Musk left out the part that Asian women earn more not only because they are capable but because horny white men in C-suite tend to hire them over Asian men due to perceived agreeability, ie agreeable to being sexually harassed by said white men.
View attachment 130082
I can't believe it took so long for the news to mention this.
Losing to full time goat farmers in the middle east isn't real war experience.
there's a reason parallels have been drawn between the modern day and 1914, when most imperial european armies were more used to mowing down indigeneous peoples with the maxim gun than having to deal with trench warfare, much like today's hapless soldiers on the ukrainian frontline.
Taking advantage of food banks AND wheelchair access on planes? Not even Chinese tourist aunties which western tourism operators loved to bitch about, were ever this brazen or shameless and all Chinese tourist aunties ever did was use the buffet for its intended purpose.
When it comes to China, Ritter has rarely criticized it because he admits he doesn't know China enough. That is until a pro-China guy comes off too cocky for his boomer persona liking. Ritter is open to visiting China, but Russia is still his priority because of his Cold War history and his wife's Soviet history. Ritter is no Tucker Carlson. He has shown an openness to appreciate China's foreign policy and human development.
Ritter shouldn't take it personally, Carl Zha has a irreverent way of talking which can come across as half laughing and therefore mocking to someone who gets triggered by the topic at hand, and for an old boomer like Ritter, i suspect it's the perception of a cocky Chinese upending his worldview of China of 1985 where Carl Zha represents the modern China more akin to the mockingly confident bill murrays of 1980s ghostbusters rather than the bowing, scraping sweatshop asians which most boomers are accustomed to. I know, because i have experienced it myself just living my normal life and seeing how doing so triggers white australians who aren't even boomers. It triggers them to see happy, confident Asian men laughing at the world because they themselves sense a loss in their own security and prestige. They see that and sense that something is wrong because they've only ever been brought up on american anglo propaganda that tells them only white men should be strong and confident and laugh at the world and only non white males are cowardly, effete and emasculated.
Listneing to that podcast, Ritter's assumption is the american perception that the loss of a US carrier necessitates the extermination of Chinese civilians in a Chinese city; again, this is the perception of a racist worldview - not saying Ritter is racist, but his assertion is that the US leadership is racist enough to believe that the loss of a US carrier should result in the deaths of Chinese civilians as the target of their impotent rage. As he said, he worked this nuclear planners who wargamed such scenarios and according to Ritter, the loss of a US carrier should result in the human sacrifice of the atrocity of nuking a Chinese city. This is ridiculous of course, to those of us who don't hold a racist apartheid world view that a military humiliation should result in genocide, but to the anglo zionist world order, this is considered appropriate.
And what should be the appropriate counter response to such a worldview? As Carl said, 'out crazy' the crazies, let's go baby. 1,000 nukes enough to glass the earth and then some. If i had participated in the debate i would have pointed out that only China during the cold war bothered to build massive underground facilities and cities to house millions of Chinese for the world after nuclear war; how many such bunker cities are there in the West? And how cohesive will they be against Chinese vengeance?