I'll make this reply (and it may be down-voted; I'll accept that) and nothing more on this subject, as it seems to be going off-topic; respond if you want:

> Fair enough, the man says some things that make polite society cringe

His words reflect thoughts that should cause any human being with a shred of humanity to recoil in horror, not merely cause "polite society" to cringe; as a society, we should be over all of this by now - it is disheartening to find that for a large segment of our American society, that we haven't progressed much beyond the 1950s when it comes to certain social issues.

> His position on illegal immigration, while couched often in racist terms

Again with the above. While he might not have gotten my vote had he spoke otherwise, there was absolutely no reason, as a politician and businessman seeking to obtain the highest office in the land, that he had to speak about these issues in terms which were bigoted, racist, sexist and derogatory to people both within and outside of our borders. He could have - and should have - easily explained them in a professional, rational, and clear-headed manner which we could all find commendable, even if we didn't actually support the proposals.

Instead, he chose to speak differently, in a style of language which perhaps pandered to his supporters. Those supporters should have supported him regardless of how he spoke, professionally or otherwise. That he felt that he had to speak in a more base manner in order to gain their support says much about him and his supporters.

> But he's at least talking about things that are important to a very large part of the population, which is largely invisible to those of us in media-savvy urban settings. And those things are important enough to people that they are willing to look past some of the vile things he's said and done.

Those people aren't ignorant - they as much as anybody should be able to see that historically, supporting a person for highest office who says and does "vile things" rarely reflects well upon them. Indeed, sometimes such a person causes great strife or worse, both among his supporters and his detractors - which could easily be predicted had they cared to look and understand. I guess we'll see how things work this time around. I hope I am wrong. I fear otherwise.

> Hillary Clinton was the definition of establishment status quo; the Clinton Foundation's dealings with foreign governments created at the very least the appearance of impropriety; and while her husband's foibles are not her own, Bill Clinton's past behavior can be seen in a modern context as sexual assault, and the fact that she remained with him was a matter of genuine concern even to some feminists.

While perhaps of concern for a potential presidential candidate, all of it pales in comparison to what we know of our current President-elect. Hillary's decision to stay within the bonds of marriage and support her husband, while perhaps being something that would concern feminists, should have been seen as commendable by the conservative/evangelical right - yet it wasn't. Regardless, all of it was and is very minor to what we know of Trump's past and present.

It is my opinion that when given the choice of the "lesser of two evils" - the choice was to elect the greater of the two. We'll see how well that plays out, I guess.

> Trump can legitimately say he has enough money that no-one can bribe him to do something he doesn't already want to do, and while there were allegations of assault, they do not seem to have been very convincing, as the conversation around them quieted down fairly quickly.

Conversation on such allegations can indeed quiet down fairly quickly when one has enough money; maybe nobody can bribe him, but the inverse also applies - especially in this case. Of course, this is merely idle speculation and opinion on my part - I nor anyone else has any proof.