JMac recently made a comment that's getting some buzz:
He's an old man speaking off the cuff, so I wouldn't parse his comment to death. He was responding to a question. Moreover, he was implicitly responding to how some people characterize a vote for Trump.
Some of what he said was perfectly reasonable. The major weakness in his response was the claim that he's not voting for Trump, per se. Rather, he's voting for a worldview, voting for an ideology.
The obvious problem with that justification is that Trump doesn't have anything resembling a consistent worldview or ideology. Trump is not a thinker in any sense. He speaks and acts on the moment to gain a tactical advantage.
JMac also indicated that Trump has better advisors than Hillary. But there's no evidence that Trump listens to anyone, much less conservative advisors.
A better way to say what JMac was attempting to say is that a candidate with a malevolent agenda (Hillary) is more dangerous than a candidate with no discernible political philosophy.
Mind you, the issue is more complex. Even if Hillary is more dangerous in the short-term, it's possible that Trump is more dangerous in the long-term if he co-ops the conservative movement. In fairness, Hillary will do great long-term damage as well.