Remember When Trump Said He Would Have A 'Plan To Defeat ISIS Within 30 Days'?

[tulc]

so...it's been 30+ days, has ISIS been destroyed yet? I can't seem to find any articles about when and where it happened.
Remember When Trump Said He Would Have A 'Plan To Defeat ISIS Within 30 Days'? Time's Up, No Plan.
Ironically can anyone guess where President Trump was when the deadline passed?

Can someone drop $200,000 for a Mar-a-lago membership and find Trump on the golf course to get the ISIS plan from him?

tulc(is just curious if he's missed it somehow?)

 

[Saucy]

So, because he decided not to share it with you, it doesn't exist? He also ready said time and time again he's not going reveal every move. We're obviously still attacking them, as our bombing has picked up.

 

[SolomonVII]

Step one was to close the borders to any potential counter attackers coming through.
Liberal judges had a problem with that step though.

 

[tulc]

Step one was to close the borders to any potential counter attackers coming through.
Liberal judges had a problem with that step though.

so...he didn't have a plan.
tulc(was under the impression a plan would be one that took that sort of thing into account)

 

[SolomonVII]

so...he didn't have a plan.
tulc(was under the impression a plan wa

I have no idea of what kind of plan he has, Tulc. He has his own way of talking that makes it impossible to know what he is going to do.

But it certainly has nothing to do with what I said, either way. Whatever his plan may or may not be, obviously the first step involved making the borders safe, and set up a good defense.
That is not something that liberals and liberal judges want for America though.

 

[tulc]

So, because he decided not to share it with you, it doesn't exist? He also ready said time and time again he's not going reveal every move. We're obviously still attacking them, as our bombing has picked up.

Bombing! I bet the Generals are kicking themselves because they hadn't thought about dropping bombs anywhere over there.
tulc(wonders why no one thought of doing that before)

 

[tulc]

I have no idea of what kind of plan he has, Tulc.

tulc is spelled with a lowercase "t" not an uppercase one.

He has his own way of talking that makes it impossible to know what he is going to do.

well, apparently he didn't actually do anything.

But it certainly has nothing to do with what I said, either way. Whatever his plan may or may not be, obviously the first step involved making the borders safe, and set up a good defense.

Would also not being unconstitutional be a part of his plan?

That is not something that liberals and liberal judges want for America though.

do you have actual proof of that, or is this another one of those "I don't agree with them, so they hate America!" arguments?
tulc(see's a lot of those arguments)

 

[Saucy]

Ugh, the fact that we are currently operating overseas means there's a plan in place. Just because it hasn't been leaked or you don't know what it is doesn't mean it's not in place.

 

[tulc]

Ugh, the fact that we are currently operating overseas means there's a plan in place. Just because it hasn't been leaked or you don't know what it is doesn't mean it's not in place.

...uhmmm...we've been "operating overseas" for over a decade now. that we're still there also doesn't mean there's a "President Trump plan" in place either, does it.
tulc(is going to have to nuke his coffee again)

 

[SolomonVII]

[QUOTE="tulc, post: 70908920, member: 2724"

]tulc is spelled with a lowercase "t" not an uppercase one.

Is there a difference in pronunciation with that, or is it just another meaningless, rule"

Would also not being unconstitutional be a part of his plan?

Constitution is words that are interpreted howsoever people want to interpret them.
Liberal judges have rendered the Constitution rather meaningless. Like marriage, when the constitution can mean everything, it means nothing.
It is a fancy sounding word, and like Tulc, I suppose, it no longer would merit a capital C.

do you have actual proof of that, or is this another one of those "I don't agree with them, so they hate America!" arguments?
tulc(see's a lot of those arguments)

Yea, I have proof of that. Each and every measure that is taken to control the borders is opposed by liberals and liberal judges. Liberals here have shown no interest whatsoever to control the borders, have supported no plan to make the borders safer.
Judge a tree by its fruits. If liberals wanted safer borders for America, they would develop plans and stop creating phony interpretations of the constitution that give rights to potential terrorists to enter the country without any legal impediments whatsoever.

 

[redleghunter]

so...it's been 30+ days, has ISIS been destroyed yet? I can't seem to find any articles about when and where it happened.
Remember When Trump Said He Would Have A 'Plan To Defeat ISIS Within 30 Days'? Time's Up, No Plan.
Ironically can anyone guess where President Trump was when the deadline passed?

tulc(is just curious if he's missed it somehow?)

It's obvious why it has not happened. Blame the witches for not binding ISIS.

 

[tulc]

It's obvious why it has not happened. Blame the witches for not binding ISIS.

LOL!
tulc(ok, that one made him laugh!)

 

[tulc]

Is there a difference in pronunciation with that, or is it just another meaningless, rule"

Pronounced the same, but writing it with an uppercase "T" isn't how it's spelled.

Constitution is words that are interpreted howsoever people want to interpret them.
Liberal judges have rendered the Constitution rather meaningless. Like marriage, when the constitution can mean everything, it means nothing.

Except in this case it meant President Trumps order was illegal, that doesn't sound like "nothing" to me.

It is a fancy sounding word, and like Tulc, I suppose, it no longer would merit a capital C.

