Crooked Hillary!

Not willing to act treat like peers? Excuse me, which portion of the government is refusing to even discuss or vote on anything recommended by the other half?
Your argument is moot.

Republicans are out to prove that the government doesn't work by actively refusing to represent and govern.
They're literally running the government into the ground so they can complain about how the president is doing when they're the ones driving this thing.

The sheer absurdity of your viewpoint reinforces my believe that you live in an echo chamber.

How is my argument moot when you just said that that sort of thing is exactly what is happening? I didn't say anything about it not happening on all sides, it's a completely pervasive problem, none of the branches have any respect for any of the others anymore, and none of the parties have any real respect for any of the others anymore either. Obama knowingly puts forth bills that will be impossible to get through to claim they are being children, and Congress knowingly abuses their power of halting the process in order to make HIM look like a child. It's a playground fight between "adults".

The biggest mistake by far that you are making is having a vested interest in any politician or party; none of them have your interest at heart, none of them even care if you die unless your death reinforces one of their policies, people that are not directly useful to them don't matter at all, votes don't really matter much either given how gerrymandering and "battleground states" work. Getting worked up when "your party", either the face of or the policies of, is insulted, is illogical; everyone will make the mistake at some point, sometimes very often, but it's fundamentally incorrect, their policies should not matter at all to you, even if you agree with them they are really just wording them in such a way that the most people possible will do exactly that, and the implementation is often entirely different from that wording.

I hate Hillary, but mainly as a person, not a politician; she is a genuine, legitimate scumbag who cannot be trusted on ANY of her stances, the mindset of manipulation regardless of the ethical implications has corrupted her to the core. She is actually a very good politician because that is the definition of what a politician IS, and the better you are at being a heartless, out of touch pile of garbage, the better you are at being a politician. Obama is not a bad person, which is evidenced by the fact that he looks like he has aged several decades in his 8 years; if he came out looking fresh and unfazed by the pile of bullpomegranate that is the presidency, that would have been much more troubling. Therefore, I dislike Obama as a politician but not necessarily as a person, which I can also say about Bush.

I would vote for Trump even if he came out and said he was going to nuke any country in the world including our own the day he was sworn in, because I consider that the damage caused by a nuclear missile hitting a populated area to be less than the damage a Clinton presidency would cause, based solely on their character. A nuclear missile could kill millions of people and end the US as a country due to the backlash, a Clinton presidency could very well extinct the human race because the ensuing WWIII that -she- would cause would be much different than the WWIII Trump would cause; she would go down using every trick in her book, taking absolutely everyone else with her by bankrupting every country in the world using her extensive Foundation ties (which the power families would of course be in on, someone who owns the banks and the money itself can profit on absolutely anything and BRING DOWN absolutely anything, the only question would be whether or not they realized in time that she was too dangerous even for them to control), assassinating hundreds of political opponents in a last ditch effort to silence those who are calling for her head on a stake; there is much more to fear from a person who completely lacks morals than from a person who is simply an idiot, no amount of physical force is more dangerous than her mentality because the most dangerous people in history have all been narcissitic sociopaths that are also very clever. There's no question that she is clever, I'm not sure if she is actually intelligent but intelligence is not needed past a certain point for a person to be clever, though my guess would be that she is, because those two factors build off of each other at an exponential rate, there's no way she could have gotten this much power in this relatively short period of time unless she was clever enough to know who to manipulate AND smart enough to figure out HOW to manipulate them.

And yes, I am assuming both candidates have a good chance of igniting WWIII, there shouldn't be much question about that at this point, the only thing we can do is mitigate the amount of damage done by who is put into power. I consider that both the death toll and the chance itself with Trump are both lower, thus I will be voting for him. His stances don't particularly matter to me, it's better just to ignore what they say because most politicians never act on anything the say in the way they say they will, it's safer to just look at their history and extrapolate their "next move" based on previous decisions. Her stances don't particularly matter to me for the same reason, she will not do a single thing she says she will, and that includes both things I consider would be negatives and things I consider would be positives; none of the words out of their mouths can be trusted. The only thing that can be trusted is your own thoughts on them as people; the way I rate it, it's safest by far to vote in the dumbest candidate who also has viewpoints will garner bipartisan dislike in Congress so nothing they want gets done. Nothing getting done sounds like a bad thing but in reality it's the best possible option, the less that gets done the less that can be pineappleed up, because almost every bill that gets passed WILL pineapple more things up than it solves. On the flipside, the most dangerous by far is, as I said, a morally bankrupt, narcissitic (Trump is too, but all of these traits must be present, or at least "the more the more dangerous" type scenario), intelligent, and most importantly clever, president, bonus points if they own large portions of the system they are trying to work; Hillary tags every one of these red flags for me, Trump tags much fewer. I don't feel that Trump is anywhere near as unethical as she is, but he IS running for president so that doesn't mean he doesn't possess the trait, the problem comes when trying to gauge the levels of these things in each candidate, because it's hard to separate person opinion from fact, it takes a pomegranateload of research that most people don't have the time to do, it requires you to make an entire job of reading every single thing the person has ever done. I'm sure I've read dozens of books worth of dirt on both candidates, and at this point I've stopped because Trump is so far ahead of her there's nothing I could find on him that would make him worse than her, because she has done most things I would consider points against him if I found out about them already anyway.