Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + + + + + + + +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 (view source)
Revision as of 16:18, November 13, 2016
, 16:18, November 13, 2016→Chess (Go) vs. chess strategy: new section
::Donald Rumsfeld's feelings do not matter. I understand your sentiment however. I would be more upset the U.S. is not doing much of anything to combat the Islamic State right now then make it solely about Obama--[[User:Scatach|Scatach]] ([[User talk:Scatach|talk]]) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
::Donald Rumsfeld's feelings do not matter. I understand your sentiment however. I would be more upset the U.S. is not doing much of anything to combat the Islamic State right now then make it solely about Obama--[[User:Scatach|Scatach]] ([[User talk:Scatach|talk]]) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
== Chess (Go) vs. chess strategy ==
Trump had a [[Go (game)]] strategy and won more territory/states which gave him the election in the electoral college. In Go, the object of the game is to control more space/territory through strategy/tactics. There is a lot more red on the map than blue.
Clinton had a more chess strategy. She relied more on negative campaigning and the press hammering away at Trump via negative covering/editorializing (It caused more and more sacrificing of pieces of her and Trump's reputation since Trump is a counter puncher. Kind of a war of attrition when it came to their reputations. In chess, sacrificing pieces is a strategy and is kind of a war of attrition).
Like Vietnam, the Go strategy won over the chess strategy.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZHXrJuu3TI] :) If only Hillary had read more of [[Sun Tzu]]'s the Art of War and spent less time giving paid speeches. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:09, 13 November 2016 (EST)