Well, spelling tulc with an uppercase "t" isn't how it's spelled. Making a law that doesn't conform to the Constitution means it's not actually a law. If you're talking about the US Constitution it's spelled with a capitol "C".

Yea, I have proof of that. Each and every measure that is taken to control the borders is opposed by liberals and liberal judges. Liberals here have shown no interest whatsoever to control the borders, have supported no plan to make the borders safer.
Judge a tree by its fruits. If liberals wanted safer borders for America, they would develop plans and stop creating phony interpretations of the constitution that give rights to potential terrorists to enter the country without any legal impediments whatsoever.

So...you if have links to support your assertions of the above why didn't you post them? Because if you don't have proof then we're back to the "I don't agree with them so they hate America!" type of "support".
tulc(understands how much people want those types of arguments to be accepted but, unfortunately "really REALLY" believing something isn't actually proof)

 

[SeventyOne]

so...it's been 30+ days, has ISIS been destroyed yet? I can't seem to find any articles about when and where it happened.
Remember When Trump Said He Would Have A 'Plan To Defeat ISIS Within 30 Days'? Time's Up, No Plan.
Ironically can anyone guess where President Trump was when the deadline passed?

tulc(is just curious if he's missed it somehow?)

Is this serious? The title mentions a plan to do something, and you are finding fault because the plan isn't carried out to completion yet. Would you yell at an architect if a building wasn't completely built the day he finished designing it?

You gossip about Trump a lot, and I mean a lot. You should probably deal with that sin.

 

[nChrist]

A smart person doesn't tell the enemy what they're going to do. Surprises are nice. Yes, I believe there is a plan, but you won't hear about the details.

 

[ken777]

Most people understand that election promises refer to goals which will be impacted by the realities of the political & judicial processes.

 

[tulc]

A smart person doesn't tell the enemy what they're going to do. Surprises are nice. Yes, I believe there is a plan, but you won't hear about the details.

...this is a man who can't even have a stray thought without posting it on twitter and yet you believe he has a plan and hasn't said anything about it? Oh yeah, that totally sounds like him.
tulc(it must be really hard having to keep come up with excuses like this, and to think you'll be doing so for four years!)

 

[tulc]

Is this serious? The title mentions a plan to do something, and you are finding fault because the plan isn't carried out to completion yet. Would you yell at an architect if a building wasn't completely built the day he finished designing it?

I'd probably be a little curious if the architect kept saying he had great plans for the building but when anyone asked about the drawings he kept saying "They're secret!" Call me old fashion if you like, but I kind of expect an architect to actually show us something other then his latest golf scores.

You gossip about Trump a lot, and I mean a lot. You should probably deal with that sin.

Really? I was under the impression Presidents were supposed to be working for the American people, you don't think people should be discussing how you view the job an employee of yours is doing?
tulc(could point out of saying someone talks to much about political things on a politics fora is a little...odd)

 

[SolomonVII]

A White House Initiative to Defeat Radical Islam

Personnel. The commission should include a mix of experts on political violence and radical Islam, as well as elected officials, representatives of law enforcement, the military, the intelligence and diplomatic communities, technology specialists, Muslim reformers (as the president insisted), and victims of radical Islam. It should also include liaisons to those who ultimately will implement the commission's recommendations: secretaries of the departments of state, defense, and homeland security, the attorney general, and the CIA director.

Mandate. The commission should expand on Trump's commitment to explain the core convictions of Islamists (i.e., the full and severe application of Sharia), to expose their networks, and todevelop new protocols for law enforcement. In addition, it should examine where Islamists get their resources and how these can be cut off; figure out how to deny them use of the Internet; offer changes to immigration practices; and assess how political correctness impedes an honest appraisal of radical Islam.

Implementation. For the commission's work to be relevant, it must coordinate with federal agencies to gather data and craft recommendations, draft executive orders and legislation, provide supporting documents, prepare requests for proposals, outline memos to state and local governments, recommend personnel, and work out budgets. Finally, the commission should be prepared that its reports may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, such as was the case several times in the past (e.g., the Warren, Rogers, and Tower commissions).

The overall goal of the White House Commission on Radical Islam should be to bring the American people together around a common understanding of the enemy's nature, how that enemy can be defeated, and specifics to accomplish this objective.

Perhaps this will start the long-delayed process of winning a war that has already gone on far too long. The United States has all the economic and military advantages; it lacks only a policy and a strategy, which the new administration, relying on a first-rate commission, can finally supply

 

[SolomonVII]

At the heart of Donald Trump’s foreign-policy team lies a glaring contradiction. On the one hand, it is composed of men of experience, judgment, and traditionalism. Meaning, they are all very much within the parameters of mainstream American internationalism as practiced since 1945. Practically every member of the team — the heads of State, Homeland Security, the CIA, and most especially Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster — could fit in a cabinet put together by, say, Hillary Clinton. The commander in chief, on the other hand, is quite the opposite — inexperienced, untraditional, unbounded. His pronouncements on everything from the “one China” policy to the two-state (Arab-Israeli) solution, from NATO obsolescence to the ravages of free trade, continue to confound and, as we say today, disrupt. The obvious question is: Can this arrangement possibly work? The answer thus far, surprisingly, is: perhaps.

Read more at: Trump’s ‘Madman Theory’ Diplomacy