|
The thing is if he gets elected while he still owns his companies they get put into a trust-hold sort of thing where someone actively maintains it while he does presidency work meaning he still owns them but doesn't fully control them, this results in him earning less money than he would if he just didn't become president and continued to focus on his own businesses.
I believe he wants to make America better because if you see any of his videos from years ago he's clearly against being a politician unless he feels America really needs help, if you look into why he wants to reduce tax on the rich his theory actually makes sense.
The problem is being wealthy everyone will always just assume he's going to do the shadiest things possible to benefit him which is a weak argument for being against him because Clinton is the same way.
From an outside view (I'm Canadian) a lot of what I see in this election is "I'm voting X because X and Y are both bad but Y is worse" it sucks it's come to just having to settle with who you think is the lesser evil candidate.
And about the whole him not believing in climate change, neither did our PM we had for years, it isn't going to ruin the country and he's still going to focus on fixing the environment because it's an overall boost to the economy.
|
Trump will still be the owner. Instead of thinking of his value in terms of cash, think about it in terms of assets. As President, he will acquire a much broader range of actions available to him that can directly benefit his assets and
personal agendas. 4 Years as President, and once you're done, he can return to an empire. Not to mention, whoever partners he works with, domestic or foreign, will also directly benefit due to association.
His theory on reducing taxes for the rich is basic economic principals, allowing more freedom for free-market development rather than government-regulated. While you can see this from a logical non-biased standpoint, I'm more inclined to see this as allowing the already rich elite (which he is a part of) to benefit.
I believe in his shady acts because of History. His words of what he "will do" have no weight against what he "has done". Hasn't paid massive amounts of taxes, leveraged his wealth against smaller business associates out of their commission (eventually running them out of business), marketed and sold various products and claimed bankruptcy afterwards, etc.
Hillary has done terrible stuff too though, don't get me wrong. But as Secretary of State for a long time, she held the 3rd highest position in all of U.S. Government aside from POTUS and VPOTUS. It's safe to say that history on her side, which already shows WHAT she is like as a leader of our government, hasn't shown damage to others but rather dealings for the benefit of the US. Even these current e-mail allegations have yet to be proven/evidenced as to what (if any) kind of damage resulted.
This isn't a gradual process of his habits and actions changing. We're talking about a man who was one day an aggressive self-preservation minded billionaire, to the next, a champion for the poor-middle class that has just declared running for Presidency.
But yeah, they both suck. I wanted to vote for Vermin Supreme.