Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.
There is so much stupid in this thread (everything that is bad is actually good!) that I'm hesitant to give an actual answer, but here it goes.
Every elected government in the world is eventually made up from two parties. In European Parliamentary systems (which are what most Americans look at when complaining about the us process) there are many parties, but after the election if there is not a majority party there is deal making and compromise made to create a coalition government. In the United States two party system, the brokering of these deals happens before the election. It is incorrect to think of the Democratic or Republican Party as a monolithic party made up of people with narrow interests. They are best thought of as coalitions of groups with some similar interests, and compromise is made to form a platform. This coalition building happens at the primary stage. So if you sat around not paying attention until the general election and wonder why you don't have choices you like, you already missed the boat. If you want to enact real change in the way that people have access to make change in government through voting, you need to work towards primary reform, not the destruction of a two party system. Things like winner take all primaries, caucuses, closed primaries, and other tools are the bigger problem.
Going further, you can see the failures of the GOP in building an effective coalition this election during the primary stage. Some of this was due to bad leadership, some of it is due to bad primary rules. Since Goldwater nearly burnt the whole thing down, the Republican Party has been a coalition of the small government/personal liberty crowd, the strong national defense crowd, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives. As you can see, some of these are in opposition to each other (social conservative vs personal liberty). In the year's gop primary, you could see different candidates with different priorities and the big failure of the party was never seeking to build any kind of coalition. In fact, everyone was happy to fracture the party further to make their own inflexible stand.
Which does bring us to how Trump fits into all of this. If you look at the rough groups above, which one is he? He's not a small government proponent, not a social conservative, a little for liberties but not that either, not a proponent of a large military reach, and he sure as hell isn't a fiscal conservative. It turns out I didn't list one major group: the white nationalist vote. The GOP for years didn't want to talk about this, and explicitly stated in the 2012 election post-mortem that they needed to pivot away from being the party of white nationalism. It turns out that racism and xeophobia runs deep, and Trump's support is built mostly on white males with limited education and isolationist and exclusionary ideals, and that group is much, much bigger than many had anticipated.
But don't take my word for it, Shakespeare said it all before. If you're complicit in this tragedy, which kind of voter are you?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0&referer=