Trump in meltdown

[jc456]

Trump Is in Meltdown and in 'Pure Terror That He Is Going to Lose,' Says 'Art Of The Deal' Co-Writer Tony Schwartz
.
The co-author of Donald Trump’s best-selling business guide and memoir The Art Of The Deal announced the president is undergoing a “significant meltdown” in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper.
.
“I think he’s reacting from a survival place,” Tony Schwartz told Cooper Wednesday. He’s in pure defensive mode...he’s being run by the part of his brain that’s reactive and impulsive, not capable of reflection," Schwartz said. “The sense of siege that he feels because his sense of self-worth is so, so vulnerable that the series of things that have happened are overwhelming to him."
.
"There is no right and wrong for Trump. There’s winning and losing. And that’s very different from right and wrong. And right now he’s in pure terror that he is going to lose," he added. "And by the way he is going to lose. I surely believe that at some point over the next period of time he’s going to have to figure out a way to resign and the reason he’s going to do that as opposed to go through what could be an impeachment process, or a continuing humiliation, is that he wants to figure out a way — as he’s done all his career — to turn a loss into a victory. And so he will declare victory when he leaves."
.
"Schwartz knows Trump's psyche well, spending nearly a year with him to help pen the best-selling 1987 book. He has been vocal about his regrets in writing the book, giving the The New Yorker a tell-all interview about the part he has played in creating the myth of Trump as a man who wins everything. On Twitter, he said he would now call the book "The Sociopath."

this is just more evidence of the left meltdown for sure.

Have we ever had a president that acted like this before?

like what, having to defend himself daily from the attacks of the state? nope. But nixon was similar.

Trump started out with his party in control of all the branches - a friendly Congress willing to try and work with him. Like Nixon, he is orchestrating his own failures.

Both Bush and Obama had to deal with very hostile crap. Obama's legitimatacy was even questioned. Trump is dealing with the same thing but instead of growing a thick skin and ignoring it - he's reacting left and right at every slight, insult or obstruction. And that - I've never seen ever. It's not very grown up behavior.

no, he did not create this, he is being targeted, let's call a fking spade a spade. Has he made mistakes, yes. I would never say otherwise. has he hurt himself with some tweets, maybe. I personally don't give a shit about his tweets. I want the GOP to get the legislation going in congress. It isn't just trump's country. The libturds are basically zombies attacking him

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

But Trump didn't lose did he, he won and that's the essence of the six month full-on across the board full spectrum attack on him.

They started this the moment he beat The Establishment candidate Hillary and it continued through the Transition, hitting hysteria levels pre-Inauguration where it was attempted every which way to stop him being Inaugurated via getting to the EC electors, that failed, then some were calling for actual military intervention to stop Trump being Inaugurated.

Then we get post-Inauguration a daily 24/7 full-on attack for a full four months.

All of the above is simply because he BEAT Hillary and Hillary was supposed to win, the MSM told everyone Hillary would win, Hillary was told she would win, Hillary supporters were told she would win, the WORLD was told Hillary would win.

Then she lost.

Trump won and Trump wasn't supposed to win, so they from the moment it was announced he had won, the whole crowd has been trying to take him down with a mixture of gossip, rumours, "unnamed sources" and pure bullshit.

He won the election. But he's a person that can only think in terms of winning and losing/winners and losers - in EVERYTHING. He has to believe himself to be a winner in any scenario or else he's a "loser".

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

Mexico is a Narc Nation, it's run by Drug Cartels, the majority of Mexican politicians including Mayors and Governors are on the payroll of the Drug Lords.

Until Mexico ceases to be run by Drug Cartels Mexico is never seriously going to do anything about stopping drugs going across America's border.

 

[jc456]

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

but according to you loons on the left he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence without you all flipping your lids. LOL you all are fking hilarious.

I think you're knee jerk defense of Trump is too transparent. Think about it. No one is saying he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence. It's the perogative of the president.

But, the prresident is also expected to show judgement and understand that some can be discussed and some can't and that it isn't just him and who he's talking to but who it came from and who might be involved in the gathering of it. It's requires a level of sensitivity, tact, and knowledge that this president seems incapable of.

too bad for you then. You make that comment like I care. sweetheart, your side lost grow some fking adult integrity and move forward for 2020.

 

[Coyote]

Here is one - this is what your friend must have gotten it from: Trump is in "meltdown" and terrified that he is going to lose, says 'The Art Of The Deal' co-writer

But Trump didn't lose did he, he won and that's the essence of the six month full-on across the board full spectrum attack on him.

