Knarf, thank you for considering the info on the video. Georgiegirl has promised to do the same if someone else would slog through it, so I’m pinging her.
I’m rather surprised you are so giddy over this.
I’m half way through and I what I’m hearing is people who
sound more jealous then curious. By that I mean, the architecture critic, Paul Goldberger, comes off in this piece as 1. completely gay (so perhaps he dislikes stronger men) and 2. sour grapes. If that was the best they could do to try and smear the man, that was really pretty lame.
Moving on - I haven’t read his book the art of the deal so I have no knowledge if what the commentator is stating is indeed fact. Taking it on face value, one has to recognize how deeply the city was involved and ultimately, Trump (and I’m guessing others in his position) used every advantage available to him to achieve what he set out to. I think if one is predisposed to dislike him, this will surely incite you.
As for the building with the tenants, sigh - when they resort to ‘interviewing’ 3 of the oddest people for a total of ONE minute, I doubt I’m getting the full story here. When you interview a lawyer who specializes in tenants rights, I think that’s what he was, and there is no clarity as to the violations that took place, I’d have to research this independently, as there already has been a clear bias shown in this video.
The attempt to appear evenhanded was laughable. Bringing in his writing partner and letting him speak for a few minutes, hardly inspired to me view this as unbiased.
For now, my only other observation was the hit about him being away at school and missing the entire 60’s hippie dippy rage against the machine losers - to which I say, thank God. We have enough filthy rich social justice warriors running around, we surely do not need another!
I’ll be back
Okay, thanks for Knarf’s post, I appreciated his analysis. As promised, I will watch the video and then write about it. Give me a little time to make time. :D