see videos of her screaming about attacking republicans all over TV ads, and that would doom her nationally. I think the dems should run her as nominee, cause she would never win. But they wont put good money after bad because they know she would lose. If she won somehow, thats time to move out of the USA.

You are still confusing fiction with what it takes to change the course of a nation through the ideas that people understand and accept. You know that but keep returning to an emotional desire for a shortcut by collapsing civilization that you cannot defend.

Interesting question. I think that willingness to accept real objectivist thinking on a mass scale will require the current collectivist system to fail miserably. Example- the masses will want to keep access to "free health care" as long as there iIS health care. Once the hospitals and doctors just arent around to give good care, they will start to be more receptive to someone coming up with free market solutions
Given that current voting choices are variations of collectivism, whats the point of voting unless just to slow down the march to complete collectivism (which in the case of older people, I can understand actually as I did that by voting for Trump).
The whole thing is very upsetting as there are no good alternatives that do not have side effects. One thing that can be done is to cut personal spending so as to cut the need for income (which is taxed) and cut the amount of sales taxes paid. Less money to the government means less control they exert over us all.

If in fact the american people will step in and straighten things out when they get very much out of control, would it not be logical to speed up this march to socialism and get the country to that point when the americans step in?

Perhaps that would take more than a generation, which would subject the people currently living to a worse life than if the resistance slows down the process. I am willing to accept this caveat.

I am also curious if you look at Atlas Shrugged as more of a documentary than a novel, with the actions of Francisco in destroying his mine, Ragnar by sinking ships, and Galt by "stopping the motor of the world" as actions just allowing the collectivist ideology to run its natural course. Once the economy collapsed, the people were more ready to accept the more rational alternative ideas. Galt presented.

Waters has received 70 percent of the vote and more for years in her district. She would probably lose a national election, depending on what the Republicans ran with.

You said "either just not vote and give up on politics in the USA until a real objectivist has a shot to win, OR just vote for the wildest socialist out there to get this madness over with".

Voting for the "wildest socialist" to "get this madness over with" is nihilistic self destruction. Now you say that it is "emotionally satisfying".

You did not answer what you think would ever cause "a real objectivist" to have "a shot to win" and how that is helped by not voting at all.

“Educating” your children implanting their ideaology to be future terrorist for the anti-American activist collective.

There should be many laws against this

Actually, the younger ones are brainwashed in schools of education. Then they go one to brainwash all the children coming in to their classes, brain dead to the lack of logic in what they are doing. The intellectual establishment, as in Rhodes Scholars, and the foundations which back them, like Ford Fdn. and Rockefeller, make srue the higher ups know, but the ones below have been taught not to think, but to obey. The issue is as more and more brainless so-called intellectuals join the ranks, yes, they are collectivist, but they do not think about it. It is the higher ups who pull the puppet strings with their money, and those below are just bbain dead zombies, but dangerous in what they do to our schools.

I am sure a go fund me campaign is next.

“Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!”
- Apple - Big Brother - 1984

"I think the thing to do is either just not vote and give up on politics in the USA until a real objectivist has a shot to win, OR just vote for the wildest socialist out there to get this madness over with."

You should not join the mob.

Even though it is a protracted process which will eventually lead to complete terror and totalitarianism, I always believed in the American people that when things get very much out of control they step in to straighten things out. The "people who stick to their guns and religion".

I fully agree with you.

Where we differ is that while I am aware the leaders on the left have high IQs, the mass below the tip of the iceberg is like a herd of sheep, blindly following the directives.

That is the main and defining difference between the GOP and the left. The GOP indulged in the "differences" (see Freedom Caucus) to fracture their power of action. At the same time the left stuck together and overcame the GOP.

Had it not been for the president the House would have been lost by an even larger margin.

Astute observation.

The voters didn't have to think. Her constituency has been carefully and fully conditioned to follow identity politics spewed by the left. "Cute Hispanic Female" is all they needed to know. By golly, she doesn't even have to know how to spell "socialist" or even know the first three words of the preamble of the U. S. Constitution.

Add to that the tainted nobody put up by the GOP.

I suspect that Cortez is only a facade or curtain placed right up front for all to see. The real power is whomever is hiding behind the curtain we are to pay no attention to.

That woman couldn't even mount a campaign for Student Council President. I have never seen a person so unprepared to address problems that would be of interest to an electorate (except perhaps in NY). She could be the most ignorant person in congress (even though there are a plethora of intellectually challenged ones there already).....

She's now whining about not being able to collect taxpayer money until she's sworn in, because she can't afford to rent an apartment in DC. The statists surely could have selected someone with a few more operational brain cells.

....that is just it...they were not taught to think...govt (public) schools teach you to be a good citizen and demand your right to a meal, a house, freed education, free health care....etc....promise me more and I will vote for you...tyranny of the democratic majority...restore the Republic...earn the right to vote...

She is powerfully evil to be sure, voted in by very evil people. I doubt she will get widespread support, although I would like to see the dems run her for president in 2020. She is so off the rails with her uncontrolled mouth that dems would go down in flames. Waters for PRES/Beto for VP

I don’t think she advocated destroying ones own life, and I wouldn’t advocate destroying my life either. But continuing to support the collectivists destroys my life eventually anyway. In AS the assumption was that Galt could promote change in a short time, after which rationality would take hold. That part is a nice story, but I think the time frame is a lot longer in reality.

Voting for the socialists instead of the intellectually challenged pseudo individualists won’t change things at all really, even though it’s emotionally satisfying

Believe me, I try to influence people to be more rational in their thinking, and perhaps in 50 years collectivism will no longer be the preferred ideology in the USA. I would like this process to be faster, and it’s frustrating to see how things are going

Your cat has no conceptual understanding of elections and government at all. Waters has been a highly successful politician for over 40 years, representing an area part of and near Los Angeles, including the coast. For all the largely ignorant and emotional voters who have supported her, she has a lot of support from ideological liberal Democrats who know very well what they are doing, and like what she stands for and does. They know what they want, which does not preclude intelligence.

Ayn Rand did not pursue her fictional storyline to advocate nihilism destroying your own life to "get it over with". That is not what Atlas Shrugged is about or advocates. We have been through this before and you circle back and forth, unable to defend it but emotionally returning to it.