Reddit Reddit reviews Trump: The Art of the Deal

We found 31 Reddit comments about Trump: The Art of the Deal. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Success Self-Help
Self-Help
Books
Trump: The Art of the Deal
The Art of the DealEnglishFirst EditionPaperbackgelatine plate paper
Check price on Amazon

31 Reddit comments about Trump: The Art of the Deal:

u/TjPshine · 18 pointsr/changemyview

>he called Mexicans rapists

No he didn't. He said that Mexicans illegally crossing the border are rapists, referencing an Amnesty International study that said 80% of women crossing that border are raped.
Source: The direct quote you're attempting to talk about here
The amnesty study here, it's HuffPo but there are tons of other sources, including Fusion and Amnesty themselves.

So, that will be our first point, and also we will take a brief chalkmark on the 'media is misrepresenting/quoting Trump board.

>Judge Curiel was not qualified to do his job.

Yes, he did. As I'm sure you're aware, Judges, Police Officers, Doctors, and many other tradesmen are asked to remain impartial, and even at times removed from specific jobs because it is too personal for them.
While this is a Canadian Source, here is the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association commenting on a Judges impartiality, I think we can agree the US courts probably hold to a similar standard?

Now, is the Trump case too personal for Curiel?
You and me, we both feel - currently at least - that it is probably not the case.
However, We are also both aware of the dreadful way the media has been twisting Trump to be against Mexico/ans. I showed you one point from it just now, and if you continue to look up Trump Mexican quotes you will find a lot of misrepresentation. And this is present in other subjects as well, as I am sure we will reach.
Is it not possible that Curiel is reading Trump the way anti-Trump people are? Reading journalism (which is always biased) that misrepresents rather than going to an actual source? (Video clips, interviews, etc).
I'm not suggesting here that Curiel did not do his job and study the school/listen, but that he may not have looked into who is making the complaint, and let his subconcious mind which has been absorbing all this "Trump is anti-Mexico/anti-immigrant" news and let it play in the decision, even if it wasn't a big part.

Now, back to the question, is he qualified to do his job (and by this, we mean this job. Not "being a judge"). Probably. But the court works by making objections.
You don't let an unfavourable answer go. Objections exist for a reason, and a lot of time they are used for show, to put ideas in the heads of the juries. Objecting to absolute facts, even thought you know you will be overruled.
Trump may believe that he is going to lose this. But he can't admit that. He has to place the objection, regardless of his belief in it. And this is all ignoring the fact that yeah, Maybe Curiel is largely affected by the way Trump is portrayed and made this a personal vendetta. If you'd like, we can speak more on why people of colour in positions of power react much stronger to immigrant laws and things of the like. But for now, it is enough that we just highlight that we cannot read Curiel's mind, and making the 'objection' (yeah, it wasn't in court, but, you know) was just as much a political move as it was a legal move.

>He's expressed approval for basically every two-bit dictator on the planet, and Putin's a big fan of him

I don't think we need to speak much on this one, improving Russian-US relations has been a good idea for the past century, and Politicians, for better or worse, are not bound to what they say in campaign. I think it is a great step that Trump is willing to be friendly to all World Leaders right now, even if we disagree with their policies. The President (while less so than our Prime Minister) is a figurehead. And must be friendly. This is why Justin Trudeau won the Canadian election.

>He called the Chinese government strong for butchering the protesters at the Tienanmen Square Massacre

Yeah, he did. He didn't say it was good. He said they were strong. Here is a direct quote: "The Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength." from Playboy, 1990.

He wasn't making a comment on massacring being good, he was saying that sticking to your promises is hard. And important. In the same manner that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. Sometimes people die. But you cannot give in, the government must be strong, and the people must have faith in it.

>He supports torture and murdering innocent people as a political tactic.

He has said he is in support of waterboarding, I assume this is what you're talking about, please correct me if I'm wrong. Waterboarding is proven to be ineffectual and brutal.
These are the two facts I will discuss briefly, and let's be clear, I agree with both.
Trump is an incredible business man. There is no denying that. Trump can sell things. Trump can make money.
Selling, is manipulating emotions. Have you ever met a really good salesman? They just feel dirty. Have you ever met a great salesmen? You just go broke.

