By November, the crazy coming out of Trump will be so accelerated, that people will vote in droves for Hillary. My prediction is there will be suppression, voting rigging but it won't be needed as much. Hillary wants a landslide.

As much as I am loath to accuse anyone (as my misguided defense of one in another thread that was later proven by JTC I think it was?) it seems like we may be getting some more "Less than authentic individuals" posting lately.

I am by no means saying that this is the case with the OP, but if they think that voter fraud, etc is so much hullabaloo then I am doubtful that they have a grasp on the reality of the situation at best...

What I said really had nothing to do with being a delegate and I didn't offer that info to establish legitimacy. I put it out there to say that defending Clnton is not my first instinct and I don't enjoy doing it. It certainly doesn't come easy for me after spending months of hard work and do-re-mi trying to win votes for Sanders in Maryland.

And, calling strangers liars -- especially when yo have no reason to believe that or any real purpose in saying it other than to be an ass -- that is not a commendable way to behave.

First off I was responding to the insinuation that she's unhinged. You might not like her, you might not agree with her policies, but she's one of the saner people.

But, if you're saying that video is "legitimate analysis" or that it establishes "war crimes" you're just not correct. That video is entirely facile. It starts with her laughing -- and it's pretty clear that we're coming into the middle of a joking conversation -- so the laughter and the remark about Qaddaffi are totally out of context. Yeah, you wouldn't be finding humor there, but that's not your life. We all find ways to laugh at ourselves and events in our lives. That stuff comes with the territory for a SecState. And sandwiching that with the Bush laughter at the end is a ridiculously facile trick. Oh, they both laugh. Ok -- they're the same, then.

The stuff that's sandwiched in between? Notonly do I not see a war crime there, I don't see anything I find objectionable. First, she talks about terrorist leaders who will be either captured or killed. The US is acting in self-defense and in defense of other nations in acting against these individuals. That's entirely within the norms of international law. Preventing attacks on civilian populations -- either here or in Afghanistan -- that's what we'd expect from any President. I'm pretty sure we endured months of hearings and savaged the Bush Adminstration for ignoring the Clinton Administration's warnings about al-Qaeda's threat. Then there's a comment about a "Democratic, Jewish state." That's a war crime? The U.N. voted to establish a Jewish state. THe whole notion of a "Democratic, Jewish state" is wrapped up in the idea of ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestine alongside Israel, so that Israel can be both a democratic state and a Jewish state (which would be impossible if they maintain control over an Arab population that is larger than the Jewish population within the "greater Israel" borders that expansionist Israelis advocate for. Still nothing objectionable in what she's saying. Finally, she states that Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. That's pretty much an undeniable fact, unless you want to consider what Russia has perpetrated in Georgia and Ukraine as a greater "terrorism."

In the litany, there is only one "intervention" by the US -- that was in Libya. Speaking as someone who has an advanced degree in and used to practice international law, I can tell you that this was a classic example of what is called a "humaitarian intervention." Not only is that recognized in international law, a lot of us international lawyers have invested a lot of words advocating that there's not only a right of humanitarian intervention, there's actually a duty for international organizations to intervene and prevent massacres, especially of non-combatants. That's a complex argument that ties together legal, moral and practical considerations. Just because the aftermath in Libya has been messy doesn't mean the intiial intervention wasn't an appropriate use of force by a recognized international security organization. Actually, it was two internationally recognized security organizations, since the Arab League and NATO were both involved.

Obviously, the aftermath in Libya was miserable, but it does appear to be moving in the right direction as an internationally recognized government moved yesterday to wrest control of Sirte from the ISIL forces. I am far prouder of our actions in Libya to prevent the massacre and defeat of the rebels in Libya than I am of our decision not to support the rebels in Syria (at least, not when it might have spared the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Syrians).

The world out there is messy and complicated. Trying to oversimplify things that require nuance isn't helpful. True, some of our interventions have wildly unintended consequences. To wit -- Afghanistan. We supplied the rebels for almost a decade and brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union. That resulted in freedom for hundreds of millions of people. But, history never stops, does it? Russia slipped back into a corrupt, plundering, authoritarian regime. We abandoned Afghanistan -- because we do military things pretty well, but no one wants to spend money on actually helping people abroad -- and so it turned to shit. Still, the original concept of helping the locals fight back against invaders was a sound one -- a moral one. Not everything we do is noble, and there's usually a huge amount of self-interest involved in in our nobler ventures, but having self-interest doesn't obviate the nobility. Rather, it's a fundamental pre-requisite because no one would abide spending tax dollars or putting American lives on the line, if it wasn't in our interest. I find nothing wrong with what we did in Libya other than not securing the peace, which probably wasn't in our power to do anyway. That failure doesn't mean the intervention there was immoral or stupid. The final chapter there has not been written -- but, then again, there is no such thing as a final chapter. The Obama foreign policy has not played out very well, with few successes and multiple failures, but then again, the final chapter hasn't been written yet.

I didn't notice that I was mocking anyone.