Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

I agree with Con on most factors of what a good president should be defined as. But I think it is important to be more specific. I would add on to Con's definition by saying the following:a good president must be able to unite a people, must be able to grow a following, and most importantly to create a sense of nationalism through out the country. This is because nationalism is an important factor in creating a successful imperialist state, although that has negative connotations, it can be beneficial to not only the country in question, but to the people of the world in general. Now to Con's statement, I agree that my format was not adequate in the last argument and I do apologize, but there was a meaning to my "structureless Gish Gallop," I would like to clarify what that meaning was. After I clarify my argument in round 2, I would like to rebut Con's statements claiming Hillary would be a good president.1.) In the list of scandals I provided in Round 2 I was attempting to illustrate that Hillary is frequently involved in lying, deception, illegal activity, and endangerment. As to allow Con to try to rebut my claim I will instead choose the scandal that I believe best illustrates my point. The scandal I choose to be a representation in the scandal popularly called, "Whitewater." This not being one of her more recent scandals, you may be unaware of this scandal so I will illustrate it for you. In the 1970's and 80's Bill and Hillary Clinton did not have the surplus of money they now have. So since Hillary was in law and both Hillary and Bill are businessmen, they took advantage of their skills which is by no means wrong. But the problem is how they took advantage of them, Hillary and Bill convinced a couple who did have a large sum of money, to give a large investment. They then bought a large plot of land and built a series of houses on it. They would then hand pick people who may not be able to pay there mortgages with out any hiccups, if you were even off on a payment by one dollar, they would take your down-payment as well as any other money you have paid and kick you out again. Once you were out they would repeat the process. To make it even worse they would target, although it wasn't exclusive, retired/elderly citizens. This was eventually discovered, a total of seven people, including the Clinton's, were involved in this scandal set up by the Clintons. All people were prosecuted and convicted for fraud except Bill and Hillary Clinton.http://www.breitbart.com... In the outlines for a good president I added and of what was originally stated, this would be very counter intuitive to what she should be trying to accomplish. By doing what she did, many people would become bankrupt after retirement and would most likely never recover. Committing repulsive acts like that would not unite a people, would not make people proud of their country and grow nationalism, and would definitely not contribute to increase well being. This was a extremely selfish act, it is important to have a leader who would be a role model citizen for Americans, if she was the role model citizen then the state of America would not improve.2.) In my round 2 argument I was very specific in her failure of security. The three examples being her email scandal, Benghazi scandal, and her failure with the War on Terrorism. The well being of a country is very much effected by it's security. To have productive people you first need to have healthy, happy, comfortable, and most importantly living people. It is clear that a president must be able to keep people safe because of that, but she had gone out of her way to act on something that inturn compromised the US' cyber-security and the Lybian ambassador's security. Although you may argue that it was unintentional, that is irrelevant to the point. Wetter you intentionally mess up or purposefully mess up, you still mess-up. In a country one mess-up could lead to deaths of many hundreds of people as demonstrated in the 9-11 attack.3A.) Con's argument on Hillary's tax plan started with him claiming the proposed republican tax plan would leave a large budget gap. Although that is a good point in a debate that does need to happen, it is not viable in this debate. We are arguing if Hillary would make a good president, not Donald Trump. Saying this I ask that you disregard that point, but I will rebut his claim that it would be effective to raise taxes on the upper-class. Although I have not heard the statistics you have provided I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's true. First off, I would like to point out that you repeatedly said the first year. This important to point out, although the profits from the first year would be quite substantial, what would it be the second year. Then each year you would have less and less money to tax until you finally and inevitably run out. The problem with high taxes like the one proposed, is eventually you run out of other people's money. 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 there money would take from all of society one way or another. Another important factor is that it is unfair to tax that much money. Money is a physical representation of how much work and/or risk you have put into society. Although they may not be working hard now, they had to get there somehow and most of them worked their way from the bottom.3B.) Con's last point argument was gun control. Statistically background checks and phycological evaluations do not work. They have been implemented in different cities/states but have not shown a decrease in gun violence. One reason is because only 10-15% of all criminals obtain gun legally. Even when they are obtained legally, they often do not catch people who should be owning guns. For instance the Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook the San Bernadino shooters both went through the process you proposed and still got guns legally. An example that was given by Con was Australia. They way that Australia did what they did was unconstitutional and would violate more than just the second ammendmant.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...