Just as voting against guns, rape and evil will not eliminate any of the three, voting against crime is futile. One would think it then follows that voting against criminals doesn't work in and of itself.
A set of criminals like the Clintons will not go away any more than the mafia would if you simply told them to leave town (Did I say 'criminals?' Let's just settle for a cheaper epithet and call them 'thugs,' if for nothing else, then because it remains hard for anyone not to be a criminal under the joke PE class that is the Clinton dynasty).
Many Trump fans would like to think that revolution could happen through an entirely legal, democratic process from the top down. This is no more tenable than the Clintons finding some legal way to compromise national security and feign ignorance (though when presidents can legally go to war just by calling it something else, like a brother annoying the shit out of his parents by claiming that he jabbed his sister whereas they asked him not to poke her, you have to wonder).
Trump fulfills the perennial republican desire for small government, which conservatives are willing to settle for since government is pretty much assumed as an eternal fact of life. But how is he in a different position than the democrats were when Bush had gone to war? They all argued for a more humble foreign policy and didn't deliver, just as Bush promised and didn't deliver before he came to office.
You want to vote for a savior that will keep you safe from war (who, of course, gets rid of war with more war)? Can the frog vote for a less poisonous scorpion?
War is what governments do. It constitutes their very essence. Wherever you see a state, there are bones that lay far deeper in the ground than there ever first appear. States are created through war and perpetuate themselves through war. If politics are an extension of ethics, then states are the affirmation of spilled blood with a sacramental ink-stamp.
'The end of war' belongs to statist eschatology. Does it then follow that war will go away with the end of the state? Certainly not, but who would be left to go to war on your behalf for causes that don't concern you?