Trump has seen the way the world is going right now with ISIS and other terror attacks. Trump has jumped on that, knowing it will buy him supporters. Let's face facts, the majority of voters are not in the majority of educated folks (This is basic bellcurve stuff).
Now, there is a number of votes that are not being cast. In 2012, your Presidential voter turnout was 45% (wiki). Do you think the educated are the ones not voting, or the undereducated?
Let me rephrase the question; do you think the people who are reading reports on waterboarding are the ones who are not voting?

Now, After I type this, I realize this may be what you mean by "as a political tactic"

Yes. It is. Yeah, lying and manipulating emotions probably isn't great. But that's what all politicians do. Let's again look at Justin Trudeau, current PM of Canada, just elected in recently (November?). He literally won the election with the exact same tactic. Talking about women, and all the 'problems' that women have. Promising to change entire cabinets, which he did, to meet quotas of women. He flaunted false statistics about rape, in order to achieve that youth vote turnout of educated women, and it's the margin he won by.

Is this sleazy? As fuck. But it's how to win. And, there is gold here. A politician should know what her or his people want. They should know not to necessarily give it to them, but a politician, especially the PM or President, should be able to read the nation, in order to work votes, in order to get things done.

So, I believe I've answered that complaint to both sides: whether you were attacking the political technique, or actually believed he would institute waterboarding. Oh, one final thing, about Trump being a business man, he wants headlines. He knows no press is bad press. He literally wrote a book about it.

>He hates free speech, and wants to be able to sue his enemies for libel.

Yeah, he should be suing. Look at all the misquotes you've already given me. The newspapers are quoting him, and giving sources that when checked out give an entirely different quote. That's bullshit. That is illegal. He isn't against Free Speech, he's against slander.

>He's got ties to both the Mafia and the Russians, and he's basically recruiting for the Nazis.

I'm not going to comment on that last clause, your paragraph seems to be becoming much less "actual criticisms" and much more "hyperbole based off of my feelings".

I can't even make sense of the last clause.

Yes, he is alluded to have ties to the Mafia, there seems to be a compelling case, that 30 years ago, when he built a casino (an industry rife with mobsters) he interacted with them. The same can be said for the Trump tower.

It is inevitable, when organized crime controls an entire discipline, to work without them. Every single person working construction in Montreal, Canada, has immense ties to the mob. Everyone involved in the mining industry, which is huge, has ties to the mob.
Now, if you have a source that says he is involved in killing people, et cetera, it's a concern. But your complaint is that he's interacted with them. That's not valid. It's just not a complaint, I can't justify it, there is nothing else to say here.

>He really hates Muslims, and has suggested all kinds of horrifying methods to "keep us safe"

Why does he hate Muslims? WHat are these "horrifying methods"? Why do you put "keep us safe" in quotes?
I can't really respond to this unless you start being more specific again, you were doing really well at the beginning of your post. Here is a source talking about Homeland Security and the FBI on the American Muslim communities, I know Trump takes some of his facts from them, so maybe it addresses your concerns? Again, I cannot know unless you are more specific.

> He has suggested pulling out of NATO and the WTO

u/Aerthisprime · 13 pointsr/TrueReddit
u/tricep6 · 7 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Apologies for the length in advance. I feel like your question can be answered best by pulling some excerpts from Donald Trump's book The Art of the Deal He talks about his experiences with the press, his strategy, and how he deals with them.

>One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It’s in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. I’ve always done things a little differently, I don’t mind controversy, and my deals tend to be somewhat ambitious. Also, I achieved a lot when I was very young, and I chose to live in a certain style. The result is that the press has always wanted to write about me.

>I’m not saying that [journalists] necessarily like me. Sometimes they write positively, and sometimes they write negatively. But from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It’s really quite simple. If I take a full-page ad in the New York Times to publicize a project, it might cost $40,000, and in any case, people tend to be skeptical about advertising. But if the New York Times writes even a moderately positive one-column story about one of my deals, it doesn’t cost me anything, and it’s worth a lot more than $40,000.

