That isn't Angry Joe.
"Well you can Sajuuk me off cuz I'm about to blow your shit up!" -Angry Joe
I knew a guy in Goonswarm who did recordkeeping for the RCN. Told me that for it's 2011 deployment to Libya, the HMCS Vancouver went through something like seventy thousand cans of beer. For the time and men aboard it worked out to about a can and a half per person-day (my understanding is the RCN consumption limit is two 12 oz cans per day).
because
No, because she's a washout who wouldn't have made the cut for Team USA.
Even the 50 cent army can see that, and they're furious (and rightly so; Team China had better domestic talent that they passed over gambling on a scrub defector).
This is not a new phenomena in the Olympics by any measure, it happens all the time. B-tier athletes deliberately try to get multiple citizenships to give themselves more shots at competition. It's fairly normal in hockey, basketball, baseball, and football competitions for players who play on the same pro team to play against each other under different flags.
Not at all. They have plans.
It's just that their plans are fucking stupid.
You know how women go to college and get careers with the plan of having kids "eventually"? That's the level of intellectual depth these people are working on. I'm not going to go all biological essentialist on you and make wild claims about their testosterone and estrogen levels and what it does to the brain's capacity for long term strategic planning, but...
Well, there's a lot of coincidences.
So then are those people actually "good" or "smart"?
It comes down to Hobbes vs Rousseau.
Your question comes from a Rousseau frame that people are basically good until proven otherwise and you're saying their failure to act shows them to be not good.
I operate from the Hobbesian frame that people are essentially bad. The intelligent know that everyone is bad (or at the very least, know that they themselves are bad) and that being a public figure is risky. The stupid lead because they're too stupid to anticipate the risks of being a public figure.
Why would that scare you?
The only reason they're in charge is because only somebody that stupid would want to be in charge. We only get competent leaders when the stupid fuck things up so badly that intelligent people decide that the downsides of being in charge are outweighed by the downsides of letting the stupid remain in charge.
Which is what is starting to happen now. We'll get a couple good decades and then it'll go to pieces again.
Is this all scripted?
No, you're just an intelligent person in a world run by really, really stupid people.
The moment Soros changed his story on China was the last straw. These people are literally Surprised Pikachu grade stupid.
No, it's the APPEARANCE of status.
Take your typical pre-crash scumbag land developer. Drives a Ferrari, has the wardrobe of Leisure Suit Larry, inevitably dating a hot blonde...
Owes three banks money and is under investigation by the feds.
Like, suppose you're a software engineer minimalist. You make 150k but you have a tiny, economy apartment or starter house, cheap beater car and don't spend much on clothes. Maybe you have one or two hobbies you splurge on (gaming rig? minifigs? crypto speculation?) but to outside appearances you look poor unless someone saw your balance sheet.
That ain't hot.
No.
You need to watch some Aaron Clarey. HAVING money does not make you more desirable. SPENDING money does. This is why the dudebros who are the most popular with women are usually borderline or actual frauds with sub-500 credit ratings.
Then why aren't you shooting by now?
If you're going to be hyperbolic then so am I.
The left does not "control all institutions". They control the high visibility institutions you care about, but it's all facade. Their power is a mile wide and an inch deep because they don't have control over the slower moving, structural pieces like the courts (they have ONE court, the Nutty Ninth, and even there they don't win all the time), nor the unstoppable force that is the invisible hand of consumer revealed preference.
They're trying to shape consumer preference, but their efforts are like trying to build a dam on the Mississippi by hand with a garden trowel.
If you GENUINELY believed they controlled everything, you'd have resorted to violence by now. The fact that you haven't proves the hyperbole.
What you are, is mad that you don't get any high visibly wins. You're the sort of fan who burns their baseball cap because the home team lost the ONE game you chose to attend the whole year. Destroying a high profile individual is not hard, for our side or for theirs; and our side is learning to pick better people to elevate to high visibility positions while the left is stuck with the fact that their loudest people are also the craziest.