Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

Now I would like to remind voters that it is merely my job to negate pro's claims that these would entail that Clinton would be a poor president. It would appear my opponent has 2 primary contentions: 1) Security(Benghazi, Isis) 2) Moral character(Whitewater,Emails) I agree that these scandals are certainly not of no importance, but I hope to establish that they are not sufficient to establish Clinton as a poor president. 1a, Benghazi: Regarding this incident, pro states the following: "On the days leading up to September 11, 2012 the American ambassador in Libya sent a barrage of requests for an increase of security. This was after seeing an increase of tensions. She did not send any help. On September 11 an attack took place and a distress signal was given, it took 13 hours for help to arrive even though there were forces less than an hour away that could have provided help. This led to the death of 4 Americans. " Now, when I remarked that Pro had thus far failed to establish how this would entail that Clinton would be a poor president, this is precisely what I meant. He fails to mention anything of prospective diplomatic consequences, or the incredibly complex process through which a response is formulated. The way in which the issue was framed was a gross oversimplification. He has not provided any concrete reasons for why this was a poor decision, or how this concretely translates to Clinton being a poor president. Another reason I noted that this was an oversimplification is because it is often seen that Clinton was the sole actor in this event, and this is demonstrably not the case. These matters entail the participation of a veritable plethora of agents, and furthermore it entails rigorous discussion between these agents. I believe this is to misconstrue roles, military response was relegated to the secretary of defense-- Leon Panetta, and the chairman of Joint Chiefs-- Martin Dempsey. Implicit in my opponents description of this event is that there was some stand down order or some gross communication or strategic failure which falls to Hillary alone, or at least primarily. However, experts do not find this to be the case. The independent accountability review board stated the following regarding the event:“Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U. S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U. S. government coordination and military response,”. The House Armed Services Committee said the following:”U. S. military performed well in responding to the attacks,”. What it comes down to is that these diplomatic decisions are a lot more complex than they appear, and under the circumstances the attack was responded to well. The larger point is that I don’t see how my opponent could reasonably establish Clinton as a sole or even primary actor, and furthermore how this was establish Clinton as a poor president. . http://www.factcheck.org... 1b,Isis/Terror: My opponent stated that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the creation of Isis. Boy is that a claim that needs extensive argumentation to establish. I’m unsure if my opponent means to argue this point so I shall suspend it for now. Regarding the issue my opponent merely says the following:”She has also failed horribly with the War on Terrorism, not only has she not been able to control terrorism in the middle east and created ISIS, but in her time as Secretary of State, there has been a total of 66 acts of terrorism on US soil. ” Once again, you see the use of singular pronouns like SHE. How is she responsible for these occurrences, and how does this translate to her being a poor president. Furthermore I would like my opponent to explain how this doesn’t implicate the secretary of defense, as opposed to Clinton who was the secretary of state. This issue seems to blatantly follow under the DoD. If my opponent can establish this to implicate Clinton, I will surely respond, however, the manner in which my opponent has framed this issue seems to constitute a red herring. . http://www.defense.gov... 2a,White Water:David Hale, the source of the loan, said that Bill Clinton coerced him into loaning him $300,000, however, he failed to mention anything of the Clinton’s during the initial FBI investigation. Hale mentioned the Clinton’s FOUR years later AFTER being indicted. This seriously calls into the question of Hale’s claim. Charles Banks, who was the then U. S little rock attorney established these claims to not be valid. The Clinton’s were found not be to be connected the criminal activities on three separate occasions. Within the legal discourse, if there is not sufficient evidence to indict someone, then they didn’t do it. So I would ask my opponent, given that they were found to be innocent on not one, nor two, but on three separate occasions, why does this remain an issue? . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2b,Emails:It happens to be the case that using an private server for communications is definitely not illegal. Kerry,Powell, and Cheney used private servers for communication. It’s actually explicitly legal under the Federal Records Act. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the email server was hacked. As far as classification goes, it is widely noted that the government classification system is overly rigid, and only a miniscule amount of the information was deemed to be classified, furthermore a good deal of the information was retroactively designated as classified. While this was certainly a mistake, this is in no way goes as far as to establish her as bad president. . http://www.politifact.com... Taxing the wealthy again:Pro’s objections are predicated on a misunderstanding. In mentioning the republican tax plan I was merely making a conceptual distinction, and highlighting the need for a viable tax plan. My continued use of “first” was used as an intensifier, highlighting how much immediate revenue it would generate. I was not hinting at some sort of diminishing marginal return. If tax rates are held steady as a function of income, how could it be the case that less money is generated in subsequent years. This could only become the case if the wealthy made less, which given the current state of affairs is unlikely. So my opponent’s claim that “you run out of other people’s money” is unfounded. The second objection regards economic theories. Pro actually espouses trickle down economics in the following quote:”It is also important to keep in mind that people in the upper-class are the ones who are providing many jobs, starting and investing in many businesses, and are very large consumers. Taking away their money would take from all of society one way or another. ” So should we give them more tax breaks so there prosperity can trickle down to the middle class? Of course not, this didn’t work under Reagan and it’s not going to work now. Trickle down economics ensures the prosperity of the rich, and with the current tax loopholes, the rich move their money into tax havens. The IMF says there is no demonstrated positive effect on lower classes if the wealthy get richer, stating”I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. ” I encourage everyone to read the IMF study and check out the link immediately below to view graphs that demonstrate how ineffective trickle down economics is. . http://www.faireconomy.org... . http://www.imf.org... As for fairness, this is a red herring, as we have already established the criteria for good policy. Furthermore, I believe it is unfair that they aren’t taxed that much. Even after these tax increases they would still be significantly better off than the vast majority of Americans. So is it unfair? Debatable. Is it detrimental in any meaningful sense? no Also here’s the source for the stats I quoted . http://www.nytimes.com... Gun control:Pro did not argue that control wasn’t effective in other countries, he merely says that what Australia did was constitutional. While personally, I find any honest reading of the second amendment doesn’t imply that citizens get guns, merely the militia, this is to miss the point. My point was that gun control measures were effective in other countries, and pro has not provided any reason to think that they wouldn’t be effective in America. I’ll discuss background checks more in the next round. Conclusions: Pro’s objection to taxing the wealthy is founded on an economic misunderstanding. Pro does nothing to refute control gun control as an effective policy, however he merely says it would be unconstitutional, while we can have a separate debate on the second amendment, his objection is not particularly relevant in this debate. As it stands, these are both good policies, and via syllogism, absence of adequate refutation, this can establish Clinton as a good president, contingent upon if good presidents have good policies, which we have agreed. Pro’s comments on Benghazi were oversimplified, and it is generally the reception that it was handled well under the circumstances. Pro has not established that Clinton was responsible for the creation of ISIS nor terrorist acts. The Clinton’s were found innocent regarding whitewater on THREE occasions. Regarding emails, there’s no evidence the server was hacked, and her conduct was not illegal.