Maybe because of Clinton's track record. While Sec. of State, she persuaded Obama to intervene in Libya, and in recent speeches she has suggested that the U.S. should take a more aggressive stance against Russian expansionism. She's more of a hawk than is either Obama or her husband. I would put her in roughly the same category of interventionism as Bush.

At least Clinton has a track record. Trump is completely unpredictable. Last month he said that he would order US ships to attack Iranian vessels if they approach:

"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/

That would be an abrupt act of war between the two countries, and on a completely different level than the NATO intervention in Libya which was based on a UN Security Council resolution.

I know. When I've heard that recently in the last debate, it somewhat made me throw up in my mouth. Last thing I want is yet another war we can't win.

I also started thinking about John Titor again, regarding how things happened in his story/anecdote. Obviously different, but a good deal of things seem pretty similar... How many rights will we lose before it's too many?

Don't worry, Hououin Kyouma will show up to save the day. ;)