>The other thing I do when I talk with reporters is to be straight. I try not to deceive them or to be defensive, because those are precisely the ways most people get themselves into trouble with the press. Instead, when a reporter asks me a tough question, I try to frame a positive answer, even if that means shifting the ground. For example, if someone asks me what negative effects the world’s tallest building might have on the West Side, I turn the tables and talk about how New Yorkers deserve the world’s tallest building, and what a boost it will give the city to have that honor again. When a reporter asks why I build only for the rich, I note that the rich aren’t the only ones who benefit from my buildings. I explain that I put thousands of people to work who might otherwise be collecting unemployment, and that I add to the city’s tax base every time I build a new project. I also point out that buildings like Trump Tower have helped spark New York’s renaissance.

>Contrary to what a lot of people think, I don’t enjoy doing press. I’ve been asked the same questions a million times now, and I don’t particularly like talking about my personal life. Nonetheless, I understand that getting press can be very helpful in making deals, and I don’t mind talking about them. . . . Also, when I do give an interview, I always keep it short. This reporter is in and out in less than twenty minutes. If I didn’t limit myself, I could spend my life talking to the press.

u/lifeisworthlosing · 5 pointsr/The_Donald
u/vizakenjack · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

Coincidentally, you should try reading "The Art of the Deal", it's an easy and very useful read that'll help you in life.

u/qlqrlk · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

He literally wrote a book about it.

Crippled America

He also wrote a book on his battle plan.

Art of the Deal

You would do well to read both.

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

Those "double listings" are called "holdings" they are used to disperse risk and are a smart business move. They operate separately and have separate balance sheets.

Many of the businesses are created and built by him, then sold off. Similar to the airline company he once created. He usually does allow his name to be licenced to things, but a person does NOT become a billionaire this way.

If he licences his name to a company and then THEY fail as a company, I would disagree with blaming that on Trump .

Secondly, you will notice many of the companies owned by him are real estate (construction) related and require lots of bidding, negotiation, and dealing. Not just with private sector but also the government for things like zoning. His book the art of the deal is literally filled with his deals if you are interested: http://www.amazon.com/Trump-The-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0345479173

u/court12b · 3 pointsr/politics

Hell. He wrote the book on it.

u/polakfury · 3 pointsr/Calgary

> Trump literally praises putin

No he doesnt

" If that is the type of "nation building" you aspire for Canada or any other nation, leave me out.'
If it means having peaceful relations with other nations count me and all the sane people in as well!
Total opposite of Hillary and her WW3 plans

"Hillary has years of negotiating experience in the State Department."

Worst ever at the State Department

Even if Hillary was half guilty in everything she is accused of, that would just be another thing she has excelled at over Trump.
What drugs are you on? Fentanyl?

Trump has a track record of operating as a Executive for over 30 + years with over 400 successful entities to his name. And he wrote a Best Seller on Business Management. People know he is amazing at decision making which would translate well as President.

"The fact that some 20-40% of the USA is thinking of voting for him speaks volumes to the state of American education systems.'
Smart folk who have done the research will vote for him.

u/folkov · 2 pointsr/AskThe_Donald
u/SirGallantLionheart · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Basically this is the game plan lets use his first ad as an example;

  1. Trump shows ad of people going over Moroccan border

  2. Media discovers this and says 'I gotchu, I will finally stump the Trump'

  3. Media plays Trumps ad for free 25,346 times

  4. Trump left enough plausible deniability to say "We'll end up big losers like them. I intentionally used that footage as an example of a darker path"

  5. Congratulations you just stumped yourself

    This Russian vet thing will play out the same except he'll use it as a way to praise Putin perhaps so the Russophile vote goes even more to him as well.

    Pretty much everything he's doing was outlined in The Art of the Deal. That's not to say a lot of the media isn't aware of his game by now. But they mostly care about ratings and the ones who want to stop Trump will take any opportunity to do so even though they always backfire. It really is amazing how Trump is playing them especially when something like a throwaway SNL line to a fairly reasonable comment ruined Palin.

u/TheIslander829 · 1 pointr/politics

> By making our relations with China so bad they'll cut us off

You really think one of the most successful negotiators in history is going to make a bad deal with China?

