But I do take issue with the claim that there's no difference between Hillary and Trump or that Hillary losing would be a net positive for the Progressive movement or any of that clap trap.
I think there is a difference, but perhaps a difference without a distinction.
I don't look as a Trump presidency as a path to a progressive future - but I don't really look at a Clinton presidency as a path to a progressive future. Clinton would be more progressive, on
some most issues, but being more progressive is not the same as being progressive.
I am generally not overly concerned about a Trump presidency. I have outlined those thoughts plenty, but it boils down to this: what is Trump going to do as President? He is going to appoint a conservative Justice - ok, so he will replace Scalia with a conservative justice, not earth shattering. No guarantees that another slot opens up in 4 years, and no guarantees that Dems allow a 2nd appointment on the heels of how the GOP treated Obama.
"Trump is going leave NATO - or refuse to honor our commitment" - President cannot unilaterally leave NATO, and if he uses the threat of pulling out to get other countries to start chipping in more, meh, not the end of the world.
"Trump is going to Nuke someone" - Really?
"Trump is going to dismantle ACA" - this one is tricky, because it is probably true. But, if we are being honest, ACA has not been effective at driving down healthcare costs. And while my goal would be 100% coverage - we can't make that work unless/until we address the underlying costs. And this is where I quibble with Clinton - she is not going to address the underlying costs either - and that is a pretty important issue to me. I preferred the single-payer, that allowed the government to negotiate better terms with healthcare and pharma industries. So, yes, Trump will disrupt this - but the compromise that is/was ACA, really was ineffectual and needs a radical fix, not a duct-tape fix.
The biggest concern I have with a Trump presidency is what it says about our electorate - the mindset that rewards the xenophobia. But, as I noted earlier, this mindset exists in large pockets of the country regardless of a Trump election. That is a ticking time-bomb.
With Clinton, my concerns boil down to two areas: first, I don't trust her at all on the economy. I think she will try to do something similar to Bill, and goose the economy, giving the appearance of short-term gains, at the expense of a long-term drag on the economy. We are still struggling to get out from under the housing bubble Bill helped create. Clinton's policies still favor wall street over main street - and I think we need to re-visit that economic model. I think her trade preferences hurt American workers, in favor of American shareholders - but there are more workers, negatively affected than shareholders.
Foreign policy - I think Clinton is more likely, than Trump, to get us embroiled in an international conflict, whether that is in the middle-east, or in the South China Sea. Her resume points to interventionism, and I think her ego will drag us into places we don't belong. That, to me, is a far greater threat to the country, than Trump's lack of diplomacy.
Environment - this tips in Clinton's favor, but not so far as to outweigh my bigger concerns with her economic and foreign policy.
At the end of the day, I find no rational reason to support either candidate. I accept that many like Clinton, and dislike Trump, and vice versa. I have not heard a convincing argument from either side that their candidate is that much better than the other. On balance, I find Clinton to be more worrisome, but not so much to make me want to vote Trump. Yet, I don't find either to be a signal that the world is ending. I don't know where my vote ends up - but I cannot imagine a scenario where I reward either party with my vote in this election.
) He seems to start off coherent, then his "thinking on the fly" gets him in trouble innocently enough. The sound bytes we hear are generally after he's doubled/tripled down on something he really has no idea about. All of this points to a severe lack in understanding of how our government works. Quite frankly, I don't think he has a clue how government works. I've never heard him list an action outside the lens of how he does things in business. This is one of the primary reasons I'm not concerned with him being able to actually implement any of his half baked ideas. As for how he makes America look to the rest of the world socially? Well, if we're being honest, we aren't the beacon of light/hope we once were. The world view of us is incredibly tarnished, to the point where I don't think he could make it significantly worse all by himself. Now, of course, establishments around the world will NOT like him and he'll strain our ally patience, but in the end we all know our allies are our allies because of reasons well beyond the social aspects. At worst he becomes a necessary evil. At best he's a bumbling goof who is lead by the people he's surrounded himself with politically. 
