Anthony

Just horrible.

Revisado: 12-30-23

I heard about him on the CBS News Sunday Morning Show and I have regretted it since. Sure, it is non-traditional, but I like non-traditional things. Each new setting is extremely overly dramatic and bizarre. Then just as things start to improve for the main character it goes down another extremely bizarre and sorrowful hole. I almost finished it, but could quite get to the end. It was that depressing.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Very slanted, but still educational

Revisado: 03-11-23

This author is from the same Chapman University that employed John Eastman who told Trump that Pence could overturn the electoral count in Congress on January 6. He even told some in the administration that his idea was likely to be illegal. That is how extreme people from this university are. There are articles asking what happened to Chapman University?

He had numerous personal attacks on the economists he doesn't like, but he had nothing but nice things to say about the one he does like, Adam Smith. I detest Karl Marx and like some things about Smith and Keynes. There are also things that they are proponents of that I don't like. He seems to take things out of context and claim things that are obvious with nothing to back that claim up or he gives claims short shrift. Then he has the gall to say that Keynes is on the way out after specifically saying that Wall Street is STILL using his theories when determining the state of the economy!! If Wall Street us using an economists theories then you know they are there to help them better understand how to make money. Some things he likes from Milton Friedman and other admirers are absolutely bonkers like during an economic downturn employers should purposely cut wages which will allow them to eventually employ more people. He doesn't seem to care that those people will no longer be able to get by on those lower wages, but he will continue to say that Adam Smith allows us to live at a higher standard. This man is completely detached from reality! He also is a big proponent of privatizing Social Security. He is as extreme as they get which is exactly who Chapman employs.

Why can't we come up with a system that uses the good parts of Keynes and Smith? In the end, I did find it educational to learn about Smith, Marx, Keynes and all the theories added in between. That is why I gave it three stars instead of less for being so tremendously biased that he had to invent a new scale to put them on so that Smith wouldn't look extreme.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Interesting take from a GOP operative

Revisado: 12-26-22

I detest what he has done to this country for so long just to earn a living, not for ideological reasons. It is interesting to learn what was going on from the inside. However, I wish he would have been more mindful of where he helped bring the country through his machinations. So, I will take that lesson, but Stull nit like him for what he did. I will never fully trust him and the people who have now supposedly seen the light.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

interesting history lesson.

Revisado: 12-26-22

the initial part was interesting, but what was much more interesting was the history lesson he gave about the history of Ukraine and Russia. That explains why Putin claims what he does. I was very impressed by how quickly he came up with the material. I am guessing that us because he is a history professor for decades. He is used to speaking from bullet points he probably wrote out. This was interesting to see how Ukraine and Poland are intertwined and why Poland has so much affection for Ukraine. In the US we get caught up in western Europe's history, but leave out Easyern Europe. It was very interesting to learn about that.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

lacking substance

Revisado: 12-26-22

I know this was short and done very quickly, but I felt it was lacking substance. The brief history was interesting, but it seemed that he would get to a good point then he would change the subject. The titles were distracting since each section is extremely short. He just seemed to jump from one thing to another after giving a tiny bit of information.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

I learned a lot about how cult leaders operate

Revisado: 02-22-21

I found this to be a very informative audio book. He explained how cult members convince people what they are saying is true and can therefore control them. He also explained how you don't need to be isolated anymore to indoctrinate people to follow a cult. He also explained how to break people from a cult. Unfortunately, that is not so easy when it is a family member who does not live with you. I feel that he did go a little bit overboard on his criticism of Trump. I would have preferred him to be more even keeled on that. That was the one star I took off.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Learned good ways of persuading, but bias showed

Revisado: 02-22-21

Overall, it was a good read. I don't agree with his political decision at all. I find it repulsive, but I found his description of how Trump and persuaders convince people to be educational. That is exactly why I got the audio book. It did seem like he was repeating himself frequently and trying to justify his decisions. I had no problem with repeating since it better helps me remember the point he is making.

