> So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal.

Is this conspiracy theorizing or a serious statement? Either way it seems to seriously sacrifice your credibility and the spirit of the reality-based analysis your first comment invoked.

Let's take a reality-based approach to Libya, for example, often cited as Hillary's fault. In reality, it's hard to blame Hillary when the decision to engage in Libya was Obama's. In reality, it's hard to blame Obama when it was France and Great Britain that instigated the mission from the beginning and begged the US' help. In reality, it's hard to blame France and Great Britain when the simple, uncontroversial fact is that Gaddafi was a dictator/torturer/human-rights-abuser of epic proportions that had systematically destroyed political and civil institutions in his country guaranteeing a power vacuum when he was deposed. With this chain of responsibility in mind which likely equally applies to other foreign policy decisions, it's ridiculous to claim that Hillary is "largely responsible for sacrificing innocents". That's the kind of hyperbole that lacks any basis in reality.

> So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal.

I'm 99% certain that the Republican party is as deeply entrenched in the foreign policy directly responsible for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs (and all of the "lovely" people in Central/South America associated with that conflict), and many other conflicts related to the Cold War (Iran, the first Indochina War, Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, Congo, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Mozambique, India-Pakistan, Libya, Cambodia, Chile, Israel and its neighbours, Afghanistan in the 70s, Grenada, Panama and many others).

Every conflict has two sides so let's not pretend that other actors aren't working the opposite side. But let's also not pretend that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are somehow more responsible for the consequences of US foreign policy. Every Western nation and its government is actively involved in this policy to some degree.

Largely != solely. Did she actually do policy work as secretary of state? Did the work cause collateral damage at least in the thousands? Pretty sure the answer is yes.

She wasnt with Billy Bush while condemning people to die so it's not entertaining enough for people to care.