Hillary for Prison.

sSleepy toes and muffin man44goes after 37384 email's deleted and aft7er she's called the police and our penis is limp she forgot ONE THING, US, the E1YES are always rov22ing searching recording watc34hing, but we will say THIS guys time to drop dead we16ights drop the Clintons 1855 before THEY step up their actions and DESTROY THE UN9ITED STATES OF AMER2ICA!

02 765 CURious 77 84 wanted stranG666E

YOU oK! 1874?

Hello Aries! I've been popping in to try and catch you to see how you are doing. Hope all is well!

As a European I think it's pretty funny that Americans prefer a racist, corrupt, sexual predator who didn't even know he had to hire his own staf for the White House over a woman who has been accused of fewer things and who's less corrupt and has had fewer lawsuits in her entire life then he has per year.

It's just an observation.

The only real threat I can see with Donald Trump is his neglect for the environment. I honestly think Hillary only cares about votes but doesn't actually care for America. Her, like Donald Trump only care about winning. Hillary will flip flop on issues over the years as American opinion changes while Trump stays consistent over decades. Only recently did he say things more pc, simply because of all of the riots and protests by the radical left. I just feel Donald will do as he pleases just like Hillary, I just personally lean towards his views from hers. However I don't see him messing up the country because that will hurt his brand and his name. This is from the most moderate point of view I have. I don't believe Hillary cares about messing up her name after all of the things Bill has done and how she keeps changing her views on things. She will just go back to sleep for a few days.

That's just my opinion

In most countries having your kids advising you is frowned upon but not illegal.
Having your kids managing your assets while you're president is never a problem.
Giving your children top level security clearance, sure why not? it's not illegal.

Having top level security clearance advisors who manage your assets and are your kids...

On a side note for those who still thinks trump will come up for the 'little man' there has never been a president with more millionaires and (ex) bankers in his team then trump.

And you guys thought Clinton was going to be bad

I really love American politics:D

That racist term gets thrown around too much to retain meaning for me, and I believe most people, anymore. If I am to believe all the accusations thrown around, everyone who runs against the Democrats is a racist. If you don't support Obama's policies, you must be racist. After two terms of Obama, Americans who voted against Hillary or for Trump must be racist. I really think this term should be reserved for the people who deserve it. I sure know I am sick and tired of reading how my vote must be because I am racist, sexist, or whatever or how I am an irredeemable member of the basket of deplorables.

In my book, the party who is obsessed with labeling and making assumptions about people based on their color, their sex or whatever has far more problems on the subject. I still don't understand how a campaign or their surrogates can run around and say you should vote for our guy because he is black or vote for our women because you are too. I would think that members of those groups would be insulted at the assumption that their groups' decision for the nation's most important office, the one most responsible for their safety, comes down to race or which clothing isle that person will shop in rather than substantive issues. That this is acceptable practice and not rejected out of hand is a bigger indication of problems of race and a person's gender than any outcome of an election.

Yes, Trump is not a typical politician. He has not run for or held public office for. For many of us, that is part of the appeal. Yes, I am sure you can pull up that time he said this or that. His supporters are not going to ding him for not being the most eloquent speaker and will choose to give him credit for speaking his mind, having passion for certain issues, like security and immigration, and not being a typical scripted politician. I am sure anyone with any skill at a web search could look up someone who has been in the public eye for decades and find something that they believe labels them as racist.

As far as being corrupt, I believe you are speaking about the wrong candidate. Donald Trump, again, has never held public office. His responsibilities have been to his family, his company, and his employees. He was in no position to make the rules and had to play by such rules, like the tax code, just like everyone else. Expecting him to pay a dime more tax than he legally had to, for example, is just silly. No ordinary worker looks for opportunities to receive a smaller tax return. No corporation or individual hires tax attorneys and accountants to maximize their tax burden. Doesn't that just sound silly?

Hillary, on the other hand, has been in public service for decades. It sure looks like the Clintons, in general, have sought to enrich themselves at every opportunity, all the while on the public payroll. While we would expect persons in positions of public power, such as the President, a senator, or a Secretary of State, to be serving the people and looking out for us, it is obvious the Clintons saw these as opportunities to make themselves rich. Further, is it even necessary for me to point out the details in how their "charity" was anything other than parking their political-campaign-in-waiting?

This was a key factor in my vote for Trump. He was the opposite of corrupt. Until running for President, he served his family, his company, and his employees and there was no bones about it. It has been the Clintons who owed their power in public office to their voters and, with that public trust, instead courted countless special interests, including foreign donors. Look how Washington DC voted. Hillary carried that town by 93%. Who lives there? Oh yeah, a bunch of lobbyists and special interests who don't have their hooks in Donald Trump. Donald Trump was doing just fine before running for President. I believe it is far more likely he will work for us "common people".

