By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Plans for a $1.5 billion, 91-storey Trump Tower on the Gold Coast have been canceled less than three months after their announcement. The Trump Organization reportedly withdrew due to the brand becoming “toxic” in Australia, a sentiment echoed by the developer who cited potential profit margin disagreements. While the developer hopes to proceed with another luxury brand, the project never formally progressed to a development application. The Gold Coast Mayor suggested the deal’s failure stemmed from the Trump Organization’s demands for brand licensing fees and profit returns, which clashed with the developer’s investment.
Read the original article here
The $1.5 billion Trump Tower deal on the Gold Coast in Australia has been officially scrapped, and the developer’s reasoning is particularly striking: they’ve declared the Trump brand “toxic.” This development suggests a significant shift in how the Trump name is perceived on a global scale, moving beyond its perceived stronghold within certain segments of the US population. It’s quite remarkable to consider the implications of this, especially when contrasted with his previous attempts to expand his real estate empire internationally.
It’s interesting to note that the Trump name has been removed from other developments previously, such as the tower in Toronto. The idea that this could happen in every country where Trump aims to expand is, frankly, something to ponder. The argument seems to be that while his brand might resonate with a specific demographic in the US, particularly those who don’t travel extensively and may not be exposed to broader international perspectives, this strategy doesn’t translate well elsewhere.
The notion that pedophilia is not something that is socially acceptable is, of course, a given. It’s almost unbelievable that anyone would have taken someone with such associations seriously in the first place. Reflecting on early encounters, like seeing him on television decades ago, it’s apparent to many that he was never someone to be taken seriously. Yet, there’s a recurring pattern of figures who peddle dubious ideas finding an audience, particularly within the United States. This scenario, where a deal collapses due to brand perception, brings to mind the possibility of Trump making disparaging remarks about Australia or even suggesting it become a US state. The brand, in this context, isn’t just toxic; it’s presented as completely lethal. While some in the US might continue to be loyal, the international market appears to be waking up.
Perhaps shifts in economic conditions, such as fluctuating gas prices, might eventually alter perceptions even for those who remain ardent supporters. However, the current sentiment expressed is that the brand is more akin to cancer than merely toxic, a comparison that some feel is almost insulting to the disease itself. From a marketing standpoint, there’s no inherent prestige associated with the Trump brand anymore. Its value seems to be solely derived from its ability to influence the gullible, a power that is clearly diminishing. The prediction of further online meltdowns from Trump’s platforms only adds to this narrative of decline.
The reality is that Donald Trump isn’t particularly popular in Australia, making the initial pursuit of such a deal seem inherently flawed. The article suggests that the Trump Organization was seeking a substantial portion of the profits, hinting at a delusional self-perception on their part. This cancellation, however, is unequivocally good news for any Australian contractors who might have been expecting payment, avoiding potential financial distress. “Toxic” truly feels like an understatement of monumental proportions.
One might even coin a term like “downunderstatement” for this situation, given the Australian context. Regardless of the linguistic gymnastics, the sentiment of profound negativity towards the individual is clear. Some express that referring to him as human might be too generous, struggling to find words to adequately describe his perceived awfulness. The prevailing mood is one of relief and even celebration, with the idea of “happy days are here again” resonating. There are also whispers that parts of the original deal were questionable, perhaps even legally dubious.
A particularly interesting point raised is the alleged inclusion of a private beach in the deal, which is reportedly illegal in Australia as all beaches are public. The idea of Trump being associated with a “luxury brand” is seen as absurd, prompting an exclamation of “Crikey!” and agreement from an Australian spouse. The sentiment that this is “awesome” is shared, with the call for others to acknowledge this fact being loud and clear.
As an alternative, the idea of a “Melania brand” is jokingly suggested. It’s anticipated that we will witness many more such instances, with questions arising about how even his resorts in Europe can remain operational. There’s a certain satisfaction in seeing the Trump name, once perceived as his sole valuable asset, now tarnished by his actions and rhetoric. While the immense damage done globally cannot be undone, this particular setback offers a small measure of solace. The “toxic” label is, by all accounts, an understatement.
The expectation is that he will quickly start badmouthing Australia, potentially even using his political influence to cause problems for the country. The tackiness of the entire family is a recurring theme, and the “grift that keeps on gifting” succinctly captures the perceived modus operandi. One even suggests the name should be rebranded to signify something akin to taking a dump, associating it with excretions. Love for Australia is expressed, with a Canadian contributor echoing similar sentiments.
The laughter and exclamations of “EXCELLENT!” and “Nice!” highlight the overwhelming positive reaction to the news. The sentiment that “all he touches dies” is a harsh but prevalent assessment. The sheer volume of good news is almost overwhelming for some. Questions are raised about the specific reasons for the brand’s toxicity, with one person even alluding to accusations of child sexual abuse. The phrase “Get fukt” is a crude but direct expression of schadenfreude.
The observation that “Congratulations, you passed the litmus test” implies that distancing oneself from the Trump brand is now a sign of good judgment. Meanwhile, in the US, the situation is presented as starkly different, with a reference to an airport potentially retaining a Trump name, serving as a concerning indicator of the nation’s direction. The analogy to a child molester is made, questioning why anyone would want to stay in a “child molester tower.”
The idea that billionaires are among the least useful members of society, and that distancing oneself from their projects is a social duty, is a strongly held belief for some. The perception is that the Trump brand’s toxicity isn’t as pronounced as it should be in a more sensible world. The laughter and the crude dismissal of “TOM TATE” indicate a strong opposition to any involvement with the Trump name.
There’s a cynical suspicion that despite the deal’s collapse, Trump somehow still profited, while contractors were left unpaid. The acknowledgment of someone being “not completely out of touch” points to the developer’s decision being viewed as a rational one. The phrase “No 💩!” captures the unsurprised reaction to the brand’s negative perception.
The question of why the toxicity is only now becoming a problem, when it’s been evident for a decade, is posed. The timing is contrasted with potential issues like rising gas prices, suggesting a selective awareness. The humorous suggestion of rebranding the tower as “Chernobyl” because it’s more palatable underscores the depth of the brand’s negativity. The profound love for Australia is expressed, even with regret over not having moved there. The prediction that no one will build around Las Vegas due to associations with the brand also suggests a widespread reputational damage.