JASKN

In such a frank discussion, would it take into consideration this excerpt from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?
The difference between political power and any other kind of social "power," between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
She considered it such an important, seldom recognized distinction that she repeated it twice in the same paragraph.
In the Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 4  November 20, 1972, The American Spirit she parenthetically stated:
 [C]ulture and politics are always two mutually reinforcing manifestations of the same philosophy.
The "aristocracy of pull" is a phenomenon she outline via Francisco at Jim's wedding, as arising within the culture/political climate. She refers to it as graft and pull via Francisco again, at Hank's wife's anniversary party.
So, what is the culture? From the three lexicon entrees, this one has the best fit in this context.
A nation’s culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation’s way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a “culture” is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions.
So what makes an idea or a set of idea dominate within a "culture"? You're suggesting
In a sense I agree. The dominant ideas do not have to be what the masses demand. Where I disagree is how the power for the dominant ideas comes from the masses. It is not brought about by their advocation for "aristocracy of pull", "insider trading", or even the "civil rights" legislation. The power is derived from the masses accepting such slogans/cliches as "that's the way things are, there is nothing we can do about it", or "you can't fight city hall". In a metaphorical passage from Philosophy: Who needs it,
There is an old fable which I read in Russian (I do not know whether it exists in English). A pig comes upon an oak tree, devours the acorns strewn on the ground and, when his belly is full, starts digging the soil to undercut the oak tree's roots. A bird perched on a high branch upbraids him, saying: "If you could lift your snoot, you would discover that the acorns grow on this tree."
In order to avoid that pig's role in the forest of the intellect, one must know and protect the metaphysical-epistemological tree that produces the acorns of one's convictions, goals and desires. And, conversely, one must not gobble up any brightly colored fruit one finds, without bothering to discover that it comes from a deadly yew tree. If laymen did no more than learn to identify the nature of such fruit and stop munching it or passing it around, they would stop being the victims and the unwary transmission belts of philosophical poison. But a minimal grasp of philosophy is required in order to do it.
So when Dr. Hurd says:
instead of the majority, substitute what most people in the culture consider the "will of the majority"—the dominate ideas.
I'm familiar with the the cronyism. I'm familiar with the term capitalism. A is A. Referring to a mixed economy, or the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications, as being a subset or even an adjectival variant of capitalism (corrupt capitalism, crony capitalism) countermands the introduction to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal recognition that:
Objectivists . . . are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.
 

Abstained, they both make my skin crawl. I don't see an advantage of keeping one of them out over the other, but if I did I still wouldn't want to vote for either of them. Johnson isn't good enough nor has a big enough public "blip" for me to make a statement vote.
The worst part of this season was the added public division. I don't know the greater significance, if any, but at minimum it was stupid for everyone to spend 3 months hating on people they got along with before.

I love these sorts of questions. I think future historians will say that human societies clung to collectivistic philosophies because they were too ignorant to properly integrate individualism with government. Why are we, as a species, still so ignorant? Perhaps we lack the psychological tools required to make individualism universally obvious, like the telescope and space travel made the solar system universally obvious to even moronic onlookers. Perhaps we gave up on enlightened monarchy too early. Perhaps we should have developed individualism more before designing a new rights-based constitutional Republic. Perhaps we are suffering the inevitable consequences of institutionalizing even a little bit of irrationality in making rights God-given and government part-statist.

I agree, but hopefully we'll get some more diverse content from him, now that the election is over.
One of the good things about Dr. Hurd is that he doesn't avoid controversy, or going out on a limb on topics. So, even if he's wrong, he's never boring.

You and Lucas are right, but I'm willing to overlook Maloney's statement, protected as it is by the three-week rule.
People say a lot of fatuous things when they've lost an election (though never as much as in 2016). My policy is to waive adult standards of rationality and good will for three weeks; after that, back to normal.

That being said, I hearken back to what my first piano teacher used to tell me:

