The issue in benghazi is not how dangerous it is or how difficult the situation was at the time, the criticism of hillary this absolute disaster was her refusal or fear to act under a situation of great pressure.  As for finding her not guilty, im assuming you meant "bipartisan" or "non-partisan" agency because a partisan agency further corrupt backing of her (which ill come back to later).  As for the difference between the bush administration and the obama admin, while both were proponents of disastrous foreign policy blunders, the specific issue with hillary during benghazi was here inability to serve her role as it was intended when appointed to her. You go on to talk about america creating this destabilization by intervening where they shouldnt... do i even need to be typing this out, because you just argued against yourself? TRUMP is an anti interventionalist, the clinton family is the main proponent of unnecessary globalism. look at hillary's time as SoS and bill's time as president. sure, bill may have been inactive after his failure in kuwait and the like, but he soon returned to the narrative of america as the worlds police force. as for respect for hillary across the aisle beforehand, that is ABSOLUTELY absurd. hillary and the entire obama administration has been decried by the entire gop base and democratic military officials (michael flynn). as for trumps disrespect for the military, im not going to attempt to justify his passing comments such as this. its not the sort of thing he should be focused on in the campaign (although he did apologize for the mccain comment upon endorsing his senate run). but what i will justify is his respect for the military through policy -- simply put, trump employs the reagan doctrine of buffing up the military and utilizing peace through strength and anti inteventionalism (which seems to be something you like... yet you vote for hillary??). as for your reference to academia and elites endorsing clinton, i hope you realize how silly a reason that is to vote for anything and anyone on the basis of democracy. buying into the appeal of ethos like that is something democracy as a whole is vehemently against. its not the elites role to influence the american public's decision on an election, ESPECIALLY if they are abroad. american people hurting? have you taken a look at chicago, the midwest, the coal industries? the inner cities are a mess after 50 years of democratic leadership. the recent job report shows the desecration of worker based industries. the continuation of the very liberal policies that caused this disaster (nafta) is going to do NOTHING to solve these sorts of problems. trump is the biggest agent of change that has shocked the political system in decades, and hillary may be the furthest in the other direction in the same amount of time (ie, not changing). and finally, your rhetorical implications are absolute jokes. white supremacy? he doesnt want ILLEGALS in his country, theres nothing inherently racist about that. it would be the same thing if illegals were coming from scandinavia, they would be white ILLEGALS and would still be hurting the wages of american citizens, which is the core issue of the trump immigration plan. as for xenophobic, you could argue he is phobic of one demographic of "xenos." islamic terrorists, which motivates his policies for extreme vetting and the like. if placing global interests above the safety of the american people is xenophobic, then yeah, you could say that. if being afraid of the group of terrorists who behead americans and spread propaganda for a religiously ruled state is xenophobic, then yeah, okay. as for misogyny, there is very little base for that.. people make a big deal out of him calling rosie odonell because shes a woman, but he does the exact same thing to every male opponent hes ever had (in the scope of the public eye). he has said from the start he counter punches men and women equally, but if you want him to stand there and give no argument back because of a persons gender, that might be the most sexist thing ive heard in some time. you say the logistics of the wall dont work, yet democrats have voted in approval of a stronger border fence for years. why? because it works. look at israel, they built a wall with a tunnel detection system and illegal immigration crashed by 99%. of course we are on a much higher scale, but even a 30% decrease in illegal immigration makes back the costs in a single fiscal year. and finally, calling him a compulsive liar is honestly hilarious coming from someone who so blindly supports hillary (who has the biggest reputation as a liar since nixon). a hateful demeanor is what i would call speaking the truth. telling yourself that everything is perfect under the democratic leadership is lying to yourself, and hillary is simply a continuation of these. if giving a realistic narrative is now "hatred," then this country will never progress without telling it how it is