I think she's too fierce and brave for us to fight on our own. We'll call a meeting with the KKK and the nazis and ISIS and Fox News and Beats Audio and Big Fitness on 4channit to plan our move.

Sounds like she leveled up to me.

She is a major threat, not to gaming, but to the entire world. Did you hear her speech on Russia? She declared war to a more powerful nation. If she wins she will unleash a worldwide conflict.

No one is that dumb, to declare war without provocation or excuse. And it'll have to get though US Congress if I understand correctly. As to military strength, its really too vague to say who's more powerful, because it may depend on strength in what kind of conflict. Generally though, if there is water (ocean) on the warfront, absolutely advantage goes to the US methinks.

EDIT: ofc not considering the fact such a conflict will wipe out most of us.

She considered russian leak hackers as excuse to say there would be "military action" if USA was hacked again by non government russian citizens. Russia has a few military advantages over USA, mostly because USA spends so many resources on military activity they are not prepared to fight an equally strong army. Basically they have been exhausting themselves over the last decades. Yes, it would have to run through congress, but we are talking about the most corrupt and insane woman in American government charges. If she ever decides to start war with any country she will do anything to get it done. She is a threat to the world.

Relax and take a couple of deep breaths. If Clinton was the one whose presidency threatened global instability, I doubt a large part of the foreign policy establishment from both sides of the aisle would have united behind her. If you really believe Clinton would impulsively start a war with another superpower over a bunch of hacks, I suggest heading out and finding another source for your daily news.

IMO, the worst thing Trump has done is make Hillary look like the good guy. Lesser evil she might be, but she remains pretty horrible.

Ummm....our next world war could be over before you realize....talk about biological warfare....we would all be dead before we knew what hit us...so oceans as a defense are useless.

And yes people are that stupid to start wars....though they always have an excuse for a provocation....look at Japan and WW2. They wanted to grow and needed resources....same with Germany. We appeased them until it was too late.

..frankly, I hope Trump wins. It will finally give our foreign department the excuse they need to give the US the finger.

So we'll go from "Yes, Obama, please tell us which hole we should jump into in the name of hope and peace!". And over to a more neutral: "Agree, you are an ally, the NATO articles are in effect. But no, you do not actually have an opportunity to fast-track laws through our parliament, or demand extraditions extralegally. That's not actually how diplomacy works. No, please don't cry, I'll buy you ice-cream!".

Wise words indeed. Trump could be an opportunity to tell USA to go fuck themselves with limited negative effect since he will have little to no influence in politics because nobody likes him. Clinton on the other hand would start a war or manipulate those countries who refuse to fall in line with her twisted ideology.
If she had not say so herself I would not think that way. She literally said there would be military action if russian hackers hacked USA data again.

*shrug* The thing is that the Clinton Group and the various appearances with president Bill they've been doing fairly well isn't all that popular either. The neo-liberal approach with having pretty much exactly the same foundation as the neo-conservatives, just without the blatant hyperbolic invectives, is becoming less appealing all round. Even the most iconically moronic on the right in my country as well as most of Europe is not very friendly towards Pax Americana, to put it that way. Whether it is outrageous racism, anti-EU sentiment or just the usual protectionism, the idea that a global ally in the United States is going to solve anything at all isn't there as an element.

You basically know you've hit rock bottom when our conservatives start to wax poetically about JFK and Roosevelt. So sure, it'll be more difficult with a Clinton presidency, but not as difficult as with Obama. Who, for all his faults, isn't actually completely insane, or have the immediate appearance of a sociopath.

But generally, the State department have invested their currency unwisely, and we of course know that whether it is Biden or Bolton who acts as the face of that effort, it's generally the same thing. So the attitude is still that we're forced to deal with these people in some way or other. Rather than that we will have an approach towards common interests in some global or usually more specific effort or other.

My problem here is that when I talk to people I know informally around various parts of the world, it is still apparent that we're basically still reeling from the power-vacuum created after Bush the lesser blew everything up in our faces. We have no idea what to do with the EU, individual countries would rather look eastwards (read: China, to some extent russia) than some sort of common effort elsewhere. Korea and the South-China sea is still a problem that the US owns. Egypt, Palestine and Israel, along with Syria up to Turkey and so on - we have no presence here outside NATO. So this is stuck - we're not going to afford, out of necessity, to drop the US from that equation. So we need to cooperate on some sort of level.

But when it comes to trade on one hand, and the in effect defunct international law and the UN Charter on the other - the US isn't part of that. So on the one hand, you have a lot of people who want to hold their breath and wait, because they know that signaling overtures diplomatically without the US is going to be a problem. Whether that is to South America or eastwards, it doesn't matter - it cannot be a high-level initiative, it must simply emerge unseen. And on the other end you get the people who would embrace a military effort to create a strong EU counterweight to the expansion, let's not call it anything else, that the US conducts in various places in the world.

And that's dangerous. But then again, so is doing nothing. So whether or not any curious efforts are going to be made here, in sum and balance, you're likely going to see some aggressive moves with NATO to establish boundaries that shall not be stepped over. This is something Russia will welcome (and does in many ways already - they don't want wars in fifty places at once like it's gearing up to now). And on the other some tremendous mellowing in general, with the .. disasters that tend to follow, like Yogoslavia for example.

So we live in interesting times, no doubt about that. And the truth is that the US isn't going to have anything to do with this in the long term. But I worry, genuinely, that the next eight years are going to be a very curious set of panic-decisions that will be difficult to deal with when it comes to foreign policy, regardless of which president is elected. This .. it's just difficult to predict. And that's a problem. For EU, Russia, and every other involved party. It could be uneventful and slow. Or it could be disaster of the kind that makes the Bush-years seem merely mildly amusing.

http://thelantern.com/2016/08/ohio-state-study-finds-correlation-between-height-political-attitudes/

An example of bad research, where correlation is causation.

Indeed. Saying most tall people vote X is different from saying most tall people vote X because of them being tall.

I remember reading the fruit of such a dumb thought process on the Roosh guy's site. It cited a study stating women from the Netherlands are mostly employed at lower levels with most higher positions being occupied by males, out of all European countries. Then it cited a survey about happiness which said women from said country are happier than most other European countries. From these two, the writer concluded that women are happier when they're employed at lower positions; ie positions with more time to spend with the family, and it proves women are less competitive and naturally don't like higher positions at jobs because it violates their maternal instinct or something.
In making such a statement, the writer established the relation between the two himself rather than checking for other factors that might contribute more. Ie more opportunities for political participation, better maternity benefits, popularity of stay at home business, etc. Kinda ironic to see SJWs doing the same.

Jesus, how in the fuck does this drivel pass muster?

This by comparison makes 19th century Phrenology almost sound viable & that is a sad state of modern 21st century "science" IMHO