I think he presents some pretty good insights into a business he was apparently expert at. That these parallel so closely with the techniques of Donald Trump’s campaign can’t be written off so easily as saying the man was once employed as a spectacular hawker of merchandise. If he really wanted to be simply a liar, he could have left all that out of the conversation and merely written a treatise from an outside observer’s pov. That he laid his early career’s cards on the table from the start which (since you agree they sound true) do establish his expertise in this area, and seems to me to indicate veracity not its opposite. It was a fun, telling theory that one can either accept or deny. You seem to possibly be in agreement with some aspects (Trump may be a conman) so I’m wondering why it’s so important to attack the man for presenting arguments you may agree with regardless of any secret motivations for conning his readers. I would probably agree that his motivations include selling his book; I’m just not really clear on yours or the passion of your argument with his arguments.