Watch now as news services are currently lamenting that they have little clue how President Trump will govern. They are attempting to criticize him on this note, saying he wasn't transparent enough on policy or saying how he is unprepared. This goes to how President Trump isn't bought and paid for in the way Hillary would have been. He has been given the chance by the people to improve our lives and he doesn't owe the lobbyists and special interests anything. Remember when Obama was elected and he said he would pursue his policies regardless and if the Republicans wanted to participate that it would be fine, but they would have to sit "in the back of the bus". I am excited that our new President has a chance to work for us commoners and while that is going on I know where the Democrats can take their seats!

Ahahahaha. Letsie edited his post. Presumably, after reading my response. He "was" shocked that we elected a "racist" and "corrupt" guy, that led to my response. Let me take a look at his edited objections to Trump now.

So, now we are concerned about a conflict of interest between Trump's business interests and his power as President. Fair enough. We should keep an eye on that and I am sure the media will be combing his actions in that regard. For now, however, Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt. There is no comparison with Hillary though, who has proven that her interests come first. I am also far more confident that the media will be more vigilant watching Trump than they ever were for the Clintons. Again, advantage Trump.

As far as the rich supporting Trump, I am interested where you are getting this. Hillary had the support of all the well-known rich guys that have bones to pick in the political arena that I am aware of. Buffett? He was for Hillary. George Soros? Well, duh, always pours money into the Dems war chest. Celebrities? Professional athletes? Big money foreign donors? Yep, overwhelming for Hillary. Heck even the Koch brothers, who historically support Republicans, supported Hillary.

What biased.. um.. what news do you use to "inform" you of what is going on here (you said you are not in America)? Know that what we call the "establishment", which the Clintons were the embodiment of, includes the all those celebrities, government workers, the rich, special interests, lobbyists of all kinds, and, yes, the media. Trump was the underdog and fought it all and won with the support of us commoners. That is the story of this election. Not that garbage that much of the media puts out these days. Love our politics but attempt to seek a more balanced taste of it out there.

Bullseye Aries.

If Trump wants to bring back jobs to America and to lower taxes he simply has to put a 75% tariff on all imported goods and get rid of all other taxes. This would basically encourage business and create millions of jobs. And people wouldn't have to pay any extra tax because the tariff on importation would simply be instead of regular tax. This would basically solve all our problems.

Sounds easy but what about our businesses that rely on doing businesses in other countries? Would they not simply match our tariff in retaliation, hurting the businesses that we expect to add good paying jobs?

Further, realistically, if the 75% tariff were sufficient to replace all other taxes, would this amount of money entirely be raised by steeper prices faced by consumers? Regular folks need things like gasoline, food, clothes, and such. Poorer folks spend a much greater percentage of their income on such items. Is it possible that increasing prices, whether it is due to more expensive US labor or a protective tariff, would pummel families attempting to make ends meet? These are the folks who seek deals out of necessity at places like Walmart.

The wealthy are far more equipped to adjust to such a change, taking advantage of inevitable loopholes to dodge the tariff on more expensive items. For example, they could purchase major items elsewhere, avoiding the tariff and hurting our businesses at the same time.

Lastly, is it possible to have it both ways with such a tariff? If so much money is raised for government that it is able to replace all other taxes, is your goal in replacing foreign production with domestic working? On the other hand, if so many additional jobs are created here, producing many or all the goods that we used to import, is the tariff still raising enough money to fund things like the military, social programs, and such?

You Hillary Clinton whiny babies................shush!!!!!!! lol

Who? I already posted I was a Trump voter.

I might have been a little extreme when I said it would replace all taxes. This would probably have to be calculated I would assume and at least some other tax would be necessarily, however my point here is that the tariff would be instead of some other taxes, maybe not all. Regardless having a tariff would bring millions of jobs to the United States as local goods would not have a tariff making them cheaper to buy so people would eventually begin buying less imported goods, and overall it would not hurt the economy because it would be instead of other taxes.

This article is pretty neat regarding Trump's efforts and challenges in improving our blue collar working class.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/06/im-democrat-but-ive-gotta-admit-its-now-trump-2-dems-0.html

Oh I know you were a Trump support, Aries. lol I find the real political drama almost as good as that in Simcountry! :P lol

Aries, I'm suprised you believe Trump will save jobs or return jobs for blue collar working class. It's understandable if you voted for him for other reasons, but returning labor jobs?

You of all should know that better.

