Having started a boot-strap company, I would certainly have preferred to have a few million. On the other hand, I may have just blown through it as so many start-ups did. Not having the cash to spend makes you more careful.

As to investing it. There is some truth to that. Tech stocks did better than constructing buildings, but we do need buildings. And, the calculations I've seen involve reinvesting the profits, but taxes take a chunk out of them before you can do that.

Donald Trump proved that it is possible to become president without owing your soul to supporters, or PACS,. That there was no need to cross the aisle and pledge cooperation, and he listened to what the people actually wanted. Then, he went forth with his populous message, complete with often ribald asides, and worked his butt off day and night bringing his message to groups that he was told were a lost cause and well as those he knew that he could appeal to. If he puts that kind of energy into the job and lives up to his promises, we just might have a monumental turning point in American politics.

Nothing wrong with a father helping a son. It is just a lot EASIER to make millions when you HAVE millions. Starting with assets, I read a story that if he had done nothing he would have more than he does now. I can't find that article. He is a 1000 times better than HRC. I hope he puts her in prison. America will be useless for weeks us laughing and the liberals crying

My man!

That his father was successful too. I see nothing wrong with a father helping his son get started. And we all know that the easiest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one. Trump did the reverse. The fact that he started with assets doesn't negate his accomplishments.

His Daddy gave him how many MILLIONS?? I am a builder and I did OK but not millions. What was that you ar saying about his father?

As I read this, the results are already in so if you vote now it would be considered fraud! However, my reasons for chosing one over the other are echoed in the comments I have read. From 1992 on I always felt that Hillary was not what presented to the public, that she was acting a part, wearing a mask. The mask slipped with her Benghazi statement, "What difference does it make!" when families were hurting over their loss and other times when she was caught in 'misundestandings'. Her agenda for the country is more of the same with an even bigger price tag and the same results.
Trump is who he is, warts and all and that gains respect because speaks plainly, often crudely, about what he believes. His agenda is on the table, executive orders are gone, limits on illegals, confronting the terrorists (a group that Democrats dare not speak its name), and giving the government back to the people as it was intended.

Don't worry. Me dino has made way bigger boo-boos in the Gulch.

Now that the election is over and Trump has won I as a business owner feel much better this morning that I have for 8 years. As a citizen of the USA I feel that my freedoms are not in danger any longer. And finally I do not believe my government will have an employee telling me what I can or cannot do.Those are the three basic reasons that I used to voted for Trump.

The question is too silly for words.

Hence the moral dilemma. I was young back then and not such refined principles as now

Yes

Cheryl spelled Cherryl? Me dino thinks you refer to Cherryl Brooks Taggart, an Atlas Shrugged character.

Your moniker infers a high standard. I commend you for that .The kakistocracy is polar opposite of your prerogative.

It is amazing to me that many people choose not notice the distinctly obvious corruption in nearly all of the people running for office in every state. I can understand why Cheryl took her own life.

I am in Indiana, near Indianapolis. As I have seen over the years, the majority of the country is conservative, but the larger cities hold the deciding switch (I understand larger population in cities). I will be relieved to see that power switch go out.

I did that once, way back, voted for whomever was running against Dukakis. Felt bad for many years after that, as it was not a good enough reason to vote. I agree Trump is the better choice and most unknown. I don't expect much as the political machine in place is not tolerant of change.

Understand that path, too. Am sitting back with a blasted lemonade (my recipe), and will toast the greatness that was America, too. I pulled out a few years ago and am now a track wiper. I won't go back until it is all over. $

I agree. I won a couple of his books in a random drawing at a motivational meeting put on by a company I worked with. Liked what I read. I have not seen anything in his speeches or writing that tells me his basic premise for being and business is other than to profit for himself. Thank you all.

If you add up the money trump has gotten in tax benefits for building his buildings, and the money he has stolen through bankrupcy its ranges from 80%-110% of his fortune depending on which report you see. Giving him the benifit of the doubt and saying 60% is from that, he is a thief who has stolen from the tax payers and his venture capitalists in the tune of billions. he is a Boyle type character. He has a face of a business man but a corrupt business man depending on the system that exists. he has not fought regulation but helped to fund and increase it in his favor.

Clinton's record of corruption and destruction is very evident. She has no principles other than those that are best for cant even tell what at the moment.

In my view Trump may do a few good things, he wont be a Reagan, maybe a bush Jr at best, and at worst he will be just a different flavor of Clinton. I think the latter to be most likely. He has after all said that he would like to do away with freedom of speech so he could go after the people who say false things about him.

I could not cast my vote for either of them.

I debated between Evan Mcmullan and a write in. In the end I would love to see a lash back of some kind against the two party system. I live in Utah and there is a slim chance McMullan could win. If that happened it would be a slap to both parties and candidates. I do not think it would spread, but I would love to see. In reality Trump will win the state most likely. If Hilary wins Utah it would provide a slap to the republicans and maybe they may wake up a bit.

Many here would go for Gary Johnson. When he bragged about being 75% like Sanders after taking an online test, that finished his chance of a vote from me. Anyone that thinks being 75% like the most socialist candidate is a positive, in any conversation wont get my vote.

Ultimately I did a write in. It wont win anything but I voted for someone I can in good conscience put my name on. I think anything else is dishonest with my self and I wont do it.

Lets say Utah becomes the state that decides it and Clinton wins because of one vote. Greatly preferred to me voting for Trump as I do not want my name tied to his as I think he will be bad for the country, and more specifically individual freedom under the rule of law. Clinton will be bad for the same.

I say go vote, but if you cannot support any of the candidates vote for someone you can support. Vote for whomever you cast your vote for, not against anyone. There is no thumbs down box when voting.

Not voting gives you the government you asked for. Not voting is a choice. When you make that choice make sure you know what you are going to get A government pick by other people. If that is not reason enough to think about the choices and pick one that will do the least harm, nothing is.
I personally am voting for Mr. Trump. Partly because I think Hillary should be in jail but mostly because I think he has a reasonable chance to start the long process of restoring the United States.

Can't...

It occurred to me that I left something out.
The perhaps about to be elected most corrupt president money can bribe has this professed dream of wide open borders.
The evil hag also wants to flood us with more unvetted Muslim refugees than Dumbo Ears can imagine.
Me dino am sure there's more I forgot . . .

I'm definitely not an "objectionist", I voted for Gary Johnson. I don't put ideology aside, an ideology (a set of political ideas) is the basis for my vote, not a meaningless belief to be cast aside for some short-term, range-of-the-moment advantage. I voted for Johnson because he was closer to my beliefs than any other candidate on the ballot.