How on Earth could that have happened? You spelled it out so brilliantly.
And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right:
So, the poor, as you've identified them, have a right to an expensive service, for which someone else has the obligation to pay. That expensive service, an opportunity to earn college credits by being permitted to attend the most expensive schools is their entitlement. The underlying morality that makes this so is that the improvident, illiterate, and sometimes foul-smelling poor have needs just as the middle-class and the rich. And while the rich can always afford to pay a mere pittance of their vast and unlimited wealth, the lower middle-class kid, who parents make too much money to qualify for any state supported funding, can go pound sand up his/her ass. Working parents can afford to pay for both their kid's and the kids' of strangers through their tax contribution. Those "poor kids" are so much more deserving, especially if they don't have the time or resources -- the same time and resources made available to the lower middle-class kid, such as public libraries and elementary schools -- to study in preparation for higher education. In the meantime, the kid who did his/her diligence in public schools, scored sufficient grades, but has working parents with an income just above the threshold can be required to pay more for college, when the courses are inflated from the public policy of entitling all to higher education. Screw that lower middle-class kid; let him get a menial job. That kid's been bred to have the kind of work-ethic that makes him/her perfect for unskilled labor or the trades. Maybe he/she will be lucky enough to have offspring who will be poor enough to deserve my sacrifice and the sacrifice of greater society for the greater good.
The social safety-net should rightfully be designed, not so much to empower those on the low-end of the economy, but rather to ensnare the taxpayers and keep them in their place! Oh, and of course it should catch some of those rich people; those parasites make for exquisite dining, yum yum. Eat the Rich!
 

Because in 2008, the country was in the middle of a financial crisis and recession. Whenever that happens, independents tend to vote for the opposition. In fact, even without a recession, some independents vote for the opposition just for the sake of "change".
You're familiar with Lichtman's 13 keys to the presidency, right? That's a system that favors the opposition candidate...and it has accurately predicted every election since the 70s.
So that's all this is: independents voting for the opposition. Has very little to do with the specifics. If the last President was Republican, they would've voted Dem instead, this year.
And this is a cycle that can only be broken one way: if someone ends up delivering what people want. And that's not going to happen until people change what they want...because, what they want now is not realistic. So, as long as what they want stays the same (they want the government to deliver prosperity and economic security), the two parties are going to take turns in promising, and then failing, to fulfill that demand.
This is off topic, but the worry (as expressed by Leonard Peikoff, for instance, back in 2008), is that the current unrealistic demands change in the wrong direction, and, instead of wanting freedom and individual rights once people are disillusioned with the increasingly spectacular failure of socialism, people end up wanting the fulfillment of nationalistic ambitions (which is a lot of what Trump initially promised his base, before switching to the usual, unrealistic economic promises that target a wider audience, after he won the nomination). Those nationalistic ambitions, if they become the desire of a majority, someone can actually deliver on, through fascism and war. (the way Putin has so expertly done in Russia, and the way Chinese Communists are attempting to do).
Another problem with that promise of nationalistic ambition is that it can so easily be disguised as patriotism. Even people on this forum routinely confuse Trump's battle cry "Make America Great Again" with a call to a return to what made America great to begin with: individual rights and limited government. But what Trump sees as "great" is the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand saw as "great". Ayn Rand saw individual achievement, and a country that protects individuals, as great, Trump sees power, and a government that is able to project great power, as great. He sees Vladimir Putin as great, not Thomas Jefferson or Henry Ford.

Abstained, they both make my skin crawl. I don't see an advantage of keeping one of them out over the other, but if I did I still wouldn't want to vote for either of them. Johnson isn't good enough nor has a big enough public "blip" for me to make a statement vote.
The worst part of this season was the added public division. I don't know the greater significance, if any, but at minimum it was stupid for everyone to spend 3 months hating on people they got along with before.

My emotion is telling me I should have ticked against Trump, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Yep, looks like it's President Trump, with a Republican Congress behind him for the next four years. Only silver lining is that he'll lose the popular election (he'll only end up getting about 47%).
But mainly I'm just hoping that he didn't mean anything he said this past year, and he's actually the moderate leftist he seemed to be before he started campaigning.
Where did you vote? I'm asking because Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are virtually tied (last I checked, Trump was leading by 15 votes in NH), and might be headed for a recount.
It's still a longshot, though. Clinton would still need to win Michigan (she's behind by 1% there, with 70% of the votes counted), but, if she pulls it out, Pa and NH would become the deciding states (actually, they'd likely be the difference between a tie and Trump victory...Clinton doesn't seem to have a path to 270, only to a 269 tie).
Funny side note: in all three states Clinton would need to get to 269 (Pa, NH, Michigan), Trump's lead is less than Jill Stein's votes. I know Jill Stein voters are too blissfully unaware of the concept of numbers to ever realize this, but they just handed Trump the presidency.

You might try expanding your reading of Rand, and giving her ideas some extra consideration.

Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks?
Because: "(That's) where the money was/is." Thank you, Willie Sutton.
Spooky Kitty,
1) Indeed, political favors, in the form of votes are purchased from the poor and middle-class for policies that grant them favors in the form of funds from the public largess. Many of the unnecessary projects and their funding is slipped in between the lines of other non-related legislation.
2) Indeed, it would be inevitable to build roads, bridges, and a viable defense system with public funding. Presently, "normal" government expenses include everything from tobacco and sugar subsidies, to prescription drug programs, to Olympic and other sports stadiums. And the list of other expenses could on until the economy collapses again. The proper minimum services and infrastructure is normal and inevitable; that's why local government should handle as much as it realistically can.
3) Goddamn right free speech is protected. That is, until one more idiot proposes another brilliant pieces of legislation to limit monies donated and spent on political speech.
4)  People and the press challenge it quite often; the very same people then help to elect the same megalomaniacs into power, generation after generation.

Dr. Hurd's description of our situation will not be very helpful to non-Objectivists, because he does not even touch the deeper, more important moral question: Why do we keep telling the government to do crooked things, if we know it's wrong to take that which doesn't belong to us?
Politicians today are seriously corrupt, not because we ask them to be that way, but because they, and most Americans embrace an evil moral system called altruism, which teaches man to corrupt his own moral purpose in life. It teaches him to sacrifice himself and/or others for the sake of the needy, instead of pursuing his own happiness without infringing upon the natural rights of other people.
Dr. Hurd blames a mooching American society, but fails to explain why we're moochers. Thus his attack will only be perceived as an attack and not an arrow to a solution.
As for the rich businessmen who demand favors from politicians, this is probably the last vestige of the individualist, capitalist spirit, where a person expects to trade value for value. Yes, the value is a political favor, but can we imagine what these businessmen have traded for that value? We are talking about the businessmen who are still providing jobs for people in this horrible political climate. Don't they deserve to be rich as hell? Some of them are no doubt scummy con-artists. But I believe the good ones are simply trying to keep capitalism and Western Civilization alive, and they are doing what they think is necessary to do that, including buying political favors.

The underlying assumption here is that government welfare is more fundamental than capitalism, which is not true. If left alone, people would overwhelmingly choose their own wellbeing over the welfare of others. Only the government can enforce welfare, whereas capitalism would exist without coercion. "Crony capitalism" isn't a thing, there is only capitalism and freedom, or welfare and enslavement. A true "crony capitalist" isn't a capitalist, he's just another version of a welfare statist.
Crying about being poor in America makes me roll my eyes so far back in my head it hurts. Venezuela would be a better example. But both are the same: the poor (actual, as with Venezuela, or perceived, as with the US) do not choose freedom, they choose continued looting. Even though people are literally dying in the streets, the solution isn't continued looting.

Salt is a Christian reference ("Matthew 5:13 You are the salt of the earth"). I would have found it surprising if Huckabee would have drawn a comparison between Trump and Caesar with some kind of explicit detail, but the transcript is standard Christian mumbo jumbo, referencing itself more than what's going on today.

I wonder if he actually believes he's helping, or just hoping to hook some clients for the tent revival tour next year.

I have several recurring events on my e-calendar I've been using as reminders to look up a two-three page article to read myself, and place next to a box of pastries on my desk at work for events like Magna Carta Day, Bill of Rights Day, Constitution Day. The pastries usually get eaten up.
As to the few times inquiry has been made about my support for either Trump or Clinton, I usually make polite inquiry about which one advocates and upholds the principle of individual rights.
 
An aside note to Constitution Day, one of the engineers I work with was surprised to learn about it. I suggested that it was interesting that we celebrate the 4th of July, the winning of the war of independence, but when it comes to the document that enshrines the principles we fought for and secured the right to enact—it takes a back burner, usually a footnote on some calendar, or included in a reading on the radio in the "Today, in history" section of the programming.

Even this time, Trump still has a chance. He is not the odds-on favorite, but he is close enough in some key states that the polls cannot tell which way things will fall.
In Florida, for instance, its 50:50 in the polls; but, pollsters cannot predict if participation will change. If folks who never voted before come out out in larger-than-expected numbers and vote for one or the other, they could make the difference. For instance, will Hispanics come out more "bigly" than the past and vote for Clinton? will young folk stay home (as they usually do) because of the Hillary corruption stories or will they come out to vote against Trump? will Trump's supposed "struggling white working-class non-college males" come out in larger numbers than the past.
This charts from FiveThirtyEight show how this election has been like a TV soap, with ups and downs.

