Very interesting. I'm not quite there. But, I admit I have some level of resignation. Why? Because I don't control the election - only one vote. I don't control the October or November Surprise. I can only try to be ready to react to it. I don't control the election tampering like that we've seen with the lawfare. I don't control the election fraud like we saw last time with the infamous "F-curve". I don't control any of that. Does that mean I want Kamala in there...batshit party girl? Certainly not. To want that would be dunderheaded. But, if she's elected America will certainly take a beating from her policies and it will set us back. The premise I don't agree with is that if America collapses, a fantastic Jeffersonian or Libertarian utopia will follow. No guarantee of that. That's like saying if I step on a cock roach a beautiful butterfly will emerge and flutter away...

It this website suddenly turns Heel-up Harris and Tampon Tim, I'm outta here faster than two shakes of a bunnies tail.

Eight or nine years ago, we were all trying to understand this political anomaly named Trump. Yaron and others in the formal Objectivist movement immediately declared their disdain. They have never missed a chance to distance themselves and follow with a pompous negative certainty without the support of necessary relevant facts. It is ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper metaphysical identification and observable epistemological validation before passing moral judgment or taking action. While I agree that principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied rather than merely blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, I believe some broad hierarchical recognitions are very consonant with our philosophy.

Throughout the years, he appears to have a proper identification of the nature of his endeavor, playing the cards he's dealt. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it as he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the "fake news," the embedded corruption, the recognition of good and evil on the world stage, the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc... For the most part, the transparency of his thoughts has been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals, or deceit. It is what it is.

Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, "Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said, that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience," the basis of knowledge acquisition.

We should champion his "America First" mantra. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality, and "America First" is just that. It's not some blind German nationalism but an attitude that America's interests need to be selfishly upheld, which is an admirable start, recognizing a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with everyone based on trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, "The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history." His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism, and multi-lateral agreements keeps our self-interests paramount. It's the application of the trader principle.

Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach align with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke but does not usually pull the proverbial trigger until he's attacked with words or actions.

While Trump may not be able to articulate his principles with the scientific factuality of Stephen Hawking or the eloquent philosophical consistency of Rand, he still appears to have an "intuitive" common sense, not only of practicality but also of right and wrong. One needs to look at his children to realize some form of proper values is present. His productivity and financial success must be seated in appropriate fundamentals instead of a chaotic, unprincipled achievement, luck, or theft. And many, if not all (including his adversaries) that have personally engaged with him have echoed his likability, exiting acknowledging he's not how he is portrayed.

A dire threat is facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy weaponized for political purposes. All Americans must unite, led by the voices of reason, to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump; it's about the American system and government's fundamental role, purpose, and responsibilities, regardless of one's political persuasion.

As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the "ivory tower" to the first floor of reality and integrate our values with the ever-changing daily events. With proper context and hierarchy, there should be minimal daylight between the abstract and concretes. Are not what's mentioned above consistent with our most basic and broad fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?

It appears that we may have lost the very objectivity we find so sacrosanct.

Besides the oxymoron of "the libertarian right" (remember that Smallest Political Quiz?) it's well established that many who profess to follow Ayn Rand wouldn't recognize Objectivism if it bit them. In my humble opinion, DJT is as close to Rand as we're likely to see at the top of a major party ticket for now.

I will vote for the lesser of two evils in an election, where I stand nothing to gain, but perhaps a lot to lose. In this election, I stand to lose a LOT if Kamala wins and causes the further destruction of the country I am living in.
I am not fooling myself into thinking that Trump is an objectivist either. He is substantially conflicted intellectually, and harbors a number of inconsistent positions.
1) Immigration. I do think IF we are going to have a country, we have to have borders and immigration rules as far as citizenship- so Trump is right on this IMHO.
2) Tariffs- Trump wants huge tariffs to "bring back manufacturing to the USA", I think returning manufacturing to the USA would cause substantial inflation in pricing as companies spend more for the items that they now get from china and other countries. Plus, many things just arent made here anymore, so paying the huge tariffs to "help with the budget deficit" would cause a lot of inflation next year. Trump is just OUT TO LUNCH on this one.
3) Reducing taxes is great to get votes, but if not part of reducing expenditures, its NOT great. Just means more deficit spending and money printing. Trump is OUT TO LUNCH on this one also.
4) Foreign affairs is a positive for Trump. Other bad actors will not want to risk problems with the USA with Trump in power. Also, he will NOT get us into useless wars, but will end our participation in current wars in Ukraine and Middle east.
5) The left will cause legal issues for Trump on essentially anything he tries to do. But he will SLOW down the progression of the left for the next 4 years, which they will HATE.
6) Hopefully Trump will release the Epstein client list as well as the P Diddy client lists to show the inner working of the elites.
7) Trump will print money instead of STOPPING deficit spending. He is conflicted on this one. There should NOT be deficit spending.

That is a long way of saying what I've been saying for years: "There are two choices, or a spite vote". There is absolutely no question a Trump administration better supports freedom than Guy-dum or Kamel-scum-dum. NONE AT ALL.

I read Reason regularly too. It astonishes me how many Libertarian Trump-negative articles there are. Unless you live in a completely Blue state, like NY, MA or CA where you vote is completely irrelevant, voting for a Libertarian candidate is stupid and spiteful.

Rand hated the Libertarians. "Leebertarian heepies" she called them. Why? Several reasons, as far as I know.

1. They took her ideas and used them without attribution. When mentioning her they sometimes misrepresented her. A questioner at Ford Hall Forum demanded that she show support for them, phrased of course as a question. "Why don't you [support we who agree with you]?" Her response was vitriol.

2. Libertarians include (whether they know it or not) Communists. Rand could always recognize them. Why would Commies join the LP? "The end justifies the means," so it's okay for a Commie to pass himself off as a peaceful Libertarian.

3. The LP serves to dilute the Republican vote.

4. The enemies of the republic that is the United States want to set us against each other. "Let's you and he fight."

Perhaps there is a "plan" behind what ARI is doing. Why did Rand's strikers leave ruin everywhere: Wyatt's Torch, Francisco's silver mines, etc? Those who follow "Q" suggest that Trump is part of a greater plan, a plan that included having Joe Biden as President.

Perhaps Rand is genuinely one of Trumps heroes. He has read The Fountainhead, and has said (in an interview) “It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to … everything,”

Why would ARI scorn Trump? I'm waiting to see what happens next.

I cannot imagine how ARI could be more aligned with Harris than Trump. I think Trump is more aligned with the Objectivist philosophy.

He does not give any sources to double check.
I have to treat the source as rhetoric until something substantive, such as recorded video commentary, without soundbite editing, is produced.

I won't dismiss this. I've seen some publications that put ARI in questionable status, objectively. Nothing conclusive, yet caused me to focus more on the passages.

Sounds like voting for the greater of two evils!

Dr. Hurd makes some good points. But he is considered anathema by the Ayn Rand Institute and by The Objective Standard.