Sigh, the reason I didn't respond to your original wall of text is because:
There is nothing new there to me.
Most of it is bullshit.
But let's go through it line by line I guess.
Her health looks like it's declining.
Personal attack with no evidence, and since this was your first statement I immediately didn't take you seriously.
The Clinton foundation is very shady at best and downright illegal at worst, and was blatantly taking donations from countries with whom she was working with, supposedly ado bias,during her bid as chief of state.
You know the money donated to that charity doesn't go into her pockets right? It's not a bribe if she doesn't get to keep the money. No doubt various actors were trying to gain influence, or let her know they approved of her decisions that benefited them, but it doesn't give her any personal gain.
Hillary Clinton is to blame for the way Benghazi was handled, or rather mis-handled, and the subsequent cover up and denial of said events after 4 American lost their lives there, 2 of them ex Navy SEAls, and one a US ambassador.
Why would you vote for someone who was working with the DNC to discredit and devalue Bernie Sanders' campaign, employed strategy to call upon his religious affiliation, or lack thereof, to defeat him, and resulted in the chair of the DNC stepping down and subsequently being hired by Hillary's campaign? It's all there in the hacked emails that were released in black and white.
Also bullshit, she didn't work at the DNC. There was no strategy to attack Bernie for his religion, just a single internal email asking about it. The DNC overall tried to put their finger on the scale, but there's no evidence it changed anything, and there's no evidence Hillary had anything to do with it. It's also worth noting that if she had something to do with it, there would have been evidence, because we got all the DNCs emails.
What's more concerning about this is that we know the Russia government was responsible for the breach, and that this leak was at a political strategic time (right before the DNC convention). The general way to debunk conspiracy theories is to ask your self if the means and motive were present for the theory to be plausible. In this case we know Putin wants Trump, since he said he might not defend NATO from a Russian attack, and we know Russia obtained the information that was leaked. So both motive and means are there, so in all likelihood Putin is meddling in US elections to try to help Donald, which is far worse than the DNC sending angry internal emails about Bernie.
Why would you vote for someone who wants to increase the amount of US bound refugees by 550%, without the proper background checks and immigration procedures, some of whom are likely practicing radical Islam (a phrase which she and Obama both refuse to use) and therefore likely to increase domestic terror attacks in country?
I'm not terrified of refugees. They have more extensive background checks than any other refugee program in the world, and the vast majority of them don't practice Radical Islam (a term Hillary has used, another lie from you). Also it's worth nothing that all Islamic terrorists attacks against the US since 9/11 are from US citizens, not refugees or immigrants. And it might have something to do with the fact that you can walk into any gun store and buy a semi-automatic weapon and as much ammo as you want as long as you don't have a criminal record (or if you do have a criminal record, but the background check takes to long, like what happened with the white supremacist Charleston shooter).
Why would you vote for someone who invites members of the Black Lives Matter gang to speak during her convention, the same people who chant 'fuck the police', 'pigs in a blanket fry 'em like bacon' and 'what do we want dead cops, when do we want them now'? Shouldn't all lives matter?
BLM isn't an organization. Anyone can claim they are part of BLM and burn down a CVS, but the BLM people that spoke at the convention didn't say or do any of the things you claim.
Also saying "Black Lives Matter" does not have a silent "only". You bitching about the phrasing is like someone bitching about about breast cancer awareness because all cancer sucks. Sure that's true, but it's deliberately missing the point.
Why would you vote for someone who wants to reduce and ultimately refute our second amendment rights as Americans?
She doesn't want to repeal the amendment, that's another lie. She wants to have universal background checks, and ban the sale of weapons to people we think might be terrorists. That's just common sense.