Obama called, inviting Martin to join Hillary's campaign team.
Martin politely declined but agreed to contribute some funds to Hillary's campaign. Hedging bets on both sides is standard practice.
After chatting with Trump, Martin felt that partnering with this would-be father-in-law was a match made in heaven.
This guy loves expressing his opinions online, and currently, the major internet platforms—Blog, Twitter, Facebook—are all platforms where Martin is the largest shareholder.
By joining forces, Trump could leverage these online platforms to expand his influence, while Martin's websites could gain more traffic. It was a win-win situation.
Hillary, on the other hand, was much more conservative, likely due to her "female politician" persona—she needed to appear intelligent and elegant, unable to be too avant-garde, unlike the shameless Trump.
...
"Ah, Martin refused?" Upon hearing his wife's complaint, Clinton just laughed it off and said to his wife, Hillary, "Isn't that normal? Trump's daughter Ivanka is Martin's woman and also his right-hand woman in business."
Hillary was stunned, suddenly thinking of her own daughter. An idea flashed through her mind but was quickly dismissed.
Her husband, Clinton, continued, "Martin's position domestically is basically stable. No matter who comes to power, it won't affect him. What he cares about most now are his investments in West Africa and the Middle East, especially West Africa."
"What does West Africa need most? Industry, industry, and more industry."
"So it's no surprise Martin chose Trump. After all, that idiot has the backing of Carlyle Capital, which controls North America's largest real estate private equity fund. Its portfolio includes France's Carrefour Group, the elegant St. Regis Hotels, USA's First Republic Bank, Fairmont Raffles Hotels, Colorado Construction Company, Miramax Films, etc."
[TL/N: In between these paragraph is Clinton talking about Martin Investment In China.]
"It can be said that the capital behind Trump and Martin have complementary roles. This is something you can never achieve."
The biggest capital behind Hillary comes from several Wall Street giants.
Like Buffett.
In December 2015, Buffett publicly expressed his support for Hillary at a campaign event in Omaha.
Although a billionaire, Buffett has rarely been involved in political activities over the past few decades.
During the 2008 US election, Buffett donated to both Hillary and Obama's campaigns but never publicly supported either.
According to Time magazine, Buffett's high-profile support for Hillary this time was mainly due to her determination to reform taxes.
Buffett believes the current tax regulations fail to function as a proper regulatory mechanism and instead provide convenience for the wealthy.
He once gave this example: In 1992, the top 400 wealthiest Americans held an average of $46.8 million in assets, with taxes paid accounting for 26.3% of total assets. By 2012, twenty years later, the average assets of the top 400 had break through to $336 million, but taxes paid had dropped to 16.7%.
"Although the growth in wealth is astonishing, millions of Americans have been left far behind," Buffett lamented. "This huge group will not be forgotten by Senator Clinton (referring to Hillary), and that is the most important reason I support her."
Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and founder of Bloomberg LP, also clearly expressed his support for Hillary in July 2015.
This billionaire, ranked 8th on Forbes' global wealth list, was once considered one of the loudest third-party forces independent of the Democrats and Republicans but announced his withdrawal from the race in March of that year.
"Mr. Bloomberg will express his support for Mrs. Clinton from the stance of a business leader and a non-partisan figure," declared Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg's senior advisor.
The reason was that Hillary publicly stated in her speeches that if she were successfully elected, she would not raise taxes on families with an annual income of less than $250,000 during her term.
This promise won Hillary widespread support and ultimately secured the endorsements of Buffett and Bloomberg.
So the question is, why do financial giants support raising taxes on the wealthy?
Is it because they care about ordinary people?
No, no, no, that's not it.
They just want more money to flow into Wall Street and the financial sector.
What is the world's most convenient tax avoidance method?
Finance!!!
Whether you want to move funds overseas or invest in a certain company, you cannot do without financial means.
By raising taxes on the wealthy, the rich will have no choice but to pour more money into the financial sector to avoid taxes.
Some might say, so what? Ordinary people still benefit, right?!
Well, do ordinary people really benefit?
No, they don't.
"Taxing the rich" itself is a highly deceptive slogan coming from capitalists.
As long as it's a tax on "people," no matter the form or pattern, the burden will ultimately fall on the lower-class workers.
Only taxing "goods and materials" primarily targets capitalists because, for major capitalists, most of their assets aren't liquid "mediums of exchange" like cash but rather means of production and goods—this is the solid pillar supporting the capitalist system.
So, who uses cash as the mainstay of their household economy? Clearly, it's the working class and the middle class.
Therefore, any tax aimed at "personal income money" will eventually be transferred to these people.
If you truly want to make capitalists pay their fair share of taxes, you must move away from relying on a system of personal taxes, especially income tax, and instead establish systems like value-added tax and property tax.