Don't think it takes a "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, just a real commitment to do what it takes.
But his plan, if it exists, IS a secret. Is that why it is a secret? Because "what it takes" is a horrific civilian death toll, or furthering instability and radicalization in the middle east, or a cost far higher than anyone would want to pay? Most likely a combination of these things?
I've repeatedly stated that I think Trump talks out of his rear. I'm not literalist, I just tend to believe that I'll agree more with his ultimate policies than I would with Clinton's. It's not like I had a choice to vote for a completely honest person in the general, between the two I personally think Clinton is the bigger liar.
As to what his plan will turn out to be? I suspect it'll be to tell the general's to get it done and to defer to them about how, that's what's worked far better than the Democratic model of telling them to get it done and then prohibiting them from acting in ways they say it will work. If I had to guess, there's no permanent victory without boots on the ground, but I could be wrong.
I don't think he has a plan, I think he was blustering (just like with the rest of his platform). But if he does have a plan, the hints we have to go on suggest it's along the lines of bigger and more bombs.
Then you should love it right, isn't that always the Democratic model? More air attacks, bombs and cruise missiles. What am I missing, did Obama ever actually do anything but ignore a situation or bomb it? And doesn't that mean that's the Democratically approved model?
Trump is not a master manipulator...
His primary talent is persuasion. He doesn't have better business ideas than other people, he just convinces investors to give him money and keep the risk.
I see this sentiment a lot, not just about him, but about anyone who runs a major company or is highly successful in finance or business. Like somehow the conventional wisdom is that "anyone" could do it, and its just a lucky break that puts a specific person in place to make it so. I call BS. I worked in finance for forever, people at the top are not there by accident, they may get chances by inheritance but the waysides are strewn with trust fund kids who couldn't hack it and the top is filled with self made people who could. I have no idea if Trump is as good as he thinks he is, it's hard to imagine anyone could be, but I am certain that he is better at it than "other people."
He didn't win on policy, he won on promises that frequently didn't make any sense and to some extent on exploiting fears and hatred.
Again BS. The Dems tried to exploit hatred and fear as hard as they could. The fact is that people who hate get to vote too, and they're likely very motivated. Both parts had huge constituencies of haters, and you're in denial if you don't see that about the Democratic coalition. Every person who labeled someone else a racist or sexist on flimsy grounds, or preached about how Republicans want to kill old people or leave the poor to die was playing on hate.
He won because the Dems put up one of the most repugnant candidates in modern history, with no moral compass, and the Republican's candidate, in this case, who is almost certainly just as or close to as repugnant at least represented a change from the same old crappy status quo.
"Primary talent is persuasion" is true of most politicians, of course. But most of them are constrained by reality and have more or less coherent proposals. Not Trump.
None of them put forward terribly reasonable proposals. They all overspend and pay off their constituencies to ensure votes for the future. The difference with Trump is a lot of his proposals were outside the "accepted political norm". That's really all it was.
But on this I agree with you: If he doesn't make his base feel like things are going better, then he will lose support. But the ways he can make his base feel like things are going better do not equate to good policies with objectively better results.
Well I disagree on that, I think the only way he makes his "base" think things are going better is with "objectively" better results. Of course what's objectively better is actually subjective, literally, which I grant is odd. But everything in this country has multiple consequences, reducing taxes - an objective good - also reduces spending, which is to some an objective good and to others and objective bad depending on where the spending is cut.
Honestly though, if he does nothing other than encourage business growth and the return of offshore capital, most people will end up objectively better off than where they are today.