After World War 2, most of the world from Europe to China and Japan were devastated from the aftermath of the combat. Most industries were destroyed. This left US as the industrial powerhouse to fill the vacuum and provide the rest of the world with materials whether they were necessities or otherwise. That left us with the 1950's where jobs were plenty and wages were high.

But the time has come where that stops when China is willing to do it for pennies on the dollar.

It's time to innovate and go for tech jobs and finance sectors. Sadly, the South refuses to innovate like the north has, and they remain adamant that they must bring jobs back that they will never see again.

It's like in Simcountry, where newer players may refuse to level up and go for high tech corporations that are in demand and instead say they're okay and are fine with their agriculture corps.

As a country, we have to move forward and innovate to something like Germany, and other European countries have done with finance and technology instead of fighting with China for mass manufacturing.

* snorts in derision @ SeizeForce

Dang, where did I read or see a show on that?

It's really quite simple really, the United States consumer is what everyone is courting.

When companies like Dell can build a factory overseas and save 1 billion dollars not in construction cost, or labor costs, but corporate tax incentives who's going to blame them.

Step one: Lower the corporate tax rate.
Step two: Tariff imported products to fair market value inside the U.S.

If they want to go overseas and sell it here go for it. If they want to seek other markets, well that too is an option.

Yankee, lowering the corporate tax rate reduces our income from corporations. And second, setting tariffs on imported products leads to higher prices for American consumers. This means more expensive products, and no one likes that. I for one would not like a PC that I can build for 1000 bucks to become 1500 bucks.

With that being said, why should we fight China for mass manufacturing when we could go the route of innovation and get jobs in finance or tech sectors similarly to how Seattle, Minneapolis, and NYC have all done?

The northern US is being punished for the South's inability and refusal to integrate and innovate. It's not my fault the South cannot find manufacturing jobs. They perhaps should have gotten the training needed to find a job in demand.

When you say setting tariffs on imports leads to higher taxes you are right assuming you keep regular taxes the same. I think you are really missing the point SeizeForce you would lower regular taxes so in the end the tariff would have no affect on taxes. Therefore prices would be higher but taxes would be lower evening out, so it wouldn't be bad. Additionally even though high tech jobs are great it is not practical for everyone to have a job like that, unlike in simcountry you need additional jobs for those who don't go to college perhaps. What you are suggesting would dramatically favor the rich, while having a tariff would bring jobs back to the middle class (Not the Upper class, like Hillary Clinton who is unemployed, probably because the result of the election) would fix our economy.

Basically a tariff has no affect on the total you spend on imported goods and taxes and there is also the added bonus of more jobs. Think of it this way.


Before Tariff:
$20thousand in taxes per year
$20thousand to purchase imported goods per year

TOTAL: $40THOUSAND

After 50% Tariff Added:
$10thousand in taxes per year
$30thousand to purchase imported goods per year

TOTAL: $40THOUSAND

As you can see the total you spend on taxes and imported goods does not change and the government still gets the same income just it gets it a different way. Therefore the only affect of a tariff is increased availability of jobs with no affect on how much you spend on taxes and imported goods. Furthermore if you choose to purchase local goods that are cheaper you would be helping the economy and yourself if the local goods are cheaper then the imported goods with the tariff.

A tariff DOES have affect on the total I spend on imported goods. Not just imported goods, but goods that are made locally. Your argument fell apart when you suggested the US may lower taxes on goods.


There's no federal sales taxes that exists currently for most goods. Therefore, no taxes to lower anyways. Trump cannot change state's sales taxes as he is part of the federal government, that's not his call to make. My state will make sales taxes the same on goods whether they're imported or made locally. They don't care.


The only federal taxes that exist on goods are gasoline, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and airline travel.

I completely agree with you that Inventor clearly has no idea what he is talking about and a tariff is the wrong idea anyway. Instead of a tariff I propose a full nuclear attack on all countries who are stealing our jobs. Trump could target all cities in china, North and South Korea, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other countries who we import goods from. Then following the nuclear attack Trump could declare that he is the supreme ruler of the world. And instead of having a tariff he could build collective farms and concentration camps across the world and millions of jobs would be created when he would need workers to manage and operate gas chambers and other parts of the camp. Then he would just need to end unfairness in the economy and create a new currency in which the government distributes evenly thoughout America and instead of making money by having a job you would recieve equal pay regardless of your job. Additionally private health care would be banned and everyone would recieve free government health care. Furthermore to ensure everyone would have a job the government would simply need to issue id's which would include the person's occupation and would of course be mandatory to wear. Then lastly Trump would declare Hillary Clinton dictator of America for life and resign.

Also everyone would get free college, free food, free rent, and free cars which the government would provide, therefore no one would need money or ever worry about our trade deficit with china.

LOL