kurtster wrote: 
So, the argument could be made that Trump is so egotistical, he doesn't care what the fallout of the Post interview would be. He has previously said that he could shoot someone in the street and not lose voters; I don't think he'd be concerned about losing voters because he doesn't do well in an interview. 

That being said, the fact that he sat down for the interview doesn't make him more Presidential, in my eyes. Palin also sat down with Katie Couric back in the day; the result of that interview, much like this one, basically showed that the candidate in each case maybe should have thought better about the interview (or at least prepared better beforehand). Their lack of forethought about the implications of a bad interview and/or their decision to do so anyway paints a picture of someone who doesn't thoroughly think through items before moving ahead, not a characteristic I look for in a leader.

Just my two cents, anyway.  

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Absolutely astute

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?

 porphyrius wrote:

The real world beats the myths and the wishful thinking every time...

It is a recurring theme of Republicans in the United States that President Barack Obama is a weak leader. In Obama’s case, this is often linked to his failure to deploy US military force in distant trouble spots, even though the calamitous US experience from Vietnam to Iraq hardly suggests his caution is misplaced. The appeal of someone who very consciously projects an image of the strong leader is apparent in the support for the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. The fact that his policies are a hodge-podge of wildly unrealistic aspirations – such as building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the US, and getting Mexico to pay for it – counts for less than Trump’s ability to persuade disillusioned conservative voters that his strong personality and mobilisation of their anger will somehow, in the words of his campaign, ‘Make America Great Again!’

 R_P wrote: 
Right.  We will do better by following a committee of the weak and meek in a world full of bad people who don't play nice and fair and square.  We're doing that right now and how's that working ?

Yep.  Follow them right into a world of serfdom and worse.

Howze that go again, one man's strong leader is another man's false god ?  Is that like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ?  Seen this movie before.

You can do better. 

We must stop worshipping the false god of the strong leader

 Steely_D wrote: 
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. 

Instagram and Twitter posts indicate that at least a few people were able to snap photos of the headstone
before it was removed "in accordance with the park's strict no-littering policy."

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
And, in his own words.  I am baffled how even a committed Trump supporter cannot be very concerned after watching/reading his hour plus with The Post's editorial board.  Shocking? Not sure it's shocking. Breathtaking ignorance, I'd say.

I say that wishing we had a viable candidate coming from the Republicans.  We clearly won't if Trump is their nominee.

 Steely_D wrote: 
gesundheit !! ...

Donald Trump’s shocking ignorance, laid bare

The Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Romney, Ryan, McConnell faction has united and is moving into high gear to steal the nomination from Trump. The immediate plan is an all out bid to deprive Donald Trump of victory – and the delegates – in Wisconsin.
The Republicans are Already Stealing the Nomination from Trump http://www.infowars.com/walker-will-endorse-cruz-in-wisc-push/ … 

Too little, too late, but hey, thanks for playing!
 

• Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. … I'll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now. You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.

 Steely_D wrote: 
OK.  just trying to show that I was aware of the possibilities even if I didn't see the viability of the concepts.

Sheesh,   

 aflanigan wrote: 
Are you serious ?  I mean really ?  

An empath is a creature capable of receiving emotional and physical sensations from outside sources.  Empathetic means that one is capable of identifying the feelings and needs of other individuals.  Empathy is the act.  These are three distinctly different things.

So what am I getting wrong ? 

 kurtster wrote: 
So am I. I couldn't leave her if I tried.