Ayn Rand wrote in 1964 (during the Goldwater campaign) in "How to Judge a Political Candidate":

"[T]he issue of freedom vs. statism—or individual rights vs. government controls, or capitalism vs. socialism—is the basic issue of political philosophy. It is the root, the start, the fundamental which is involved in every specific measure, by which all else is determined, by the side of which all other considerations are trivia."

"It is the basic—and, today, the only—issue by which a candidate must be judged: freedom vs. statism."

A couple of things about Trump. I like what he says, no mealy mouth avoiding the issues, who else does that? And secondly I'm for anyone that can get rid of the Liberal base in the Republican party, especially the ones who hold the stranglehold in the Northeast. Little difference in them and the dems.

Ron Paul or Rand Paul?

Actually, Perot was just as much the businessman as Trump, only he didn't have the history of giving millions of dollars to Democrats. I voted for Perot because I wanted a choice other than Bush or Clinton and because I wanted someone with some economic and business sense in the White House.

Trump is very different to me than Perot, but I am fairly confident that if Trump runs as a third party, Hillary will ascend to the Presidency. Trump speaks about the things the politicians don't want to, which makes him a refreshing change from the status quo. And he actually pleased a lot of Republican voters when he criticized John McCain because most Republicans (except the ones in Arizona) don't like McCain because he's a RINO.

All that being said, however, there are at least a half-dozen I would choose over Trump at this point.

In all honesty, I withdrew my voter registration a few years ago, because I got tired of voting against things, and it didn't make any difference anyway. My feeling is that I'll do the bare minimum to stay compliant with the law, but I view myself as my own political entity, and I'll go merrily on my way doing what's best for ME.

My country 'tis of me.

The question was about Donald Trump, not reforming the whole culture during the time span of a political campaign.

Trump versus a more explicit socialist is a false alternative in the primary. By the time of the final election we will be limited to selecting one of two candidates, which ones not now known. Voting for one or the other or neither at that time is a political choice in that limited context, not an endorsement or assessment of either candidate, and not relevant to what we think of any of them now as we look at the field of primary candidates and assess what they are. The question was about Donald Trump.

The Donald appears to be a pure opportunist. . probably amoral,
he is a loose cannon, in my view. -- j
.

Possibly. But would a successful businessman be worse than an arrogant, narcissist community organizer?

I don't think so! At first I did agree with the Tea Party on many points and then came to the realization that you could not get ten of them to agree on anything!
I just have no use for more of the same and I don't care which party dress they are in as long as it's not democratic.

and yet, he might be a political leader, and that might be all.
he would probably be a joke as a national leader. . IMHO. -- j
.

I think::: Not. -- j
.

or "evolution" ....... and welcome to the gulch, roneida!!! -- john
.

Safety or liberty?
Venezuela doesn't have the history of self reliance and liberty that America has (supposedly) .
We, the people, are the last line of defense against tyranny.
If we do not act now, it will defintely be a very long time before mankind sees liberty again.

The reality is we are going to get one of the pack as president next year. The 47% Romney talked about that just want goodies are still there. Rand is not with us to run an intellectually based campaign. Our country cannot stand another socialist president. It certainly doesn't need some religious zealot. Given that, is trump such a bad voice. We need an intellectual revolution, and that could take a generation at leadt

And someone who can do more than roar.

Some say he talk as though he would have us into a nuclear war at the drop of a hat.

But I want a leader who makes our enemies think that way. That why, they won't even think of the bamboozle the Iranians just pulled.

(Though actually, I think the bamboozle came from Obama himself. The sting is on us. He had in mind to give away the store all along.)

True. The establishment hates him. But he raises the real issues they will have to lie sbout

He may be a gladfly but he is talking about what my neighbors and I want brought out in the open and disclosed by the media- illeal immigration is killing California and the Country. Most of the illiterate illegals are only coming to this country for the freebies and the liberals only want them here to guarantee a one-party systen once they figure out how to grant amnesty to the crooks. Political correctness is nothing more than liberal bulls*it to shut up the opposition.

This is true. BUT it's going to take a LONG time for that. Look at how far Venezuela has slipped and still no revolution

At least Obama doesn't do that every day?

Right on! We need 'THE MOUTH THAT ROARED" !!

He has my vote. Better choice than the others who are likely to be elected

well said, Gary!!! -- j
.

What's wrong with "rudely blaring truths"?

Frankly, I want a rude man as the country's leader. Some things, cannot be said politely. Things like "That far, and no farther." Particularly to those whose central ideology is: "invade, or die."

Someone needs to lay out his earlier political record--of statements, advocacy, contributions, and so on--before him. And ask him whether he changed his mind after doing those earlier things, and why. I don't mind anyone changing his mind when he realizes he has been in error and corrects the error. I do mind anyone who pretends to have "always held such-a-position" when he hasn't. That, of course, is dishonest. It also reminds me very much of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four." You know the line: "We have always been at war with East Asia."

Good analysis.

...and "they" say philosophy is not tied to reality.