> Trump denounced Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” near the end of the speech
Incorrect. The quote was, "They're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems... they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists."
Here's a good summary:
""Their" or "They're"? Which interpretation makes most sense...
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best... [Mexico is] sending people that have lots of problems... [Mexico is sending] their rapists. And some [people Mexico sends], I assume, are good people."
OR
"When Mexico sends its people... [all Mexicans are] rapists. And some [rapists], I assume, are good people."
Anybody taking the second interpretation is just looking for an excuse to gin up fake outrage by intentionally misquoting Trump. Trump says enough outrageous things on his own. You don't need to make up new ones."
> Many Americans, however, saw Trump as a charmingly brash entrepreneur with an unfailing knack for business—a mythical image that Schwartz had helped create.
He helped market the image, sure, but it's not mythical. Trump has done really well in business, is definitely a brash entrepreneur, and probably has some charm to get so far.
> It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology—Schwartz doubted that he had one.
Actually he's been fairly consistent on communicating issues such as other countries ripping off the US on the world stage. Here's an example that Schwartz should have known about back in 87: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-trump-spent-n...
> “It pays to trust your instincts,” Trump says in the book, adding that he was set to make hundreds of millions of dollars after buying a hotel that he hadn’t even walked through.
Yes, because to really ascertain the value of an asset you need to inspect it in person, it's not like people trade stocks of companies they've never visited, or buy commodities they've never touched...
Look, I get it. The point of the article is that the guy who ghost-wrote the Trump book doesn't like him. That is something I would like to hear more about as an undecided voter. But why throw in all the clearly biased bullshit above? If you need to lie about someone to further discount them - as the media has done repeatedly - maybe there's something there worth thinking about.
Edit - since I find this piece interesting I want to add more quotes and comments:
> “It was one of a number of times in my life when I was divided between the Devil and the higher side,” he told me. He had grown up in a bourgeois, intellectual family in Manhattan, and had attended élite private schools, but he was not as wealthy as some of his classmates—and, unlike many of them, he had no trust fund. “I grew up privileged,”
> “I was overly worried about money,” Schwartz said. “I thought money would keep me safe and secure—or that was my rationalization.”
Sounds like someone wanted to fit in with their elite Manhattan friends more than uphold their values. If the only way you can maintain your lifestyle is by "selling out", what does that say about your life?