They started this the moment he beat The Establishment candidate Hillary and it continued through the Transition, hitting hysteria levels pre-Inauguration where it was attempted every which way to stop him being Inaugurated via getting to the EC electors, that failed, then some were calling for actual military intervention to stop Trump being Inaugurated.

Then we get post-Inauguration a daily 24/7 full-on attack for a full four months.

All of the above is simply because he BEAT Hillary and Hillary was supposed to win, the MSM told everyone Hillary would win, Hillary was told she would win, Hillary supporters were told she would win, the WORLD was told Hillary would win.

Then she lost.

Trump won and Trump wasn't supposed to win, so they from the moment it was announced he had won, the whole crowd has been trying to take him down with a mixture of gossip, rumours, "unnamed sources" and pure bullshit.

He won the election. But he's a person that can only think in terms of winning and losing/winners and losers - in EVERYTHING. He has to believe himself to be a winner in any scenario or else he's a "loser".

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

 

[Coyote]

He won the election. But he's a person that can only think in terms of winning and losing/winners and losers - in EVERYTHING. He has to believe himself to be a winner in any scenario or else he's a "loser".

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

Mexico is a Narc Nation, it's run by Drug Cartels, the majority of Mexican politicians including Mayors and Governors are on the payroll of the Drug Lords.

Until Mexico ceases to be run by Drug Cartels Mexico is never seriously going to do anything about stopping drugs going across America's border.

We've actually had good cooperation with them on those particular issues. So who is the winner and who is the loser?

 

[jc456]

But Trump didn't lose did he, he won and that's the essence of the six month full-on across the board full spectrum attack on him.

They started this the moment he beat The Establishment candidate Hillary and it continued through the Transition, hitting hysteria levels pre-Inauguration where it was attempted every which way to stop him being Inaugurated via getting to the EC electors, that failed, then some were calling for actual military intervention to stop Trump being Inaugurated.

Then we get post-Inauguration a daily 24/7 full-on attack for a full four months.

All of the above is simply because he BEAT Hillary and Hillary was supposed to win, the MSM told everyone Hillary would win, Hillary was told she would win, Hillary supporters were told she would win, the WORLD was told Hillary would win.

Then she lost.

Trump won and Trump wasn't supposed to win, so they from the moment it was announced he had won, the whole crowd has been trying to take him down with a mixture of gossip, rumours, "unnamed sources" and pure bullshit.

He won the election. But he's a person that can only think in terms of winning and losing/winners and losers - in EVERYTHING. He has to believe himself to be a winner in any scenario or else he's a "loser".

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

not my quote, and I thought that was against the board rules. ooops.

 

[Coyote]

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

but according to you loons on the left he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence without you all flipping your lids. LOL you all are fking hilarious.

I think you're knee jerk defense of Trump is too transparent. Think about it. No one is saying he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence. It's the perogative of the president.

But, the prresident is also expected to show judgement and understand that some can be discussed and some can't and that it isn't just him and who he's talking to but who it came from and who might be involved in the gathering of it. It's requires a level of sensitivity, tact, and knowledge that this president seems incapable of.

too bad for you then. You make that comment like I care. sweetheart, your side lost grow some fking adult integrity and move forward for 2020.

And it's exactly your "fking adult integrity" that earned you Trump and will lead you to continue to defend every action, tweet and utterance regardless of where it leads.

 

[jc456]

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

Mexico is a Narc Nation, it's run by Drug Cartels, the majority of Mexican politicians including Mayors and Governors are on the payroll of the Drug Lords.

Until Mexico ceases to be run by Drug Cartels Mexico is never seriously going to do anything about stopping drugs going across America's border.

We've actually had good cooperation with them on those particular issues. So who is the winner and who is the loser?

you have, when did you start negotiating for the country?

 

[Coyote]

He won the election. But he's a person that can only think in terms of winning and losing/winners and losers - in EVERYTHING. He has to believe himself to be a winner in any scenario or else he's a "loser".

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

not my quote, and I thought that was against the board rules. ooops.

You need to read the rules dude. Let me help you:

Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.​

 

[jc456]

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

but according to you loons on the left he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence without you all flipping your lids. LOL you all are fking hilarious.

I think you're knee jerk defense of Trump is too transparent. Think about it. No one is saying he isn't allowed to discuss intelligence. It's the perogative of the president.

But, the prresident is also expected to show judgement and understand that some can be discussed and some can't and that it isn't just him and who he's talking to but who it came from and who might be involved in the gathering of it. It's requires a level of sensitivity, tact, and knowledge that this president seems incapable of.

too bad for you then. You make that comment like I care. sweetheart, your side lost grow some fking adult integrity and move forward for 2020.

