See, I just don't get this. There really aren't any examples of Hillary's "international corruption." I can't think of one, to tell you the truth. There's nothing nefarious about the Clinton foundation.
Well, okay. If you honestly believe that, that's fine. But there is likewise nothing "nefarious" about the things you mention about Trump, despite your bending over backwards to paint them as such. Let's take a look.
Meanwhile, Trump has been involved in dozens of shady business deals with associates of the Russian mafia
Not really. At least, not in the way you are describing. There is nothing provably "shady" (i.e. illegal) about any of his dealings. Implying that he was dealing directly with the Russian mafia, and doing so in an illegal manner, doesn't make it so.
So? That doesn't make it "nefarious."
failed business ventures.
See previous point. And by the way, this is true of the vast majority of successful business people. And not just the billionaire BIG business people either. Most "mom and pop" business owners have probably had multiple failed business ventures. You fail, you learn, you hopefully succeed at some point down the road.
He's cheated on all three of his wives, sometimes publicly.
I certainly don't approve, but this has little to do with him being "nefarious" or a con man.
Been sued for fraud many times.
Again, so what? Anyone can sue anyone any time for anything. You know this. And while I certainly understand the plaintiffs' lawyer's view of, "well, if there is enough to sue for, the defendant MUST have done SOMETHING illegal," that isn't the way the system (or reality) works.
He's a giant con man, and I can't believe people are falling for it.
So, again, we're back to labeling, but no actual EVIDENCE to show he is anything you have suggested. Something isn't true simply because someone keeps repeating that it MUST be. But this post is an example of PRECISELY the type of failure to engage in honest dialog that is the subject of two threads.