> This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump.

"false equivalence" is a non-argument used by Hilary supporters to sidestep proving that she is objectively better than Trump, after it is correctly pointed out that she is not an angel from heaven either.

> No way Hillary would have implemented this ban.

This is a misleading statement that you can't even prove, because it requires you to either be a mind reader or being able to travel to an alternate reality. For the sake of argument though let's assume that she wouldn't have performed this action, can you prove that she wouldn't have done worst things? She gets money from Saudi Arabia, you would have a hard time proving that she can do no bad.

You are completely incorrect. Empirically, the country voted with a nearly 50/50 split between the two candidates, meaning the country felt both candidates were "just as bad". Just because you have your own personal biases doesn't actually make them right, the data does.

Empirically, it wasn't 50/50, not even among the percentage of the population that actually voted.

That's pretty disingenuous. For the purpose of my argument, 48/46 is close enough to 50/50 to make my point that it was close to split.

Just because a lot of people "felt" something doesn't make it true.