And it's exactly your "fking adult integrity" that earned you Trump and will lead you to continue to defend every action, tweet and utterance regardless of where it leads.

yes, and it is me and my fking adult integrity' that I share with 45% of the country. your side is only 43% of the country. why don't you move on now and act like a fking adult.

 

[jc456]

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

not my quote, and I thought that was against the board rules. ooops.

You need to read the rules dude.

you miss quoted me. it's against the rules dudette.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

good attribute.

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

Mexico is a Narc Nation, it's run by Drug Cartels, the majority of Mexican politicians including Mayors and Governors are on the payroll of the Drug Lords.

Until Mexico ceases to be run by Drug Cartels Mexico is never seriously going to do anything about stopping drugs going across America's border.

We've actually had good cooperation with them on those particular issues. So who is the winner and who is the loser?

So if you've had good cooperation with Mexico, why are you still getting flooded with even more drugs than before?

Also in any negotiations on anything with Mexico their feet should be held to the fire about Mexican officials within the actual United States aiding and abetting illegal Mexican's to stay in America, there are afterall breaking United States law and so are the Mexican officials who are helping them.

 

[OldLady]

On IGNORE.

Thanks for exposing yourself and promoting FAKE NEWS.

It's not fake, I saw him on CNN last night. That is what he said, among other things. You may not like what this man who spent hundreds of hours with Trump has to say, but it's not a "fake" article. Schwartz is certainly dead on about the kind of rages that a person with a personality disorder flies into against those closest to him. He's seen Trump in action; he understands what Trump is about.

Schwartz broke 'The Goldwater Rule'

Goldwater rule - Wikipedia

Schwartz never said a word about personality disorder or "diagnosed" him with anything. I mentioned pd because I have lived with it and when he described the rages he was dead on. Also Schwartz is a writer. Tell me again how he broke any "rule."

 

[Coyote]

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

"it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something."

No, you never let your opponent win, it's impossible to have two winners and in a fight or a competition or something you don't say to your opponent:

"I intend to win, but I'm also going to let you win"

What you describe is the Participation Award, that there is no one winner, but everyone gets to win for simply participating.

You win, your opponent loses, you're the winner, they're the loser.

Let me give you an example.

We have a problem with drugs entering this country from South America via Mexico.
Mexico has a problem with guns entering their country from the US.

What's a good solution?
We negotiate with Mexico, share intelligence and information, set up stings and security protocals and reduce the number of illegal guns and drugs flowing across the border.

Who's the winner?
Who's the loser?

Mexico is a Narc Nation, it's run by Drug Cartels, the majority of Mexican politicians including Mayors and Governors are on the payroll of the Drug Lords.

Until Mexico ceases to be run by Drug Cartels Mexico is never seriously going to do anything about stopping drugs going across America's border.

We've actually had good cooperation with them on those particular issues. So who is the winner and who is the loser?

So if you've had good cooperation with Mexico, why are you still getting flooded with even more drugs than before?

Also in any negotiations on anything with Mexico their feet should be held to the fire about Mexican officials within the actual United States aiding and abetting illegal Mexican's to stay in America, there are afterall breaking United States law and so are the Mexican officials who are helping them.

Because it's a complicated problem.

Should the US's feet be held to the fire for allowing gun trafficking - and, don't forget - the market is IN the US. This isn't a clear winner/loser situation - it's one where you must have two winners in order to really win.

 

[Coyote]

Not so sure about that - it's possible to win and for your opponent to win and both come away with something. That's what negotiation is. And diplomacy. Adopting a winner/loser frame of mind means every interaction is looked at in terms of a war.

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

not my quote, and I thought that was against the board rules. ooops.

You need to read the rules dude.

you miss quoted me. it's against the rules dudette.

No dude. The rules apply to the quote box - we're very specific on that - don't alter what's in the quote box. I printed out the rule for your edification

 

[radical right]

what is so hard to understand> he wants to be a winner always. me too. it's an attribute I share with him. I do lose, I don't like to lose, however, unlike a libturd, I accept loss because it is part of life. when you all going to figure that out? oh yeah, never.

And, as usual, you have to resort to bumper sticker insults.

Here - I fixed it for you:

unlike a libturd, Trump I accept loss because it is part of life. when is you all Trump going to figure that out?

not my quote, and I thought that was against the board rules. ooops.

You need to read the rules dude.

you miss quoted me. it's against the rules dudette.

No dude. The rules apply to the quote box - we're very specific on that - don't alter what's in the quote box. I printed out the rule for your edification

Maybe this helps. Your quotebox was not altered, and coyote didn't use quotes in repeating what you said.

 

[Iceweasel]

I added on There was no link It was a post from a friend on another board

Yes, we know, you were just spreading propaganda like a good little commie.

