To prove your point, you have used something I said (in jest I might add), AFTER you made your mind up about my position. In other words, you haven't shown where I said it was my position when you made your claim. Why? Because you can't. Because I made no such claim and you just assumed it without asking me.
It seems like you just want to believe one side of the story without hearing the other side, but perhaps that is your go to standard. Maybe in a court of law you also believe that the defence doesn't need a defence, you just need to hear the accusers side of the story. Trump is bad. It says so on the book cover. The "worlds most dangerous man." So you believe it.
This is an interesting snippet I found:
Mary Trump told the newspaper that by contesting the will she was fighting for their father to be recognized. “He existed, he lived, he was their oldest son. And William is my father’s grandson,” she said.
That must be it. She was fighting for her fathers recognition, not the hundreds of millions she was suing for.
And this was also revealing:
After The Times reported on the family’s questionable valuations of its real-estate assets in 2018, Mary Trump concluded that she and her brother were duped in the settlement, she has claimed in the run-up to publishing her book.
It sounds like she is still dissatisfied with the money she received. I thought it was about fighting for her fathers recognition?
One more for good measure:
Ms. Trump has grown apart from the brother with whom she had been aligned in the family conflict years ago. While she has chosen to speak out against the family, he has taken a different path, nurturing a relationship with their uncle. In a statement released through the Trump family last month, Mr. Trump III distanced himself from his sister’s book and said their legal settlement had been generous and his son well-provided for.
It sounds like one of the aggrieved parties thought their legal settlement was generous, but the sister wanted more money. That's fine, if money is such an important factor to her.
If someone writes a book slating someone else, you have zero evidence over how much of it is true, or if it is just someone trying to slander someone else. If you believe that everybody tells the truth, that people do not do things just for money, that revenge and hatred does not lead people to mischaracterise others, then that is naive in the extreme.
I've had a friend of mine claim to a group of friends (when I wasn't there) that I went out with his girlfriend when he was seeing her. Fortunately, another friend of mine pulled him up about it, stating that I went for a friendly drink several years after they split. She became friends of several of us. Yet he tried to mislead that I was seeing her behind his back in a romantic fashion. I am still friends with her to this day, and never romantically. But not with the one making the false accusations.
I remember reading a Buddhist quote somewhere. It said that if Person A tells you something bad about Person B, you learn nothing about Person B, because Person A can be lying. But it tells you a lot about Person A.
Lastly...
you don't seem to know what you don't know
Does that not apply to the other side of the story? You don't know what you don't know regarding the Trump families version of events.
Edit: Just to say to both
@moke123 and
@Micron, none of my abrasive argumentation is intended to be personal. Rather, it is just purely from an "alternative viewpoint" perspective.