Some of his points were very good, like the speaker purposely saying outrageous things to purposely blow people's minds of what they thought was reality and then buy into Trump's version of reality. He did it so many times in one speech or paragraph that it can overwhelm a person. That is something cult leaders do to break down the defenses of people to be controlled.

He is very correct in that we are not logical. We are controlled a lot by emotion and then seek to justify our decisions afterward. The question is what percent is emotion and what percent is logic. He says we are 90% emotion and 10% logic. I would like to think that I am 50/50. I am extremely analytical and logical to an extreme. However, at times I do decide somethings on emotion. I am also different in that I am CONSTANTLY analyzing my actions. If they are not according to the ideal I set for my self then I beat myself up mentally. I purposely try not to justify anything since I am always trying to be the best I can be. But, I am probably rare in that regard.

I was really annoyed with his insistence on being able to predict the future. He was only successful with Trump in 2016. His prediction that Republicans would be hunted down and hung if Trump lost, but that didn't turn out to be accurate. Did he mean that or was that to generate publicity. I don't know. I don't reach a conclusion to be able to predict the future. I reach a conclusion because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO. The only reason to predict the future is with stocks and betting, but he can't do that. Another bone of contention is that he was demonstrating his justifications for supporting Trump with cognitive dissonance. Adams said that he didn't like when Trump showed racism in Charlottesville, VA, but he STILL supported him, because he like Trump's POLICIES. Therefore, he sought to minimize Trump's racism. For example, he talked about when Trump tried to plead ignorance when asked about David Duke's endorsement by saying afterward that there was a problem with the communication device since Scott Adams issue as well. However, that was obviously a false excuse since Trump responded EXACTLY like he knew EVERY SINGLE word he was asked since he repeated what was asked. He was just avoiding answering for political reasons. Scott knew that Trump has racist tendencies from Charlottesville. Maybe this shows that Scott was suckered by the master persuader that he claims Trump is or he was just justifying what he knew was Trump at least appealing racists but couldn't admit it.

To show you how worked up I am, this is the longest review I have ever given. I felt I needed to add detail since so many others just gave a couple of sentences. It sounded like sour grapes. I feel I presented a more balanced review since I learned what I came for, but in the end was highly disappointed by the justifications from the author.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Very useful info on her uncle, but is it biased?

Revisado: 12-06-20

I found it an extremely enlightening description of how Trump was raised, his interactions with his family, and how he manages his company. It seems that he is more of a figurehead that has good people who actually run the company. It explains a lot about what we have seen from him during his presidency. It really does match what we have seen. It is especially useful that Mary is a psychologist. I am sure the vast majority of what she said is accurate. I am just not sure how unbiased she is in the stories she has told. She does seem rather bitter. I wonder how much of this was revenge for how her father was treated by the family.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Fascinating, but not unbiased

Revisado: 12-06-20

I absolutely detest everything about Trump and his ability to con 70 million people to vote for his re-election. I am also gutted by him attempting to destroy our electoral system. As a result, I needed to understand how it was so easy to sway so many people to be so devoted to him personally, not anything else, most definitely not the country. I also needed to know this because my brother is one of those people. I love him, but Trump has put a permanent chasm in his relationship with the rest of his family.

You can learn a lot about how a good percentage of right wingers are influenced by authoritarian ideas from this book, but the language they use are not that of an unbiased researcher. I also question some of the conclusions they draw from what appear to be not representative surveys.

I gave it three stars because I learned a lot and gives me a better understanding of where my brother is coming from, but I am having a really difficult time with all that the authors are pushing. The language they use and the way they reach conclusions make me wonder how accurate what they claim is. I want to believe it so that I can better understand what has impacted my family and this country, but I will need more information since the authors don't seem to be completely trustworthy.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 9 personas

Somewhat interesting, but biased

Revisado: 12-06-20

Luckily, the author informed us upfront of his bias. He said that the followers of Jesus are members of a cult even though his fathers was a minister. I guess he was turned off by it all. The information was interesting, but I was always suspicious. I stopped listening after he started covering the 1700s in the United States. It was just way over the top wrong at that point.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña