Spoon, while we may differ on how to implement these notions, I agree with your elaborations completely. As I was writing, those ideas were kind of bubbling up, but I couldn't solidify them.
Similarly, wuf, I mostly agree with what you've said. Trump is probably more like Stu Ungar than Jamie Gold in this respect. After Ungar the game snapped back to a bunch of weak tight old men, but Ungar opened the door for a new way to think about the game, and slowly but surely the game evolved to include elements found in his play.
The thing that gives me pause with your posts, wuf, is that I don't think virtually any of the soldiers in this war know what they're fighting for or towards. And due to the nature of the grievances and the war, strong leadership is unlikely and the soldiers are prone to unknowingly taking up the cause of an enemy.
I personally think the risks of putting a troll president in office are too great-- he's not just trolling the American political establishment, he's trolling allies, nuclear armed enemies, etc. But that's actually besides the point if the soldiers in this war are without a clear win condition, which leads to unending war, and without adequate leadership/safeguards against their cause being hijacked. If the cause was filled with a bunch of wuf's and spoons and led by Ben Shapiro, maybe I'd rest a little bit easier-- but as is?...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by boost