This guy literally wrote a #1 Bestseller book on how to make good business deals.

u/HisNameIs · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters
u/MAGABMORE · 1 pointr/baltimore
u/Tsorkin561 · 1 pointr/h3h3productions
u/Exodus111 · 1 pointr/politics

The Art of the Deal, by Donald J Trump. Or how to trick people to giving you what you want, by telling them what they want to hear.

u/flyinglotus1983 · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor

You didn't respond to any of the documented bits about Hillary's campaign ('henchmen' in Trump's language) spreading the birther and 'dressed' obama photos -- which she did. So either you're conceding that point or don't believe it, you'd have to choose to ignore many mainstream (liberally-biased I might add) reported exactly that. So which is it? It's not revisionist when you admit that Mark Penn, Hillary's chief strategist during the 2008 presidential elections, wrote a strategy memo that blatantly tried to push the fact that Barack Obama was Un-American.

So let's go over this line by line:

> Even the MSNBC Show Morning Joe admits that it was Clinton's henchmen who first raised the issue, not Donald J. Trump

That's factually true, here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLEy_hJaNEI -- John Heilemann, the co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics, and a polytical analyst for MSNBC confirmed it on air. Even Snopes manages to admit this! "That Hillary Clinton supporters circulated such an e-mail isn't in question"

> In 2011, Mr. Trump was finally able to bring this ugly incident to its conclusion by successfully compelling President Obama to release his birth certificate.

That happened.

> Mr. Trump did a great service to the president and the country by bringing closure

Being that being born in the United States is a requirement for being the United States President, it was a great service. This is a government for the people, by the people. We deserve to know.

> to the issue that Hillary Clinton and her team first raised.

Here's where I think you and others start getting upset. Snopes claims that Andy Martin started it in 2004. I don't buy it, because that was in 2004, and nobody in America knew who the hell Barack Obama was in 2004. I follow news very closely, I have for my entire adult life, and I didn't hear about Barack Obama in the national light until 2008 when he ran for president. No one outside of Chicago or Hawaii had probably ever heard of him other than the most connected and/or informed. Joe Sixpack didn't know who Barack Obama was in 2004. When he decided to run for president, most people started hearing about him at that time, probably right before the Iowa caucases, and definitely right after when he won it (IIRC). This is precisely the time in which Hillary Clinton moved in and according to every resource I've cited above, her campaign started spreading this birther controversy, while she herself stayed out of it to create plausible deniability. THAT, I would argue, is more sick, vile, and non-virtuous than what Trump did. Trump owned it, he's always been his brash self. Hillary's campaign at that time, and even now, is baced on deception. She says one thing and her campaign does another. THAT's revisionism. Her gaping flaw, however, is that she's not savvy enough to realize that the alternative media that she does not control will call her out whenever she tries shit like this. And that happened -- although people like you still refuse to admit it.

> Inarguably, Donald J. Trump is a closer. Having successfully obtained President Obama's birth certificate when others could not,

That happened, Barack Obama did eventually produce a birth certificate, the guy is a closer. He knows what he has to do in order to get the action he wants out of someone.

> Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States.

Here's where I start rolling on the floor laughing. Donald Trump knew that CNN wouldn't cover his one-hour event in Washington with a bunch of veterans and war heros endorsing Trump, in Trump's newly opened hotel. When the Trump campaign tweeted that he'd be releasing "something big" and started spreading rumors that it was about the birther controversy, guess who showed up and filmed the entire 1-hour event live. CNN. I listened to it live on the radio, it was 95% an endorsement for Donald Trump by some of the most highly decorated service men this country has. The last thirty seconds of the event, Donald Trump comes out, says Hillary started it, I closed it, Mr. Obama is born in the US, let's move on. Boom, done.

At that point, CNN realized that they got punk'd. Donald Trump literally baited CNN to cover an event FOR FREE that they didn't want to cover (they hate him and do not want him to win, that's been admitted -- they have clearly been campaigning for Hillary this entire time). He did this under budget and ahead of schedule. They were expecting him to bring the issue back up, but he closed it.

