Here is the post in question. Look specifically at the answers to questions 1 and 7.

Rather than continue to look at the world through the ideological blinders that Liberalism imposes in its dogmatic evangelism of the Equalitarian religion, we prefer to look & examine social relations & demographics from a perspective of what's real.

I don't even know how to dissect this in a way that shows how stupid this is. I mean, I don't know what's worse, the assumption that literally every political scientist for the last 2395.87 years were just sitting on their assess, deliberately deciding not to look at the world in the "persepective of what's real", or that "the perspective of what's real" somehow entails white supremacism.

Thus, racial & sexual realism is a key component of the Alt-Right - perhaps the key component that ties the diverse factions within it together.

This is probably more /r/badsocialscience than it is /r/badpolitics, but it's pretty clear here that this is just wrong.

[If trump gets elected] Instead of spending money on the rest of the world’s poor, we could finally spend money on OUR country and OUR people

Where do people get this idea that the US is spending all of its money on foreign aid? According to usaid.gov, only $43b was spent on foreign aid, which is a tiny fraction of our budget. But, more than this error, there are also two very unsettling presumptions that this comment has. The first is that foreign aid doesn't help people in the US, which is rather silly - if you look at the list of activities on the usaid website linked above, you can clearly see that many of these activities do help people in the US, albeit indirectly. The second implication is that the US shouldn't try and help struggling areas of the world, that it's not worth a fraction of our collective wealth to help people fight malaria. I don't really see how that's morally justifiable.

There are many more ridiculously ignorant parts of the post, but I'll let people in the comments sort that out.