You say that Hillary's platform was not as toxic to Americans as Trump's. I would disagree. Hillary's platform was not really hers at all. She stole ideas from Bernie Sanders and his movement, trying to push them off as her own.
What does the source of ideas have to do with being toxic, though? It's one thing if you think those specific policies are toxic, but 'stealing from Bernie' doesn't inherently make any policy toxic.
Hillary is a hawk, and she probably would have ramped up various military actions abroad
(I won't say 'start a war' or whatever, as unless a candidate actually pushes for something of the sort I'm not convinced any would actually do that). As for the TPP, well, I'm sure Hillary would have loved to do that but the electorate forced her hand. She would have paid an enormous political cost for backtracking on her promise not to pursue it. Hillary indulges bigly in political expediency, and that would dictate that TPP was no longer politically feasible.
Hillary Clinton, as revealed by the Wikileaks and by her own behavior, as well as through the testimony of so many who have known her, is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat. For decades, she pursued power and wealth, caring not for the American people.
Again, you could replace her name with Trump's and that statement would basically be a perfect fit. This was largely the point of my response to you. If your view of Hillary is such, then this election should really be a wash for you.
I've always acknowledged my bias for Democrats but I've also not held my tongue on Hillary on this forum, particularly since the Fall, and so it increasingly bothers me how my fellow voters on the right (or middle?) can't or won't do the same. Trump is not omnipotent. He's a deeply flawed man, and it's fking obvious.
Now for Trump, I believe many of his policy stances are correct. Jobs do need to come back to this country; there needs to be an improvement in our economic circumstances. We have to restore our respect in the world, maintain the strength of our military, and promote our own interests. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of this. She would have eroded the Second Amendment, and would have let the working classes go down the drain. That is why I cannot understand the defense and idolization of her.
I truly don't mean any offense by this, but you're speaking almost entirely in talking points. The things you listed there are very generic and sound like part of a stump speech.
1. We do need good jobs - both Democratic and Republican policies are meant to do this. It's one thing if you're a conservative who believes in conservative policies, but if you haven't noticed this is a forum slanted towards Democrats so you shouldn't be surprised if people disagree on conservative solutions here.
I'm unsure what you mean by 'jobs coming back' - you don't honestly believe Trump is going to somehow revive our manufacturing industry, do you? Those jobs are gone, either through trade agreements or automation or other means. If Trump forced a shift of manufacturing away from China, those companies would just move to places like Vietnam. I believe his own cabinet pick (Ross maybe?) said this!
2. Actually under Obama, it seemed the world did respect us, as opposed to the lack of trust/respect we suffered under Bush due to his foreign policy failures. You'd really have to elaborate more on this for me to argue it any further though.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years-draw-to-close-president-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/3. Maintain strength of our military - ok, look, if you think our military is in shambles right now, then you should explain why, keeping in mind we still spend far more than any other country (even combined), and that our military is still top-notch. This "military in decline" is a farce, and it's beginning to look like conservative America only thinks the military is strong when there is a Republican president and the military budget is getting increases year after year. When does this end?
If you think it's fine now and you just want it maintained, I'm unsure why you think Hillary of all people would be bad for that. She is the type of president who probably would have been open to increases in spending, and a GOP House certainly would not have allowed deep(er) cuts.
4. As for 'letting working class go down the drain' - welcome to the era of Trump. If you think gutting labor regulations and cutting massive tax breaks for the wealthy (again) is going to be worth the trillions it adds to our debt, then I dunno what to say. We've already done this. I'd say it would be better to take that money and fund paid family leave and invest significantly in education (K12-college) to prepare new generations (and existing) for our continuing shift to a high-tech economy.