 

[007]

Trump Is in Meltdown and in 'Pure Terror That He Is Going to Lose,' Says 'Art Of The Deal' Co-Writer Tony Schwartz
.
The co-author of Donald Trump’s best-selling business guide and memoir The Art Of The Deal announced the president is undergoing a “significant meltdown” in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper.
.
“I think he’s reacting from a survival place,” Tony Schwartz told Cooper Wednesday. He’s in pure defensive mode...he’s being run by the part of his brain that’s reactive and impulsive, not capable of reflection," Schwartz said. “The sense of siege that he feels because his sense of self-worth is so, so vulnerable that the series of things that have happened are overwhelming to him."
.
"There is no right and wrong for Trump. There’s winning and losing. And that’s very different from right and wrong. And right now he’s in pure terror that he is going to lose," he added. "And by the way he is going to lose. I surely believe that at some point over the next period of time he’s going to have to figure out a way to resign and the reason he’s going to do that as opposed to go through what could be an impeachment process, or a continuing humiliation, is that he wants to figure out a way — as he’s done all his career — to turn a loss into a victory. And so he will declare victory when he leaves."
.
"Schwartz knows Trump's psyche well, spending nearly a year with him to help pen the best-selling 1987 book. He has been vocal about his regrets in writing the book, giving the The New Yorker a tell-all interview about the part he has played in creating the myth of Trump as a man who wins everything. On Twitter, he said he would now call the book "The Sociopath."

Fake news...

 

[edward37]

Trump Is in Meltdown and in 'Pure Terror That He Is Going to Lose,' Says 'Art Of The Deal' Co-Writer Tony Schwartz
.
The co-author of Donald Trump’s best-selling business guide and memoir The Art Of The Deal announced the president is undergoing a “significant meltdown” in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper.
.
“I think he’s reacting from a survival place,” Tony Schwartz told Cooper Wednesday. He’s in pure defensive mode...he’s being run by the part of his brain that’s reactive and impulsive, not capable of reflection," Schwartz said. “The sense of siege that he feels because his sense of self-worth is so, so vulnerable that the series of things that have happened are overwhelming to him."
.
"There is no right and wrong for Trump. There’s winning and losing. And that’s very different from right and wrong. And right now he’s in pure terror that he is going to lose," he added. "And by the way he is going to lose. I surely believe that at some point over the next period of time he’s going to have to figure out a way to resign and the reason he’s going to do that as opposed to go through what could be an impeachment process, or a continuing humiliation, is that he wants to figure out a way — as he’s done all his career — to turn a loss into a victory. And so he will declare victory when he leaves."
.
"Schwartz knows Trump's psyche well, spending nearly a year with him to help pen the best-selling 1987 book. He has been vocal about his regrets in writing the book, giving the The New Yorker a tell-all interview about the part he has played in creating the myth of Trump as a man who wins everything. On Twitter, he said he would now call the book "The Sociopath."

Fake news...

Look 007 trump is playing with a loose deck He's not all there ,,,at least not enough so to represent our country

 

[007]

Trump Is in Meltdown and in 'Pure Terror That He Is Going to Lose,' Says 'Art Of The Deal' Co-Writer Tony Schwartz
.
The co-author of Donald Trump’s best-selling business guide and memoir The Art Of The Deal announced the president is undergoing a “significant meltdown” in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper.
.
“I think he’s reacting from a survival place,” Tony Schwartz told Cooper Wednesday. He’s in pure defensive mode...he’s being run by the part of his brain that’s reactive and impulsive, not capable of reflection," Schwartz said. “The sense of siege that he feels because his sense of self-worth is so, so vulnerable that the series of things that have happened are overwhelming to him."
.
"There is no right and wrong for Trump. There’s winning and losing. And that’s very different from right and wrong. And right now he’s in pure terror that he is going to lose," he added. "And by the way he is going to lose. I surely believe that at some point over the next period of time he’s going to have to figure out a way to resign and the reason he’s going to do that as opposed to go through what could be an impeachment process, or a continuing humiliation, is that he wants to figure out a way — as he’s done all his career — to turn a loss into a victory. And so he will declare victory when he leaves."
.
"Schwartz knows Trump's psyche well, spending nearly a year with him to help pen the best-selling 1987 book. He has been vocal about his regrets in writing the book, giving the The New Yorker a tell-all interview about the part he has played in creating the myth of Trump as a man who wins everything. On Twitter, he said he would now call the book "The Sociopath."

Fake news...

Look 007 trump is playing with a loose deck He's not all there ,,,at least not enough so to represent our country

"Look?" I see you talk like all the rest of the preprogrammed mutton heads. You like to talk shit too.

Go pound sand, moron.