2016-10-12 10:16:19I'm with most people when I say, neither of them are ideal, neither are very trustworthy, and both of them have special (i.e., corporate) interest groups in mind when they make their decisions. So that leaves me, as someone who trusts corporate leadership even less than I trust government leadership, with the decision of who has corporate - i.e., 100% profit-oriented - interests in mind when making decisions that will affect the U.S. And I think that answer is plain, voiced by his own rhetoric. He is blatant and unapologetic about cutting taxes on the wealthy - down to 15% - whereas Clinton has said she will raise taxes on the top 1%.
Now let's look at that. Because 99.99% of right wing pundits and politicians will tell you that, "Hey, if you raise their taxes, what's to keep them from sending all their jobs overseas?" That, my friends, is a VERY simple question. If they send their jobs overseas, the U.S. can place a trade embargo on *any* company which threatens to do just that. What that means for them is that they have lost the U.S. consumer, who is indisputably the largest and wealthiest consumer in the world. We buy up more foreign goods in a day than most countries do in a year. There are few, if any, corporations in the world who would be where they are today without the American consumer. So, you move all your jobs overseas, we ban you from trading in the U.S. Simple as that. So enough with that tired, old - they'll send our jobs overseas - argument, please?