Don't get me wrong - I will not be voting for Donald Trump. I'd sooner gnaw my hand off.
That being said, I can see a rational, justifiable reason to vote for Trump over Hillary, and that reason is reflected in who supports Hillary.

“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”
...
The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.
The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.

It's interesting to see Democrats giving each other high-five's every time a Republican war hawk abandons Trump to support Hillary, without any consideration about what this actually means.

The Clinton-neocon partnership was solidified by Trump becoming the Republican nominee. But their affinity for each other has grown steadily over time.
The neoconservative Weekly Standard celebrated Clinton’s 2008 appointment as secretary of state as a victory for the right, hailing her transformation from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”

Neocons aren't supporting Hillary for lesser-evil reasons, like most Democrats do. They've embraced her because she is one of them, and Trump isn't.
Trump's foreign policy is anything but "fleshed out".

This was Clinton's first direct and sustained attack on Trump, and though Democrats had been preoccupied with the unsavory identity politics of the presumptive Republican nominee, Clinton devoted only a few lines to calling out Trump's habits of "demonizing Muslims" and insulting women, Mexicans, and the disabled. Most of her speech went after Trump's utterances on foreign policy. "Like many across our country and around the world, I believe the person the Republicans have nominated for President cannot do the job," she said. "Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different—they are dangerously incoherent. They're not even really ideas—just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies."
Pundits across the Beltway's ideological spectrum cheered. Conservatives at the National Review and Fox News agreed with liberals at Huffington Post and Vox that this was Clinton's "best speech yet" and "her best case against Donald Trump." In recent days she has built the theme of Trump's "dangerous, incoherent" ideas into her stump speech.

Hillary's criticism is spot on - Trump's ideas on foreign policy are indeed "incoherent".

The problem is that Hillary's ideas on foreign policy are very coherent.

To Clinton and other inheritors of Wilson's calling, Trump's specific sins are what some have crudely called isolationism. Rather than seek U.S. military dominance as a means to extend American influence, Trump has insisted that other nations bolster their militaries and defend themselves, which Clinton dismissively reduced to a demand to "let more countries have nuclear weapons."
What Clinton offers instead of Trump's "truly dangerous path" is a foreign policy built upon the classically Wilsonian idea that America "is an exceptional country" that is the "last, best hope on earth." She promises to "secure American leadership" and to prove, through diplomacy and military action, that "our country represents something special, not just to us, [but] to the world."
Unfortunately, presidents with these coherent ideas have been the most dangerous of all.

It's certainly a milestone in American politics that for the first time since the Baby Boomers were still children, the Democratic Party will surpass the Republicans in militarism.
Hillary has ushered in this era. If we are to prevent a catastrophe, the antiwar left must wake up to this fact. Especially now that the Democrats are pushing for a new Cold War.