Let me aid the decision making process. Most republicans I know will acknowledge Trump is course and ill manured imn a kind of "boys will be boys" good time scolding of a prankster. but they see Hillary as true evil.;
What realistically is the worst thing about each? I( can't get republicans to give an answer on what Hillary has actually done wrong, most of the things they say just about her just amount to baseless baggage from the past and the idea that conservatives hate her so she must be bad. Republicans admitted that their house committee was put together to destroy her Presidential bid, They are just saying we hate her because she is hated.
The worst thing I can find that she may have done is delay in getting aid to US diplomats in Benghazi, Please read fact check .org  This article show step by step how the republican propaganda machine created the destroy and the congressional investigation to destroy Hillary's campaign,.
I admit she may be blameworthy in acting too slowly.
compare that to three facts about Trump:
compare that to three facts about Trump:
(1) Trump indicates that he thinks we can win a nuclear war, he says we would be safer if japan had nucs. That implies he either doesn't k 500 warheads is all it would take to destroy all life, The fact that he think we can win a nuclear war makes it more likley he wold start one, Plus he said he feels safer i Japan had nucs that means he's pro proliferation, That increases the chances of nuclear war.
(2) he thinks global warming is a hoax, It is a fact that the polar ice cap is half the size it was at the begging of the last century, watch Inconvenient Truth to see the hell we are headed for in terms of climate change,.Trump is so backward he wont even accept that a problem exists,
(3) He actually called upon a foreign dictator to influence our elections, there is strong evidence that he is an agent of that dictator., That dictator (Putin) is a former KGB agent who hates us for wining the cold war, There was Putin money for Trump's campaign manager. 
Even if Hillary was Jack the Ripper it would not outweigh all of that.
 Fact Check .org a list of artiocles om the Benghazi storyhttp://www.factcheck.org/issue/benghazi/ (10/8/16)
 Zack Beauchamp"Trumps Comments on Japanese Nucks are Worrisome" Vox ()March 31 2016)http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11339040/trump-nukes-japan-south-korea accessed 10/8/16
 Nuclear Winter
this article says 100 firestorms equal to Hiroshima would start it, the assumption is U,W. and SUUR going at it, that was the assumption in the model, But I assume a nuclear conflict between Japan and N,Korea would drag US and Russia into it, this article https://www.quora.com/How-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-cause-a-minor-nuclear-winter-What-about-a-moderate-one says nuclear winter would not happen now with today decrease megatunage, But ev en so I think all the radiation would really destroy all life on earth, Nuclear War Survival Skills, a websote, argues that nuclear war is survivable. but it also sways:
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths, believed by millions of Americans.Global zero: http://www.globalzero.org/blog/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-render-earth-uninhabitable
A 2014 report published in the journal Earth's Future found that even a regional war of 100 nuclear detonations would produce 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg!) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine.Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and the study's lead author, summarized it best
ok so it would be worth it to have one to keep Hillary out of office.?
He has called global warming a “hoax,” for example, and claimed that the Chinese fabricated climate change (just a joke, he later said). And inan interview this week with Reuters, he said that he was “not a big fan” of the Paris climate accord, and that “at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements.”
But more clues about Mr. Trump’s views on environmental issues emerged this week from a four-page briefing on energy policy prepared for the presumptive Republican nominee by Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota and an early supporter of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Cramer, who defines himself as a climate change skeptic, discussed in his briefing paper a variety of government regulations that Mr. Trump might do away with if he were president.
Longer term, if emissions continue to rise unchecked, the risks are profound. Scientists fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities.
this is a website put up by NASA everyone should read this aritlce weather you all about it or nothing,
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
 Andrew Kramer , et al.,"Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Trump's Campaign Chief." New York Times (August 14, 2016)http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html