Totally get it, I took it as curiosity
Re impeachment: Because it's more of a corruption in the family kind of deal. She might be willing to break the law as her husband did. It might not be her fault, but it's not helpful to her case either.
While the law he broke was serious (perjury under oath), the reason he did it is "more or less understandable" (the air quotes are me saying I understand but don't agree). Again, Hillary had nothing to do with Bill's cheating and to paint the picture of her being affected or affecting that situation while letting Trump off recorded comments (both publicly and privately) stating intent to have sexual relations with other women (including implying with his daughter) whilst married is, in my opinion, hypocritical
Re emails: She deleted them, too, to try and hide the problem. She kept denying it was an issue when she should have gone to the government and admitted wrongdoing instead of pretending everything was fine.
I can agree with that. Again, though, she didn't lie to the FBI and the mistruths she gave to the public were to save face, rather than anything with malicious intent
re DNC: Sure, both parties are corrupt and garbage mongering money grubbers, but the RNC didn't actively get in the way of democracy. Bernie Sanders was not given his fair shot at candidacy, and that is a direct threat to our democracy. I'm sure the RNC has done all sorts of shady things as well, but they didn't actively, unfairly, stop Trump
Although his talk up to (and including) this point would make you believe that literally all odds were stacked against him, including during RNC and Presidental debates
Re Trump's comment on women: He's a bit of a chauvinistic flirter, but I haven't seen anything that makes me feel personally offended or like he won't respect women's rights.
Hillary and her family actively hates authority figures who would lay down their lives for the country. I don't know much about DailyMail, but is it a UK tabloid or a legit publication? It reads as kind of click-bait-y, that's why I'm asking. I will say, though, that if it's true I'm not necessarily surprised, and that would be a valid reason to dislike her. I don't know if it's necessarily a reason for one to call her unfit for office, though
Re LGBT: Sure they all flop, but
Clinton really has gone out of her way, even recently, to try to say as little as possible for those that are LGBT. While in 2013--before he would even run--Trump said he was for traditional marriage initially, but his "viewpoints were evolving" and that he was coming around to accept them.
Good on him, I guess. His choice of Mike Pence as a VP kind of negates that statement, though, unless he evolution path follows a circle
Re Clinton body count: it sounds like a conspiracy but there's just s
o much coincidence... Again, I really, really don't want to be rude, but you're not really helping your case by linking me to an alternative news source that comes across as incredibly biased
Re Saudi Arabia: Business there and random politically donations are kinda different though. As much as I loathe to see no ban from them, it makes sense: they're a powerful country that can put a lot of the market in flux. Angering them would cause too many problems with what's going on already.
Those are fair arguments, but doesn't explain why other countries he has ties with were also excluded
Re guns: ban machine guns all you want, but there shouldn't be a restrictive tax on defensive handguns. It's indirectly prohibitive to those trying to buy a firearm.
I'd argue that the taxes used could be put towards better defense and police training in the first place, assuming people still buy the firearms
Re medicaide: it's already far too easy to get. How lenient does "low income-specific healthcare" have to be if one can make 40k/year and still qualify?!
I personally am a huge believer in "healthcare as a human right, similar to what Denmark does
Re felons: If you're commiting a crime of a level of felony, you forfeit some of your rights as a citizen as punishment.
I both agree and disagree. Yes, there needs to be a societal punishment for commiting a crime, but taking away voting rights isn't the answer. There is no negative impact on society; they can't commit a crime by voting for someone, no matter how twisted the ideals of the person they're voting for are (considering the ideals of the average person who has served a prison sentence in the past wouldn't be too far off from the national average, and 3rd party votes to "harmful" entities would be minimal anyway)
Re Russia: id rather be buddies with Russia than have someone who's
antagonistic and may go to war with them.
That depends on what the buddy "contract" entails. If it involves indirect manipulation of our government through suggestion or requesting aid in, for instance, putting President Assad back in power in Syria, I want no part of it