 
 

The notion that Republicans can't win is ridiculous. For most of the past eight years, Republicans have held Congress. They can win just fine. They're even set to hold the House this year, which is a miracle, given who their Presidential nominee is.
In fact, before Trump won the nomination, polls showed that Kasich and Cruz had favorability rankings above Clinton, and they would've both beaten Clinton. Kasich in a landslide, Cruz by about three points. Studies that look at the history of the elections (including several that have guessed correctly in every election since the 70s) back that up, saying that the opposition candidate should have swept this election.
So, had the Republicans nominated a candidate who didn't alienate 2/3 of the country, and most Republican donors, by being disgusting in every way imaginable, and then some I couldn't possibly have thought of, he or she would be the favorite in this election. Especially since the Dems are also fielding their weakest candidate since Dukakis.
You see, the problem with the last three elections isn't immigrants favoring Dems. Immigrants are a small minority. The problem with 2008 and 2012 was that Bush doubled government spending, spent trillions on wars against Middle Age savages the US military had the power to annihilate for the cost of airplane fuel, and continued Clinton era financial policies that caused the biggest recession and financial crisis in decades.
 
And the the problem with this election is that Republicans nominated the most hateable person they could find.
If, in four years, the Republican Party gets its act together, they can win by a lot more than that extra million Dem voters Clinton might, if all the stars align in her favor, naturalize.

Yes, of course. Especially Senator McCain, but the others as well.
More importantly, I think the United States deserves respect. When you turn the US political system into a mosh pit, you are destroying centuries of achievement, by heroes and great men who lived, fought and died for their country.
That history, in itself, would be enough to warrant politicians to show some respect for the country. But it's not just about that:
There are great men in the United States today, as well. Scientists, businessmen, athletes, musicians, filmmakers, etc., etc.  And there are millions of less than great, but still productive men as well. All of whom deserve political candidates who can show some respect. They may or may not deserve more (SN touched on why the American people might not deserve good policies or perfect honesty), but they certainly deserve a degree of civility and respect far above what Trump has been able to muster.

People love to hate politicians, and to claim that politicians are some particularly disgusting breed.
But consider... a GOP acquaintance of mine was complaining about Obamacare. When I pushed, it turned out he wanted the government to somehow bring down rates, and wanted the government to help the poor who cannot afford healthcare. Yet, this person -- typical of the average voter -- has no clue about how the government should go about this. This voter simply wants stuff.... somehow. It doesn't matter if it is contradictory. 
Similarly, another acquaintance was talking about how she could not afford to retire. The discussion went to social-security, and it turns out she does not want SS taxes raised, did not want SS benefits curbed, and wanted the budget deficit to be lowered in the bargain. How? Well, that's not her problem... politicians should figure it out.
A colleague is very conscientious about recycling, wants coal plants shut down, wants more regulation; but, also wants the economy to grow twice as fast as it is doing.
Sorry, the fault, dear Brutus lies not in our politicians, but in ourselves, that we are whining, un-intellectual voters who have no clue about what government ought to be. So, we get the government we deserve.
[Of course, by "we", present company -- and other more-intellectual voters -- are excluded. I'm speaking of the average-Joe American voter.]

I'll take the status quo over a pragmatic American nationalist any time.
And calling people "little Marco", "lying Ted" and "crooked Hillary", or bragging about the size your your penis and how you grab women by the pussy is neither charisma nor self esteem.

This assertion is not backed by facts. The 1929 depression had people up in arms. Their solution was FDR. In the recent "great recession", Bush et al got most of the blame. We got 8 years of Obama. Now, the 8 years of wallowing has turned many people against Obama and they're looking to Trump. Go back in history and you find Germany in severe crisis -- hyperinflation that basically wiped out all debt, the French re-taking parts of Germany between the two wars. People were anxious and turned to Hitler. 
Assertions like this are baseless unless you can provide counter-examples from history. Without that, it is like saying "if I heat water, maybe it will freeze".
The key flaw is thinking that politicians and the "elite" classes are the real problem. In fact, your average voter is the kernel of the problem. He only gets the politicians he deserves.

As Objectivism notes, everyone leads his life by a philosophy whether he knows it or not, and Rand wasn't the first or last person to favor most aspects of Objectivism. That means there are plenty of people who will jive with you without necessarily identifying why. Then, even after you might think or say, "Wow, we both like this, like doing that together, like how we respond to this and that around each other, perhaps/likely because of these reasons," most moments apart from those explicit identification moments will be enjoyed by how they are naturally experienced. You'll usually just laugh with someone and enjoy it, without identifying explicitly why and only then enjoying youself.
Many people are compatible with Objectivists without identifying as such explicitly themselves. It might help to think of it another way, too: Would you automatically become involved with someone romantically simply because she identifies as an Objectivist?