Thoughts on Lauren's move to use the veto?
With a new season coming up this month, I wanted to ask about a pivotal moment in BB27: Lauren using the veto on Vince and Rachel putting up Rylie as replacement. At the time, I saw a some discussion that Lauren should have listened to (even obey) Rachel and not use the veto, and that Rylie going home was her fault, and that she had it coming.
Now, I know Lauren approach wasn't the most confident, and that Rachel is far more popular of a player, but I don't agree that it was a bad move. Vince was one of Lauren's closest allies, if not THE closest. They also lost Zach, another close ally, just last week, with Vince sitting right next to him on the block. If she has the power to guarantee her #1's safety, why would she risk it? Especially cause there wasn't really trust built between her and Rachel, and she knew that she would prefer for Vince to go home.
Of course, eventually Vince does turn on Lauren in favor of Morgan, so hindsight is 20/20. But Lauren using the veto is the type of move that people clamour for, where a player goes against the house/HOH's wishes and uses the power they have to benefit their personal game. If Lauren didn't use the veto, regardless of who goes home, she would be seen as even more passive and afraid to play the game than she already was.
I try to view the show not through a particular players's journey, but as a collective web of connections and possibilites for entertainment. If I just watch the show for Rachel, I would want her to have her way easily and everyone to fall in line. But Rylie's eviction wouldn't have been as impactful if Rachel didn't have to make that tough decision because of Lauren's action.
but enough of my thoughts, what are your takes on this week/move?