I suppose I see what you mean. We often say "Hillary is the evil we know, and Trump is the evil we don't know." He seems quite maleable though, for example his views on Israel vs. Palestine are surprisingly nuanced after he "educated himself" on the topic. We can be guaranteed that Hillary will continue the Bush and Obama era abuses worldwide, while Trump's foreign policy has been all over the place. So I suppose the "evil you don't know" is scarier, but I am unsure which candidate will be worse on foreign policy. Before I used to think Trump would be worse because he'd enhance the worst aspects of the Republican party, but it seems like it wouldn't be a huge loss for warmongering Republicans to have Clinton, despite their phony protests. 

Well this election cycle showed me that I'm not a Democrat, so no. If Clinton wins it won't be with my support. That's partially because I refuse to use my right to vote to do so for the lesser of two evils on a corrupt politician who consistently skirts the rules, and partially because her policies are absolutely the antithesis of my stances. She's more conservative than liberal (as most neoliberals are), and as somebody who is going to work in the tech industry, I can't support a candidate that is so absolutely technologically backwards.

But, if the FBI recommends indictment the DoJ is going through with it, and the evidence keeps piling up for that to happen, we don't have to deal with that question.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, this always is funny to see. Only in the U.S does liberal only mean "social liberal". Not like Hillary is much of a liberal in any regard anyway. 

Exactly what make you think you still not voting for Goldman Sachs by voting for Trump.  It's very interesting to me why people believe Trump somehow isn't tied to big money.  Exactly what has he done to protray this image because from his background it seems very evident that he he would definitely be on the take.

I believe you need to check out the last speach Hillary made based on the tech industry.  If anything she is full steam ahead with support

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/12060228/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tech-policy

Hey, I didn't invent the term, I'm just using it as it fits! In fairness, as well, America is the most conservative liberal country out there, really, so the difference between liberal and conservative is a matter of how conservative our liberals are. Then again, looking at Brexit, perhaps we have competition in the coming decades in that regard. Doubtful since most Brexiters will be dead within 20 years, but you never know. 

I disagree. Real conservativism (adoration of institutions including the nation and state) doesn't widely exist in the U.S, at least not to the extent as one can find in European countries. There is no equivalent to the Conservative (Tory) party in the U.S, for example, and there is certainly no equivalent to the far-right European parties. Trump is quite noteworthy here, but Europe had its own versions of Trump decades (in modern history) before Trump got big. The most fitting description of the U.S is that the far-right and the far-left have been chopped off (by the nature of the first past the post system), the effect being that the center is more right-wing, but there is no actual far-right (softened fascist) element like in European countries. Trump might change that. But we will have to wait and see. The U.S political system is just a conflict between classical liberals, neo-liberals, and social-liberals (all forms of liberalism) with progressivism (yes it is different form liberalism) and European-esque conservativism sprinkled in from time to time. 

In Europe a conservative is somebody who wants to preserve traditions and institutions (such as in Britain - one would want to preserve the monarchy, capitalism, nation-state, etc.) This has been the historical definition of the term. In the U.S a conservative is just a classical liberal or neoliberal who is to varying extents religious. In Europe a liberal (in its purest sense) is a person who promotes laissez-faire along side social tolerance (what we - in the U.S - call classical liberal or libertarian.) In the U.S a liberal is what Europeans would call a social liberal (a mixture of social democratic and liberal ideas.) There are no real socialists in the U.S. There are no real fascists in the U.S. Both of these exist to varying extents in Europe. 

What's so bad about a hillary supporter? 

I mean, it was only one of his main platforms, that the only big money he's tied to is his. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter; no one gets to directly vote for the president from this point on, anyway. That's the silly aspect of the election - that people think their vote means anything past the primaries (pro-tip: they don't). 

I think this comes down to a difference in opinion on the phrasing of European vs. American ideologies. In my eyes, historically European parties until recently stuck to the rate of change, not the idea behind the change. European conservatives are accepting of change so long as it is gradual; American conservatives generally speaking are by and large against change. It helps that our conservative and liberal parties have to be completely blanket parties because of FPTP in America while in Europe you can get away with having several parties that are functionally different because of the execution of policy rather than the policy basics themselves. 

Whereas you see America as more liberal, I see it as far more conservative. Even American ideology fits that in my view - we're functionally a very liberal country until it comes to actually enacting change. Once we have to consider giving something up or the actual ramifications of change, we back down but on paper Americans are almost always seen as supporting progressivism. First thing that comes to mind was when people were asked about ACA policies and shown to be in agreement until they were told that the ACA is Obamacare, at which point they shifted towards disagreement. 

Essentially Americans are stupid. Which isn't a uniquely American thing obviously, that's true of everywhere with a public voting system. But I digress, my point was that one can simultaneously (and validly) argue that America is both more conservative AND more liberal than Europe, depending on how one views things.