Well maybe not winning by losing. Maybe it’s like the TNG episode “Peak Performance” where Data had to play for a stalemate to cause his opponent to give up.
This is a great insight. I've brought up this episode to explain stuff to the wife and other people and they look at me like I'm crazy. Glad to see other people who get it.
Some moves in chess can bag you a higher value piece at the cost of your own lower-value piece or pieces. These exchanges are going to happen continuously as the game progresses. You can mitigate your losses by allowing the enemy to take the pieces that you don't need, or pieces that, when taken, allow avenues to win a game.
President Trump is playing for keeps. I like this theory.
I think it’s more subtle than that, but I get what you’re saying.
To me though, I think Trump/Military are aware that the American People are hooked on the globalist system almost like addicts, and that unhooking us from that system is going to feel a lot like any detox, and who wants to be the public face of this detox? Especially when you aren’t the one who created the addiction in the first place.
Just think of the Afghanistan situation alone. It was a quagmire with probably no good options out and the best way was just to defeat ISIS and then put the Taliban back in charge and arm them up to withstand China (to the tune of billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment). But imagine trying to sell that to CNN or Fox News. They would have ripped Trump apart for it and called it a loss, but that shouldn’t be Trump’s loss, that should be a loss for the people who created the situation in the first place. So why not negotiate it behind the scenes and then pin it on the other guy as a way to neutralize the hysteria? I mean if you could pull it off, it would be the way to go, wouldn’t it?
I thought it was interesting how we later heard that the Taliban was destroying the CIA’s poppy fields. Whether or not that happened, when I heard it, I smirked because it lines up with this idea that the Taliban might not be the villains the corporate media told us they were twenty years ago, and it also confirms a previous order that I seem to remember Trump issued during his Presidency to have those poppy fields destroyed, which was then never carried out (one of those Mattis/Milley ignoring orders situations).
I admire folks like you who are able to dive deep into alternate theories by virtue of your creative process, and have them be absolutely plausible! Well done! We need people who can think like you...especially in journalism! This is how stuff gets uncovered.
"Winning by losing." Hmmmm. Interesting thoughts...
Well maybe not winning by losing. Maybe it’s like the TNG episode “Peak Performance” where Data had to play for a stalemate to cause his opponent to give up.
This is a great insight. I've brought up this episode to explain stuff to the wife and other people and they look at me like I'm crazy. Glad to see other people who get it.
"Sometimes by losing a battle, you find a new way to win the war."
Good point. Thanks.
Some moves in chess can bag you a higher value piece at the cost of your own lower-value piece or pieces. These exchanges are going to happen continuously as the game progresses. You can mitigate your losses by allowing the enemy to take the pieces that you don't need, or pieces that, when taken, allow avenues to win a game.
President Trump is playing for keeps. I like this theory.
Art of the Deal, Patriots in control
Think chess. You can win but you're going to lose a lot of pieces. Moves, countermoves.
I think it’s more subtle than that, but I get what you’re saying.
To me though, I think Trump/Military are aware that the American People are hooked on the globalist system almost like addicts, and that unhooking us from that system is going to feel a lot like any detox, and who wants to be the public face of this detox? Especially when you aren’t the one who created the addiction in the first place.
Just think of the Afghanistan situation alone. It was a quagmire with probably no good options out and the best way was just to defeat ISIS and then put the Taliban back in charge and arm them up to withstand China (to the tune of billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment). But imagine trying to sell that to CNN or Fox News. They would have ripped Trump apart for it and called it a loss, but that shouldn’t be Trump’s loss, that should be a loss for the people who created the situation in the first place. So why not negotiate it behind the scenes and then pin it on the other guy as a way to neutralize the hysteria? I mean if you could pull it off, it would be the way to go, wouldn’t it?
I thought it was interesting how we later heard that the Taliban was destroying the CIA’s poppy fields. Whether or not that happened, when I heard it, I smirked because it lines up with this idea that the Taliban might not be the villains the corporate media told us they were twenty years ago, and it also confirms a previous order that I seem to remember Trump issued during his Presidency to have those poppy fields destroyed, which was then never carried out (one of those Mattis/Milley ignoring orders situations).
I admire folks like you who are able to dive deep into alternate theories by virtue of your creative process, and have them be absolutely plausible! Well done! We need people who can think like you...especially in journalism! This is how stuff gets uncovered.