I'll dissect your Gish gallop.
>She has been proven
The evidence for your claims is sketchy. While it is POSSIBLE that your claims are accurate, the sources touting them are usually the sort of batshit crazy that think DNC staffers sending each other a Ted Cruz speech mean that DNC staffers therefore agree with the Ted Cruz speech.
> that she is highly corrupt,
Hillary's corruption or lack thereof is irrelevant in this election. It takes literally fifteen minutes of research to confirm that Donald committed criminal fraud. (Trump University).
Assuming for sake of argument that you are right and Hillary is corrupt, the election becomes a choice between two corrupt people. If you're stuck with corruption either way, you may as well vote for the one who's better on other grounds.
>highly incompetent
To be as corrupt as the Reds claim she is, she has to be SUPREMELY competent to keep blowing off the investigations they throw at her.
> and does nothing on earth but for increasing her personal power.
Again, this is irrelevant: Trump is power-hungry. Presented with two power-hungry candidates, one picks the one who's better on other fields.
> She doesn´t care for shit for blacks or gays.
Whether or not she cares, her (verifiable) civil rights record in the last decade is better than Trump's campaign promises.
> She´s using money from fucking islamist fucking regimes and so on.
IIRC, when Ron Paul was asked why he didn't return a donation from a neo-Nazi group, he said that giving them the money back would just allow them to spend it on something *actually racist*.
(more to follow, hitting post size limit)