Trump didn’t take half the royalties since he admits a few sentences later that Schwartz wrote the bloody book!
“He didn’t write the book,” Trump told the New Yorker. “I wrote the book. I wrote the book. It was my book.”
…
“Without me, you wouldn’t be where you are now,” Schwartz says Trump told him. “I had a lot of choice of who to have write the book, and I chose you”
Since when is pointing out a fact being a jerk?
You’re far to sensitive to post here.
Agreed it’s not necessarily a win, but it’s a risk worth the reward. Trump’s more at risk than Clinton is: she can be herself: he can’t.
Trump has to rein in the misogyny: not completely, but only enough to let his supporters spin it successfully as being “strong”.
Clinton has to get under his skin enough to get his mask to slip. His natural inclination, I think, is to play to his base, and dominate her to the point of being abusive. If he does, she wins.
I am not angry at Schwartz, I have no reason to be.
My problem with his mea culpa now, has several levels.
He urged Trupm (by his own acknowledgment) to bypass the autobiography he intended in favor of the art of the deal.
He agrees that he ignored / left out of or bypassed (whichever fits better) in the book the focus on Donald’s true personality.
He witnessed the behaviours, went ahead with the book anyway and reap the financial benefits.
That’s his prerogative, one which he is entitled to as a ghost writer who needs to earn a living. He doesn’t have to like his subjects, just fulfilled his contract and do his job.
Although he never expected the book to lead to Trump being the nominee, he has for years basked in the glory of being the writer who brought Trump to prominence with the book he wrote.
Has he disavowed that before of made similar claims to the ones he is doing now? It may have wiped of some of the sheen from Trump.
Even now when making his mea culpa, he is not giving up the profits for ever from this book which he now claims was not a truthful portrayal of his subject, he is giving up the royalties for this year only.
Again, I am not angry at him, I simply will not pat and congratulate him for speaking up now in a manner that reads self serving to me.
I do so while thanking him for the message being delivered.
Reading the Donald’s predictable response at the bottom, something occurs to me: Trump couldn’t pass a simple Turing test. If you were communicating by text with him, your probable assumption would be that he was a poorly-coded AI subroutine, operating at about the level of a 10-year old interactive video game.
There really is something deeply wrong with him.
Could have fooled me.
First of all, Clinton will be prepared. The rap on her is “too scripted”, not “unprepared”.
Secondly, I like to think she will approach Trump as the anthropomorphic personification of Republican attacks on her, the pure, distilled essence of a 25-year campaign of lies and personal abuse. She will be strong, lucid and presidential; he will not. And I think she will leave him dismembered and gasping for air.
Not only hell but, nervous hell.
I won’t believe that he cannot win and is not the winner until the networks call the presidency for Hilary Clinton.
I do not trust the Republicans and I trust the MSM even less.
These are scary, scary times.
The only thing I hold unto is my belief that the Clintons are vicious campaigners. That coupled with their experience is my ultimate saving grace.
Edited for spelling mistake.
I agree with you. The ones who watch the debate, may see it that way.
What concerns me is the day after, those who get their feed and news from these dishonest pundits who have an agenda to push.
These pundits who will spin this thing in a way that leaves us scratching our heads wondering if we watched the same event.
Yes, that’s my point/fear, only you articulated it better. 
There isn’t going to be a debate in any normal sense. Just like a good Disney movie has to cater to little kids and their parents (often with entirely separate jokes), a good debate performance against Trump has to cater to low-information personality-driven voters as well as those seeking facts and analysis. Clinton can be very strong at the latter, and when up against Trump should obliterate him. Trump, by contrast, was strong with the former during the primaries, for the reasons @pluckyinky well articulated, but should have more trouble with a more diverse set, even if they are also low-information types. That’s only true if Clinton takes them into account during the debate, though, and actually works to win them over. It’s a bit anathema to her personality, IMHO.
I’ve noticed that he has a habit of cancelling when he’s not going to be in front of a handpicked crowd.
What would really be fascinating would be if Zelig-style, being in front of a left-of-center live crowd, his freakish need for applause turned him into diehard-lefty Trump, no matter what message it sent to all the wingnuts at home.
I don’t blame you for worrying, but I think you all are too pessimistic.
Trump basically got a free ride in the Republican debates, because nobody could really challenge him on policy. A Democrat can. And if the media’s reluctance to challenge Trump on his lies frustrates you (I know, rhetorical question) then you should be drooling at the thought of Hillary going after him. She’ll drive Trump nuts, and goad him into destroying himself. And she’ll be helped enormously by the fact that it will be just the two of them.
Yes, yes – the Trumpbots will go on believing to the bitter end. Doesn’t matter: if the debates swing just 3% of the electorate, then we’ll have a landslide.
He’s a whistle blower – and often people have trouble coming forward because in doing so, they’re also implicating themselves. Schwartz is not proud of his role in all of this and is doing what he can to right it. I really did not have the same judgmental response as you to the man. I found what he had to say fascinating, highly credible and potentially very useful to HRC’s campaign against Trump.
I think it’s time for Schwartz to write another book.
“The above really jumped out at me. It’s why I’m most looking forward to what I think will be the first and only debate this year. He will be completely unable and unwilling to study and prep for it. I expect him to make Sarah Palin look like Winston Churchill.”
Love it, especially since I had the same thought. Ever work with a colleague who had to have everything, word for word, scripted? They were generally just too hollow to work ex tempore. With Palin, she was at least bright enough to memorize a series of blurbs that were kind of all-purpose. If, say, a question concerned the economy, she would pull one from column A and another from column B. Dumb as a rock, but smart enough to be scripted and programmed.
Alas, his followers are committed. He could urinate on the podium and they would still vote for him.
He will flounder in a sea of generalities, never once touch dry land.
Why can’t both of our reactions exist?
Clearly we have different perspectives, I appreciate yours being different from mine.
I respect the fact that you think my response has ethos of Trump and or is judgmental.
I don’t need you to view it as I do, I come here to express my opinion and read what others have to say. Some commenters I agree with, most I learn from and others offer a different point of view.
I am good with that.
At least he qualified it by calling it the best selling “business” book of all time. But for that pesky Bible, of course. PolitiFact says it sold about 1,000,000 copies but it didn’t say who bought them. Bet Donald has a full warehouse.
So, I chose to only use the tot’s first and middle name for effect…sue me. Lemme guess, you’re one of those #AllNamesMatter folks.
You’re too sensitive for this forum…