The complaint is not personal. It is that we do not influence others well, for example, as well as PragerU.

Libertarians and Objectivists seem to be unable to develop concise, clear messages to illustrate the virtue in the philosophies. For example:
"Libertarians seeking to take over the world and leave you alone."
Just clearly explaining the virtue of selfishness in the long game (vs each separate decision) lacks clarity.

If the end game is to Gulch, let's work on that. If the end game is a more realistic and challenging "change people's minds", we have much room for improvement. If the plan is to gather and bitch (or pontificate), I should drop my membership.

Yes. No idea why the Libertarian party has to continuously harp on marijuana. However, it does seem to be consistent with a freedom people's interest in exercising.

Trump should have pressed for eliminating the federal prohibition and taxed it. Would have swayed a lot of middle people.

That's my point. They are important elements of the story which the movie completely misses. If they weren't going to show the suicide--and the conversation with Jim Taggart which triggers it--they should have cut the whole Cheryl Brooks storyline out to make room for something else.

I believe the key to acceptance of Objectivism is self esteem. If you have it and value your own life above all else it is easy. Craig Bittle posted something the other day that made me realize that I was born to be an Objectivist. I don't have a link but I copied and saved it.

" The most important resource for understanding Objectivism is your own reasoning mind.
In a certain respect, this point is too obvious to warrant mentioning. In another respect, it can’t be emphasized enough. So I’ll say a few words about it upfront.
Objectivism is often misrepresented by those who fear its actual nature. One of the most widespread and destructive misrepresentations of the philosophy is the claim that it is a set of dogmas issued by Ayn Rand that you must accept and follow in order to be a “good Objectivist.” In other words, this assertion goes, the absolutism of Objectivism is like the dogmatism of religion: doctrinaire, authoritarian, confining.
But it is not. And understanding the difference is essential to understanding Objectivism.
Objectivism is indeed a philosophy of absolutes. It’s a system of black-and-white principles. It is also utterly non-dogmatic and profoundly liberating. And its reality-based, life-serving nature lies in the integration of these facts.
Objectivism identifies absolutes about the nature of reality, man’s means of knowledge, the requirements of human life, the source and nature of rights, the moral purpose of government. Its principles are black and white because reality is black and white: Things are what they are; they’re not what they’re not. An idea is either supported by evidence and logic, or it is not. An action either advances human life, or it does not. A law or policy either initiates physical force and thus violates individual rights, or it does not. And so on.
Objectivism recognizes and upholds such absolutes, but it does not call for you to accept them on faith or because some authority said so. Rather, Objectivism calls for you to look at reality for yourself, to use your own mind, and to draw first-hand conclusions on the basis of your own observations and logic. If an idea doesn’t make sense to you, if you don’t see how it is supported by facts, then, according to Objectivism, you should not accept it as true. And this applies emphatically to the principles of Objectivism.
This is the Objectivist principle of independence. And it too is an absolute: If you want to understand some aspect of reality, you must perceive the world with your own senses and integrate your observations with your own reasoning mind. Of course, you can learn from other people by listening to what they say, considering their arguments, observing their actions, and relating what they say or do to what you know. But the fact remains that in order genuinely to understand an idea, theory, or subject, you must rely ultimately on your own observations and logic. You must establish and maintain a primary orientation toward the facts as you see them, not toward the views or opinions of other people.
Because of this absolutism, Objectivism is profoundly liberating. It does not issue commandments or “categorical imperatives” from on high for you to obey. Rather, the philosophy identifies observation-based principles of the if-then variety—such as: If you want to understand reality, then you must observe reality and think. If you want to live and flourish, then you must think and act accordingly. If you want to live in a social system that enables human flourishing, then you must specify the nature of such a system and work to establish and maintain it.
Such principles are not dogmas. They are recognitions of the law of cause and effect. And they do not confine or constrict you. They free you.
Specifically, they free you from the subjectivist nonsense that “reality is whatever the social consensus says it is”—and from the religious nonsense that “reality is whatever the divine consciousness wills it to be.” Reality, Objectivism acknowledges, exists independently of any consensus or consciousness. The function of the mind is not to create reality, but to comprehend it.
And the mind is an attribute of the individual.
Applied to the aim at hand, this particular absolute means that if you want to understand Objectivism, you must activate your mind and consider the philosophy as it actually is—not as those who fear the philosophy falsely portray it to be.
If you approach Objectivism with a commitment to seeing for yourself what it actually says and means, then whatever your assessment—whether positive, negative, or mixed—it will be your assessment. And that, of course, is what matters . . ."