• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=1]Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All[/h]
Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
 
Trump has the attention span of a five year old that's high on candy. lol


'... it’s impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said..."
 

Trump has the attention span of a five year old that's high on candy. lol


'... it’s impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said..."

Then why are you voting for him?
 
The thread has been mistitled...

Unemployed writer desperately makes bid to get job offer from Hillary Clinton.

It's Trump's official biographer.
 
It's Trump's official biographer.

Schwartz hasn't had notable work since 2014 and he's taken down at least one of his own official websites. The Art Of The Deal came out in 1987.
 
I'm just playin' with ya', Moot.

Good...because I was getting a chuckle out of it, too. I just wasn't sure what smiley to use. (wink, jazz, smile, laugh rotf or what?) lol
 
Schwartz hasn't had notable work since 2014 and he's taken down at least one of his own official websites. The Art Of The Deal came out in 1987.

So?

Schwartz of all people would know what Trump is really like (besides his family) since he had to write Trump's life story and in order to do that he had to get to know him as a person.
 
So?

Schwartz of all people would know what Trump is really like (besides his family) since he had to write Trump's life story and in order to do that he had to get to know him as a person.

In 1987, when he was focused on providing material for the book. 20 years later (ask any author, that can be a scatter shot process), does he really know Trump?
 
Schwartz hasn't had notable work since 2014 and he's taken down at least one of his own official websites. The Art Of The Deal came out in 1987.
Writers don't always have to work. They often, like Schwartz, collect royalties. Incidentally, with the Trump campaign pushing Art of The Deal, Schwartz has been collecting more royalties.
 
So - the people who believe that about Trump (which I do) ..... do you also believe this about Hillary?

Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with | New York Post

Status: unproven.

Secret Service Opinions of Clintons : snopes.com

Proving (or disproving) the genuineness of an anonymous second-hand report of information supposedly provided by an equally anonymous Secret Service agent is a formidable task, but several factors tend to indicate this piece is more likely something created for partisan political reasons than an actual Secret Service agent's account:

As Time magazine noted as far back as 1993, cranking out spurious stories that discredited Hillary Clinton and were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents was a known political trick:

A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts. The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham). Many of the stories are attributed to the Secret Service in an attempt to give the tales credibility.

Not surprised. When I searched this, the first few links were all conservative rags with terrible journalistic reputations. The very next one was Snopes.
 

Jane Mayer and the New Yorker were immediate red flags but Jane should have put this ... "Schwartz told me that he has decided to pledge all royalties from sales of “The Art of the Deal” in 2016 to pointedly chosen charities: the National Immigration Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the Center for the Victims of Torture, the National Immigration Forum, and the Tahirih Justice Center. " ... up front to save having to read a very long hit piece.
 
Status: unproven.

...

Not surprised. When I searched this, the first few links were all conservative rags with terrible journalistic reputations. The very next one was Snopes.

How do you prove that someone stationed outside the oval office saw the things he said he saw?
You believe him or you don't.
After all, he did testify to Ken Starr about Bubba.
Does that swing any truth pendulums?
 
I didn't say it was proven, just like this Trump story isn't proven.

Well, it is to the extent that it can be. The writer in the OP it is on-record, unlike the story you posted, which appears to have been totally made up from thin air.

However, he-said-she-said can never be totally proven.

But in the case of Trump, it is certainly interesting that everything he's done as a candidate matches closely with what this writer says he's like, including the constant out-right lying, destructive compulsiveness, and constant talking about how great he is. All that stuff is readily obvious to anyone who's been watching the election unfold. None of that was really news to me.

As to Hillary, to me she actually sounds better when she's not on-script than when she is. But do I know what she's like? Not really. One of her big problems with her campaign is that she is so defensively private to a point that it reads as secretive. She's been like that since pretty much forever, which is unsurprising when you look at what the 80's and 90's were like for her.

But for what little it's even worth, I'll take someone who's gone on record despite potential financial and legal risk to himself, over some completely made up swiftboating from the 90's. And it doesn't read well in debate to post made up swiftboating as a response to anything at all, no matter how relatively meaningless. Nor does it read well to respond to everything negative about your general half of the political spectrum with "I'm rubber, you're glue." It's not like that does anything to change the negative commentary, and it's nothing but an attempt to avoid addressing it.
 
How do you prove that someone stationed outside the oval office saw the things he said he saw?
You believe him or you don't.
After all, he did testify to Ken Starr about Bubba.
Does that swing any truth pendulums?

Only one problem with that.

There is no "him." They don't even give a name, or a particular station, of the person or people who are supposedly saying this. There's good reason for that: because this is totally made up.

If you're referring to Melanson, he doesn't corroborate any of these accounts about Hillary.
 
Only one problem with that.

There is no "him." They don't even give a name, or a particular station, of the person or people who are supposedly saying this. There's good reason for that: because this is totally made up.

If you're referring to Melanson, he doesn't corroborate any of these accounts about Hillary.

I'm talking about Gary Byrne. He was a Uniformed Secret Service officer stationed outside the Oval Office. He testified in the Bill Clinton affair.
 
I'm talking about Gary Byrne. He was a Uniformed Secret Service officer stationed outside the Oval Office. He testified in the Bill Clinton affair.

Well, none of this stuff about Hillary is attributed to him, or anyone, for that matter. So...?
 
Back
Top Bottom