seems like there's a lot of time-a-wasting in this thread.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Battery for that! Time wasting of the highest order. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Already proven false nearly 3 weeks ago. This charge is an act of time wasting. Anything goes.How Michelle Fields Hoaxed Herself Into Mainstream Stardom - Danger & Play

Yes and no.  He might be a little bit like the Great Oz.  I would just change alone, to the only one currently running.

Yes, image is a lot.  Its all bait and switch.  Its just who will switch the least and we won't find out if we don't try.  If we can survive Obama, we can survive Trump. 

Trump is the ultimate  image candidate. For those who support him, what matters most is the image he projects, and that this image runs contrary to that more typically projected by politicians/officeholders. For example, as you say in this post, the most salient point you took away from Trump's appearance before the Washington Post editorial board is that he showed that he, unlike the other candidates for President, is not a coward. That he may have stumbled through some of the interview is irrelevant. As we have seen throughout this campaign, Trump's supporters extol him for being not a politician; not beholden to donors; not politically correct.  He talks and acts tough, and is more than willing to ruffle feathers.  He speaks in terms of "winning" and making America great again. In some respects, he is like the Great Oz come to life.  He alone can solve the terrorism that most recently hit Brussels.  He will stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our border with Mexico, and deport the 11 million illegal immigrants already residing here.  He will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it.  He will knock the hell out of ISIS.  How he will accomplish these things is left unclear. To his supporters, that does not matter because there is a belief in him — a belief in the image.          

Timely input from Scott Adams: 

Using Persuasion to Solve Everything

 

Alrighty, I read the article and am very familiar with Eugene Robinson, the author, as I now watch Morning Joe on a very regular basis lately.  He's a good guy and I know where he is coming from.

I also read the entire transcript.  No surprises or shocking revelations there at all, at least to anyone who has listened to Trump at length over the course of the entire campaign to date.  For someone who has finally gotten around to actually listening  or at least reading Trump for the first time, I can see where it might be disturbing.  Mr Robinson, however, has studied Trump too much already to act as if he is surprised or shocked about anything that was said in the interview with the editorial board.  I have listened to Mr Robinson at length on Trump and his shock is not genuine.

That said, who else that is running has sat down with the editorial board of the WaPost or NYT and had an at length on the record discussion with them or any other paper of their stature ?   The answer is no one else.  When that happens, then we can compare Q's and A's.  Until then, all's that can be said is that Trump is the only one with the cajonés to actually sit down and face a less than friendly interrogation such as what he has done.  

I have listened to all of the major candidates at length to hear in their own words without the interference / spin / filtering of pundits who tell me what I am supposed to hear them say.  I don't have to rely on others to tell me what I am supposed to think.  But then again, I have the time to do it and am genuinely interested.

I have already explained at length how and why I feel about Trump.  No need to go over it again.  But it has been formed by listening to him with suspicion and paying attention to his consistencies and inconsistencies.  I have found that the former far outweighs the latter and that how he spoke and answered to the WaPost board is no different than what I have seen or heard myself before.  But when viewed over a long period of time, one gets his drift and can read between the lines based upon his consistencies.

So let the other candidates show up and speak on the record and then we will have something worthy of conversation.  Until then, only Trump has been brave enough to show up and take the heat, for better or worse.  The remaining 4 candidates are cowards, until they show up and put it on the line.  I'm not going to vote for a coward, no matter how nice or presidential they appear to be. 

Interesting, after listening to the WP tape I got a different picture of Trump altogether.

I actually started feeling sorry for the guy because I don't think he his going to like the job, assuming he get's elected.
He's a doer, a businessman, a property developer. He likes clear decisions and people to act on them.
He starts off by talking about nice marble finishes and how impressed he is by foreign airports.
When he means make America great again, he's thinking building new stuff and employing people.
Understandably, that's his job and where he is coming from. He talks from the shop floor and that is part of popular appeal.

But unfortunately politics is a minefield of different interest groups and Washington is probably the biggest minefield there is.
He is going to have to negotiate his way through this and I just don't think he's cut out for it. 
He'll feel like a caged animal, or just throw in the towel. It's easy for him now to be provocative and make all these wild promises.
But once he's in office he is going to have a lot of back-peddling to do. And he'll hate it.

Just take the defence industry. He says the US cannot afford to play this role in the world anymore. He's probably right but
has he thought it through? Does he want other countries to fill the power vacuum when he cuts back the military budget (if that is what he means when other countries should pay more)?
Will he withstand the lobbying of the defence industry itself- a huge employer? On the one hand he wants to restore a policy
of isolationism, erect trade barriers and reverse the trade balance. On the other hand he talks as though the US will still have
far more military power and economic influence than China.. But isolationism and global power and influence are two things that don't go together. So which one is he going to choose?

Trump embodies the definition of a coward. Only a coward would refuse to acknowledge John McCain as a war hero. He admires people who weren't "caught". What kind of juvenile asinine statement is that? In other words John McCain would have been a war hero in Trump's eyes if only he didn't have the misfortune of being caught? He never ceases to amaze in the depths of his stupidity and thoughtlessness. The one side of me wishes he would become president for the daily comic theater that would play out while the other side of me wonders (and shudders thinking) how many years it would take to repair the damage that he inflicted in his four year term. 

Alrighty, I read the article and am very familiar with Eugene Robinson, the author, as I now watch Morning Joe on a very regular basis lately.  He's a good guy and I know where he is coming from.

I also read the entire transcript.  No surprises or shocking revelations there at all, at least to anyone who has listened to Trump at length over the course of the entire campaign to date.  For someone who has finally gotten around to actually listening  or at least reading Trump for the first time, I can see where it might be disturbing.  Mr Robinson, however, has studied Trump too much already to act as if he is surprised or shocked about anything that was said in the interview with the editorial board.  I have listened to Mr Robinson at length on Trump and his shock is not genuine.

That said, who else that is running has sat down with the editorial board of the WaPost or NYT and had an at length on the record discussion with them or any other paper of their stature ?   The answer is no one else.  When that happens, then we can compare Q's and A's.  Until then, all's that can be said is that Trump is the only one with the cajonés to actually sit down and face a less than friendly interrogation such as what he has done.  

I have listened to all of the major candidates at length to hear in their own words without the interference / spin / filtering of pundits who tell me what I am supposed to hear them say.  I don't have to rely on others to tell me what I am supposed to think.  But then again, I have the time to do it and am genuinely interested.

I have already explained at length how and why I feel about Trump.  No need to go over it again.  But it has been formed by listening to him with suspicion and paying attention to his consistencies and inconsistencies.  I have found that the former far outweighs the latter and that how he spoke and answered to the WaPost board is no different than what I have seen or heard myself before.  But when viewed over a long period of time, one gets his drift and can read between the lines based upon his consistencies.

So let the other candidates show up and speak on the record and then we will have something worthy of conversation.  Until then, only Trump has been brave enough to show up and take the heat, for better or worse.  The remaining 4 candidates are cowards, until they show up and put it on the line.  I'm not going to vote for a coward, no matter how nice or presidential they appear to be.