Bush or Kerry? the better poker player...

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Buck,

First, the stacks wouldn't be even, because Bush would prevail upon the tournament director to exclude some of Kerry's chips.

Second, if Bush were outdrawn, he would: (a) sit there for eight minutes, staring into space like a deer caught in the headlights; (b) claim this was his finest hour; and, (c) go across the street, to another casino, and beat up a dealer who had nothing to do with the game at all.

And third, even if Bush lost, he'd simply stand there defiantly and claim he was winning, and that anyone who said otherwise was a naysayer, while surrogates suggested that Kerry was un-American for even playing the game.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

good post

[anatta]

One of the reasons why Bush doesn't give a lot of press conferences is he doesn't think on his feet well. He really just sticks to certain talking points in debates, like following a script. He is folky and likeable so that is enough to get by.

For example, the last "press conference" (I put in it " " since Bush gave a 20 minute speech beforehand), but anyways, Bush didn't script this one (yes they actually staged a press conference, and the "reporters" went along with it), Bush was asked if he made any mistakes, the reply was along the lines of "gee err umm I wish you woudda given me some warning, umm, no, no, I just can't think, I mean I am sure the is something, but, umm).

Bush also had a problem with alcohol, which might correlate to an inability to handle gambling, so he might just tilt it all away. Bush also makes mistakes, but stubbornly sticks to his guns. He just doesn't accept the fact that he screwed up, which is fatal in poker (but common among losers).

Kerry fearlessly turned his boat towards the enemy, showing courage and aggression under fire, thus Kerry would be the stronger player.

[ftball0000]

Bush would win easily... he would use the patriot act to know what Kerry's cards are. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Ftball

[Solitare]

Against terrorism in the 90s the Clinton administration played "weak-tight". Although the US held the best hand in the world (nuclear weapons and a well-funded military being the equivalent of pocket As), terrorists were the aggressors on most occasions. The US spent most of the 90s folding the best hand. The US presented a table image that was too predictable. The few times the US did attack it was with planes against tents. The big bets won the pots, but the pots were small.

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has made the US the aggressor. Some would argue that Bush is "loose-agressive" and is playing too many hands, leading to the US being "trapped" in Iraq.

Kerry wants to appear "tight-aggressive" using his Vietnam record to contend he would be a capable table leader. However his flip-flopping votes on the Iraq war give the impression that he's "loose-passive," wanting to see a lot of hands (voting for the war) but not wanting to play those hands aggressively (voting against funding the war) when the chips are on the table.

What this means for their poker playing abilities is anybodies guess.

[JARID]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry fearlessly turned his boat towards the enemy, showing courage and aggression under fire, thus Kerry would be the stronger player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part is wrong. After three bad beats Kerry would run home and tell his wife about how unfair that game was, how Bush cheated, he was lucky, oh the atrocity of it all. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Jarid

[JARID]

The best table image explanation yet. See my reply to anatta's post for an exlpanation of how this would affect Kerry's results.

-Jarid

[CrisBrown]

Hi Solitare,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Clinton administration built the high-tech, mission-oriented military that won in Afghanistan and was able to topple (although not occupy) Iraq. It took a clumsy, WW2-era military that was ready to fight the Soviets and turned it into a surgical strike force capable of targeting those individual tents. Big bets, yes, and small pots. But those "small pots" were the pots that were worth winning.

Alas, Americans want to see "big pots," the toppling of countries, and the Bush administration has played into that with the mythical spectre of "state-sponsored terrorism," as a way to justify attacking nation-states (which makes for good P.R.) rather than taking out terrorist cells (what Bush calls "swatting flies"). It's a good P.R. gimmick, but it's not winning the war on terrorism. Quite to the contrary, as one counterterrorism operator put it, "We're making new terrorists faster than we can kill them." Add in the imperialist-colonialist aims of the neo-cons and their oil baron supporters, and the Bush administration has made a total hash of the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately, the real war on terrorism is not a war that can be fought or won on TV. The nature of international terrorism networks is such that the war against them will have to be fought in the shadows: one cell infiltrated, one ally cleaning house within its borders, and, if necessary, one cruise missile at a time. That doesn't make for good political haymaking, but it's what's best for the nation, and for the world.

Cris

[jah0550]

NADAR wins period.

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
This part is wrong. After three bad beats Kerry would run home and tell his wife about how unfair that game was, how Bush cheated, he was lucky, oh the atrocity of it all. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Jarid

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that Bush isn't a cheater, liar, scumbag, cokehead, etc, etc, etc?

[luckycharms]

Am I the only one who is going to mention that Bush got Cs and Ds through high-school and college. He'd have no grasp whatsoever of game theory, and get trumped by even an elementary understanding of numbers.

Kerry could grind it out, but Bush would be that guy who pushes all-in for t990 when there's only t15 in the pot.

Realistically, Teddy Roosevelt would whoop all their asses, and Nader would take a not-so-close second