Why? US military spending -- a staggering $1.6 trillion in 2015 -- represents 37% of all global military spending and exceeds the amount spent by the next seven largest military nations of the world, only two of which (China and Russia) can even be remotely considered military rivals (the others -- Saudi Arabia, the UK, India, France and Japan -- are not only friendly with the US but are major buyers of US military hardware!).
How can one vote for such a war-monger as Clinton? Especially when, for all his faults, Trump is far less belligerent, and appears if anything to be more of an isolationist in his foreign and military policies.
But enough on foreign policy and war-mongering.
Clinton does not deserve our vote too because she is at least as much a narcisist as her opponent Trump and at least as greedy. The Clintons have amassed some $231 million in personal wealth since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001. That's over $16 million net per year over a 15-year period. They "earned" this money primarily by giving speeches to wealthy corporations, at more than $250,000 per speech. If we're honest, we have to acknowledge that these fees were not paid because of the incredible words of wisdom offered by Hillary and Bill. Rather, they were a way of buying influence with two of the most powerful people in the Democratic party. Thanks to Wikileaks, which published the emails of Clinton campaign honcho Leon Panetta, we now know both that the secret speeches Hillary Clinton was giving to Goldman Sachs and other big banking firms and other powerful corporate entities were simply fawning peans to those firms, and promises to do right by them if she were to become president, and that Bill's fixer was actually hustling up major donations to the Clinton Family Foundation along with personal bribes to Bill in the form of absurdly high-priced speaking engagements.
Hillary Clinton's response to the news that she (and her husband) for the past 15 years have been little more than a pair of tawdry multi-million-dollar hustlers on the make has been to ignore the question and to blame it all on the "Russians." She is claiming on the basis of no hard evidence, that Russia was the source of the hacks, even when the veracity of those hacks has been admitted, and so nobody should pay attention to them.
Do we really want to vote for such epic corruption?
And that's not even mentioning Clinton's casual willingness to violate basic federal security laws with regard to the protection of state secrets, not to mention the requirements of the federal Freedom of Information Act, by conducting all of her official communications during her six-years as Obama's Secretary of State on a private server in her home. While she initially tried to play dumb blonde over that decision, it has become clear from reports on what those communications involved, that her real reason for not using a State Department server for State Department business was that she was basically selling access to her as Secretary of State to both powerful US corporate interests like Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Barclays Capital and Standard Chartered Bank, and to foreign government leaders, including those of a number of ugly totalitarian states like United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.
Again, how can anyone choose to vote for someone who is selling off US interests to the highest bidder for personal gain? (Remember, Citicorp and Standard Chartered both accepted deals with the US Justice Department to pay huge fines for laundering vast sums of drug cartel cash, of course without admitting guilt.)