Okay, so you're clear on the part where the FBI decided not to press charges and described her behaviour as careless and irresponsible but not criminal, right?
And how the FBI admitted that she lied to them, and still didn't press any charges?
I actually agree that what kicked off this while scandal (private e-mail server) was a non-criminal act. Incredibly stupid, but not illegal. However, her deleting of e-mails to cover her tracks, and her lying to the FBI absolutely were. I firmly believe the only reason she wasn't charged for THOSE problems were because of political pressures put on the FBI by the President and his party, and even had the FBI wanted charges to be pressed, the (extremely balanced) Justice Department (
) would never have actually tried to imprison Hillary.
Who isn't pro-life either? Or is this all about the Supreme Court and a shot at overturning Roe v. Wade?
Indeed, Trump is not pro-life, and that's one of the issues he's flopped on.
And, as a realistic American, I understand that Roe v. Wade never will and probably shouldn't be overturned, simply because some women are still going to get abortions, and better that it be (arguably) relatively safer as it now stands, than a back-alley job with a coat-hanger.
However, yes, this is mostly about the Supreme court. With the death of Justice Scalia, the Court is dangerously close to becoming incredibly liberal-leaning.
I'm no lawyer, and I certainly don't study constitutional law in my spare time, but I'm not the only one who has thought the court has overstepped its bounds in recent years, and I do not want to see that trend continue.
Morality aside, I don't think they're quite on the same level of 'stance-changingness' (loving the neologisms here ). Hillary has flip-flopped enough to deserve her dubious reputation in that regard, but at least there are also a number of things on which she's constant - though one of the obvious ones is her being pro-choice, so hardly a point in her favour in your book.
With Trump, I'm not being facetious when I say I have absolutely no idea what his true position is on almost any important political issue - and my distinct impression is that that isn't because he's so good at hiding his real beliefs, or at faking beliefs he doesn't truly hold, but rather because he simply doesn't have fixed stances, lacking sufficient interest in the issues to develop any. I could be wrong on that second part, obviously.
I know there's some term there, it's on the edge of my mind, but I didn't care to spend 30 seconds looking it up when I could get my meaning across without any issues. I'm lazy, shut up. 
Otherwise, I suppose I can't argue too much with her long-term ideals. However, look at this election cycle. How many policies did she change to woo Sanders voters? How many did she immediately do a 180 on once the Democratic party robbed Sanders of any chance he may have had?
Indeed, Trump is no better, immediately swapping once he got the nomination. But, again, when it comes down to the two shittiest people possible, I have to vote for the one who at least pays lip service to the ideals I hold.
Try thinking of it this way: by electing Clinton, you almost guarantee a devastating midterm landslide for the Republicans in 2018, considering the Senate map.
This is a valid point, no denying it. However, as a man who votes based on morals, I can NOT vote for someone who will gleefully claim on national tv that she will nominate judges who will uphold Roe v. Wade.
It's murder, and I can not support it.