4D chess.

now, literally, you've got Don Lemon tweeting out that it was a stunt (it was). And this makes CNN look bad. Lemon is insulting Trump for getting free publicity, and you've got Don Lemon and CNN calling people deplorable, racists, xenophobes, etc, which sounds MUCH mroe insulting to me. That's ammo Trump will use later.

Like him or not, he knows how to play the media. Which is exactly what he did.

Note that he does not always say the truth but rather what the media will pick up on. That's not 1984 level revisionism. That's just a clever tactic he uses to get free publicity as an underdog who is not as politically connected as Hillary Clinton is (who, by the way, was discovered to have been feeding CNN talking points for favors, to make her look better -- this was discovered in the DNC Leaks). You've got Donald Trump, a media outsider, going up against a very corrupt Washington insider who uses money and power to get the media to make her look good and others bad. What the fuck else is this guy supposed to do? Just cry and lose?

How do I know all this about him lying to the media for publicity? He literally wrote the book on it. He's been using that same tactic for years.

You cannot call what he's doing 1984 because he DOESN'T WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. He's not hiding the misdeeds of the government. He's playing the crooked media like a fiddle -- and even so, he WAS STILL CORRECT about Hillary's campaign being the first to bring it up in 2008.

So there you go, QED. You're respectfully wrong, this isn't funny, it's not 1984-anything. Refute my reply or concede.

u/Mugilicious · 1 pointr/The_Donald

>No way pal, trumps not cutting no deals

http://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0345479173

How retarded are you? Be honest.

u/FourFootDangler · 1 pointr/soccer
u/maddata · 0 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

One big problem with Trump and defending him is that the media is incredibly uncharitable.

Temporarily halting muslim immigration until we figure out what is going on has been reported as "Trump wants to ban muslims".

Illegal immigrants are sometimes criminals and rapists (based on studies that found that between 60% and 80% of female illegal immigrants are raped by their companions or guides along the way) gets reported as "Trump says latinos are rapists".

That caveat out of the way:

His tax plan is on his website. The US corporate tax is the 3rd highest in the developed world. Many economists don't think a corporate tax is a good idea [1] [2]. His corporate tax plan includes a 10% one-time repatriation tax to incentivize reversing corporate inversions.

China practices currency manipulation. The Chinese government pracitces industrial espionage. You'll have to take my word for it, but every press conference where he's asked if he'd implement tarrifs, he dodges the question ("I'd consider it" etc.) because, in my view, he just wants to use it as leverage.

I would also recommend your read The Art of The Deal (or don't buy it and try this?) for perspective on how he uses inflammatory rhetoric and his opinion on the media.

If you have an hour of time to listen/watch something in the background, consider watching The Untruth about Donald Trump by Stefan Molyneux, a lecture that details the dishonest patterns the media has used to attack Trump.

u/Phantomchrism · 0 pointsr/norge

Er ikke Trump et forhandlingsmenneske? Interessant, med tanke på at han skrev "the go-to" boka om forhandling og avtaler i 1987... http://www.amazon.com/Trump-The-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0345479173

u/mongormongor · 0 pointsr/politics
u/rdancer · -1 pointsr/aspergers

Four good ones:

The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump & Tony Schwartz
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
The Big Short by Michael Lewis
With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glen Greenwald

Two shitty ones (edit: yet still important to read):

The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens
The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

u/GodOfAtheism · -23 pointsr/circlebroke

Personally, I think that, much like all candidates promise the moon, he is too in regards to a lot of his more racist rhetoric. The thing you first have to remember is that he literally wrote the book on negotiating. So he throws out some big bluster, gets the attention on himself, and forces everyone else to respond to him. He's taken control of the situation, which is exactly what he advised in the aforementioned book.

But look a little deeper: He's endorsed single payer, he's said he's okay with some gun control. He wants to tax the rich and lower taxes on the middle class, he's fine with opening relations with Cuba again. Again, barring the racism (Which again, I think he's overstating, considering the aforementioned Cuba thing.), he's about the most left leaning Republican who stands a chance I've seen.