Trump has this quality in extreme excess. It's the quality that triggers the libs the most. Right when they think they "have him", he weathers the storm and either rights the ship, or lets loose with a salvo that sinks the enemy vessel.
Whatever you think about Trump, calling him "thin-skinned" is ridiculous. He "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" more than any public figure I've ever seen, bar none.
Your counter on the thin-skin label is quite frankly absurd. Being thin-skinned has nothing to with resilience and everything to do with sensitivity to criticism. There hasn't been an insult or critique Trump has been able to turn the other cheek on throughout his life. He has plenty of exposed nerves that always trigger a reaction when hit.
Nobody is denying that the man is fueled by vicious quarreling and petty spite, but one of the main reasons he spends so much time verbally sparring with people is because he is incapable of ignoring any attack on his character, competency, or achievements.
That's textbook thin-skinned.
I've never seen someone under the perpetual attack that Trump has been under since he announced his candidacy for President, and certainly since he became the GOP front-runner some time in 2015.
I personally believe that, in private, Trump could care less as to what people think and say about him. He is, however, a "brand message" guy, and he's crafted a brand that has created a new dominant faction of the GOP. Trump appeals to them to keep the energy up for his campaign. And he's done a good job of it.
This is an aside, and it's only my opinion, but if Nixon had been more like Trump, he'd have ridden out impeachment, even though Nixon actually did commit Obstruction of Justice. (For the purpose of this post, since the House Judiciary Committee has not charged Trump with Obstruction of Justice, I will state that Trump did not do so.) If Nixon had channeled his inner Trump, he would have stated that those tapes were his, they contained privileged conversations, and he'd have burned them in a YUGE Bonfire on the White House Lawn, with select "Deplorables" invited from the entire country to toast marshmallows and make s'mores. There would, at that time, been weeping and gnashing of teeth by Democratic liberals, there would have been the Censure of Nixon by the Congress (they'd have come up with that, perhaps), and there would have been the Congressional investigations, but there would have, in the end, been no impeachment.
Having lived through Watergate, I can tell you that the greater American public would have been behind Nixon had he chosen to destroy all of his tapes. That would have ended much of what people blasted him for. There would have been no Special Prosecutor, no impeachment inquiry; there would have been enough public support for Nixon's actions to where he would have gone through his entire term of office, and would have ranked higher in history than he does right now. (Indeed, Nixon was considered by some as a GREAT President while active, mainly due to his handling of foreign policy.)
I say this because in 1973, impeaching a President was not a casual step. The Democrats had a majority in the House, but a number of them were reactionary conservative Southerners who were some of Nixon's most loyal supporters. (Rep. Joe Waggoner (D-LA) wept when Nixon said he would resign. Sen. James Eastland (D-MS) was with Nixon, crushed out his cigar, and stated, "You've been a damned good President!". A national consensus for Nixon's removal from office would not have occurred without the tapes being made public that clearly showed Nixon, Haldeman, and Ehrlichmann talking about the cover-up and paying hush money. It really did take all of that to make REMOVAL a certainty.
