True, but I've been in corporate America for years and I have never ever seen such an unfiltered jackass at his level. It's just bizarre IMO. He must be like the worst boss to work for ever.
Volunteering to explain your work-environment prompts me to post this observation somewhat in support of it.
Around 1987, Douglas LaBier published the 1st ed. of "Modern Madness: The Hidden Link Between Work and Emotional Conflict." It was essentially a study of issues in organizational psychology.
Since LaBier's offices were somewhere in DC or around K Street, he had actually written ~ 20 pages based on his observations about the impact of Reagan appointees on career employees -- their behavior and wellness.
Someone else here a few months back noted that he'd been passed over for key management positions because of his narcissistic behavior. So I posit there are healthy organizations and sick organizations in the economy, just as there may be more healthy or less healthy public institutions. I casually hypothesize that the sicker organizations can survive in a range of circumstances, and that this connection between an entire organization's health and that of individuals within it depends on its culture -- and its culture depends on how certain traits are rewarded or discouraged.
Someone like Trump, without the million-dollar-Daddy-Trump business loan and the inheritance of a ~$50+ million business at age 24, might find it harder to go forward in the world* unless they chose some environment like Hollywood or media with a spotlight. Trump on the other hand has had throughout life a means of circumventing the effect of these traits, and otherwise has either bullied or borrowed his way through his business-life. That could also prompt some more debate and discussion.
* Adding a footnote: Somehow an example from Farrell's fiction about early 20th-century life in Chicago -- the character Studs Lonegin, comes to mind. I never read the book, but saw a recent movie depiction -- possibly on PBS. The behavior of the character in the movie wouldn't diverge much at all from that in the book. It just seems to fit, but analyses of Farrell explain it in a completely different light.