http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

What to believe?  

but after reading the LA Times article, more specifically the 2nd paragraph, and the last 4 paragraphs, part of me wants to just slap the shit out of Stephanie Simms. She used her life savings to put a deposit down on property in a foreign country. Then it turns into a country western song with Simms losing her job, her condo in Canoga Park, no savings, no 401K.  

I get it, Trump's an asshole. I understand why the libs on this board are freaking out about a Trump presidency. But what is the responsibility of the potential buyers. You have 3 culprits in this fiasco. Trump, who only licenses his name, the Mexican developers, and the prospective home buyers. What is the culpability of the 3 parties? Besides the fact that alarm bells should go off when you purchase real estate in a foreign market, like MEXICO, but to agree to upwards of a 30% deposit, and to use your entire life savings.

Whether it's Enron, or the 2008 foreclosure meltdown with real estate, when do we look at the individual, and say "what the hell were you thinking".

Matt, I'm trying to be sympathetic, but when the problem is somewhat self-inflicted, I'm just not feeling it.

being scammed. I remember some group trying to recruit me into buy a unit down in, I believe it was, San Felipe. I saw a story a few years later, and it turned out the development got started, but never got off the ground.

I know you are not interested in facts when it comes to Trump but, if you were, you would notice this was simply an obvious, and poorly written, Trump hit piece.

         There is only one sentence in the entire article that remotely suggests any culpability by Trump:

 
“As the Trumps and their partners promoted the condos …they often left the impression- or said outright- that Trump was one of the developers.”

        “Leaving the impression” is on the buyers, not the Trumps.  Let’s not waste any more time on that.  If the Trumps actually “said outright” that they were the developer then that would be sentence one of the article – that is out right fraud, and, if it was reasonable to rely on what the Trumps “said outright”, the buyers would have a rock solid case.

      But, since this comment is buried in the article, I can pretty much tell from the poor writing that, at best, one of the “partners” said Trump was the developer, not the Trumps. Trump is not liable or responsible for that.

       And, of course, regardless of what was said at the VIP cocktail parties, when Stephanie Simms signed the sales contract, the contract clearly stated who the developers were, and who she was contracting with – Trump’s name is not on there.

     That’s why you can’t sue Ford when you buy a Ford from the Ford dealership based on something the salesman promised – you are not contracting with Ford, even if the Ford brand is the only reason you came to buy.   And Ford is not responsible for what the salesman says.

      So comparing Trump to Capone is utterly ridiculous.  But go ahead - I know you are going to ignore the facts and just say "Trump is bad". LOL

Hmm... "Leaving the impression," is on the buyers, not the Trumps.... Is that true? Oh, yeah Buyer Beware.

This reminds me of a thread we just had on the General Board about trans disclosing the history of sex change.

Somehow I still think the Trumps are a flimflam bunch.

Hey! Here's an idea! Let's elect Trump to the Presidency of our country! What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!?!

I would guess.

         How often have you heard McDonald’s say “our franchisees are scumbags”?
They say our franchisees are “the best,” or use similar laudatory language. And there is a reason for this – it protects, and increases, the value of the trademark, tradename or service mark.

       I realize you are not business-savvy but this is way everyone does it.  It is called “puffing,” and there is absolutely nothing dishonest, or unethical, about it.  To the contrary, it is a sound business practice.   And, aside from the sales contract pages that specify the Trump role in every development,  you can go to the Trump website and find there is a disclaimer for every property for which they license the mark, as opposed to being the developer/owner.

     So, despite the media hit pieces like the LA Times article which does not even mention that the contract Stephanie Simms signed specified that Trump was not the developer, there is full disclosure by the Trump Organization when they license a property.

    No con here at all.

I'll pass on that thread. I had enough trouble with The Crying Game.      

   As to the Trumps being a "flimflam bunch," that is a fair opinion, and there is plenty of support for that. Just not this licensing deal, as far as the facts in the LA Times article tell us.

END OF MESSAGE