Exactly. Anything associated with Trump has the appearance of quality and profitability, until one realizes it’s nothing more than gilded shit.
See: Trumpery.
Didn’t Trump explicitly say this?
Isn’t making up numbers for what something will be worth in the future and using it as today’s valuation what undid Enron, at least in part?
While simultaneously claiming that the financial statement does not include the intangible value of Trump’s reputation.
So … that whole stochastic terrorism thing seems to be coming along rather nicely:
We’re handily past ‘sickening’ at this point. I wonder where we go next.
It looks like Enron was playing a shell game where their “clients” were companies that they owned, so they were able, for awhile, to hide their losses in the SEP column.
Besides, they probably didn’t have an iron-clad “due diligence” clause right up at the beginning. You know, the one that Trump keeps referring to where he told them outright he was bullshitting them? I’m told that’s key.
They were doing that also.
Enron adopted mark-to-market accounting, in which anticipated future profits from any deal were tabulated as if currently real. Thus, Enron could record gains from what over time might turn out to be losses
And here’s an interesting example.
For one contract, in July 2000, Enron and Blockbuster Video signed a 20-year agreement to introduce on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by year’s end. After several pilot projects, Enron claimed estimated profits of more than $110 million from the deal, even though analysts questioned the technical viability and market demand of the service.[22]: 10 When the network failed to work, Blockbuster withdrew from the contract. Enron continued to claim future profits, even though the deal resulted in a loss.[23]
Y’know, it occurs to me… It’s not a secret what court cases Trump is involved in, with or without him Xcreting about it. And anyone with three working brain cells could figure out that Trump doesn’t like the judge. Are these peoples’ brains really so suborned that they can’t figure out to do this without Trump personally and directly telling them to? Or are they so insulated from all news sources that they manage to be completely oblivious to all of the court cases until they’re brought to their attention?
When Coca Cola advertises, it’s not because they think there are very many people who don’t know what Coke is. They’re doing it to keep their name at the forefront of their consumers’ minds.
Trump is no different. He’s not telling anybody anything they haven’t heard before. He’s just stoking fires and reminding his followers why they’re angry and why they should be angrier.
And who specifically to direct their anger towards.
Give them a week, and they forget.
Rather ironic, given the party’s animal mascot.
Trump posts insults toward the court clerk again.
He seems nice.
Oh my.
He seems absolutely unhinged here.
Which leads me to think he’s trying to establish an important principle: he is subservient to no one’s wishes, he obeys no one, his word is supreme law. Authoritarianism, in a word
Some people want that, I suppose, and in supporting him they’re stating what they want–a monarch. And a cruel despot, at that.
I used to think that such people were 1%, MAYBE 5%, of the population, on my darkest days. Now I’m sure it’s close to 40% of the voters, and growing every day.
I think this is the more accurate version:
“I got to do a lot of things normally an accountant wouldn’t be able to do couldn’t get away with.”
I was going to say that he seems to be losing it (or has lost it) but you beat me to it 
The fact, even from the outset, that there are actually people who see nothing wrong with Trump’s manners of expressing himself, is terrifying. And the fact that, as you suggest, it’s close to 40%…:
I remember back in the '80s there was a sort-of comedy movie about Nixon fictitiously ranting about stuff, that this tweet reminds me of. At that time it was probably seen as unbelievable; but here we are.
Is that an example of American exceptionalism? Or simple universal human nature?