Mitt Romney would make a bad president.

Unfortunately my opponent appears to have misread the debate topic. 'Mitt Romney's proposals would succeed in congress,' is an entirely separate debate. What this debate was going to try and be about was whether these ideas are good ideas. The topic was, 'Mitt Romney would make a bad president. ' By accepting this debate, my opponent was taking the BOP of showing that Mitt Romney would make a good president. In that last round, he offered nothing to suggest that Mitt Romney will be a good President, or even that he won't be a bad one. His apparent rebuttal to every point I have made is that, 'It probably wouldn't happen. ' This is not an acceptable point as it does not disprove that he would be a bad president. Even if Hitler's proposals had not happened, that wouldn't have meant that he was not a bad leader. You can be a bad leader not just through your actions but also through your ideologies. My opponent has offered little resistance as to why his idea's are good ideas and is seemingly clinging to his piece of rebuttal which is, "It probably wouldn't happen. " This shows that my opponent cannot think of anything to say and is clutching straws. Straws that cannot even be considered legitimate points. His rebuttal point about foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired. First of all, His, 'few', gaffes were not blown out of proportion at all, and were rightly criticized by Democrats and Journalists alike. I believe I referenced in my previous round his gaffe in Jerusalem which was shocking. What part don't you understand? It is unacceptable all the way through and should be taken seriously and with outrage. Secondly, all of the moves that the Secretary of State makes will of course be authorised by Romney himself. It is absurd to claim that the Secretary of State will make any policy moves without the president's backing and support. i don't even understand what my opponent is trying to say. Is he trying to say that blame should be put on the Secretary of State if his administration makes a mistake (which is highly likely)? Even if he is, I don't see how that qualifies as a point in his favour. Even if this hypothetical situation becomes real, Romney will still be a bad president for letting this happen and not watching over his Secretary of State. So none of his rebuttal can be taken as legitimate material in his favour. These kind of scandals dont reflect the qualities that Romney would display as president. Actually, they do. Romney's business instinct will show if he becomes President. He will vouch for quick venture "get rich quick" schemes that aim to save the economy short term and not long term. This will be damaging and dangerous for the American economy and the American people. His congress point I have already disproved. "Ask just about anyone on here, the bank bailouts were a stupid idea and nobody would support bailing out any more failing banks, and the same sentiment lies with Congress because one of the biggest weapons that the GOP has against Obama has been the Wall Street Bailouts. " But that is EXACTLY my point! If the U. S doesn't bail out the big banks then they drag the economy down with them. Why do you think Obama paid $700 billion dollars to them? Out of the kindness of his heart? Of course not! Any person with a half decent idea of how the U. S economy works can see that the bailout was necessary to stop the bill getting any bigger. The way banks gamble needs to be reformed but as I said, that is a separate debate. .. "Point is, not even the GOP would let Romney give massive bailouts to the banks, and since sentiments among Democrats is actually the same way, both parties wouldnt even allow Romney to hand out bailouts. " I'm not saying that the bailouts were a bad idea, and that if Romney continued giving them he would be a bad president. I am saying that Romney will be a bad president because there is no way he will stand up to the banks and stop them from behaving like bulls in a china shop. .. I'm not saying that Obama would either but this isn't "Obama is a good president," this is "Mitt Romney would make a bad president. " " Hell when Obama said that the private sector "is fine" he retracted his statement about 3 hours later admitting he was wrong. " Again, he is confusing"Obama is a good president," and "Mitt Romney would make a bad president. " And yes I can criticize him for making a mistake. .. All in all, I have shown much more substansive material as to why Romney will be a bad president, and my opponent has offered very little to counter that.