Debate: It is preferable Hillary Clinton is elected rather than Donald Trump

Sources in Comments. May also provide postscripts designated '*' and '^'.Progressive Economics:The very first error in Pro's argument comes from his support for a Progressive Tax, something that I myself support. However, Clinton merely supports an increase in the progressive tax now. He neglects to mention that Trump does the same. However, Trump supports a progressive tax which includes all individuals in the upper class. Progressive Billionaire Warren Buffet pay almost nothing in taxes. The same is true for many of the elites on Wall Street and celebs in Hollywood. Should one truly believe that Clinton, with all of her Wall Street connections and Hollywood ties, that she will do anything the stop this tax avoidance by the elite using various loopholes designed for them?In addition, Pro discusses how an income on taxation will improve the economy and decrease the National Debt. Simply raising taxes does nothing to decrease the National Debt, as that the expenditures of the US gov't tend to far exceed its incomes almost every year by trillions. A mere $191 billions will do little to decrease the debt, more on this later. Clinton's plan is known as Keynesian* economics, in which in times of hardship, the gov't injects money into the economy, hoping this will work. In other words, the same old plans of both the Bush and Obama admins that failed each time. Thus we see that Clinton will simply try the same old tricks and hope for different results, mainly because the same old tricks are pleasing to her elite allies.Free TradeMy opponent argues for Free Trade, but neglects to do so on an economic basis. Instead, his arguments are emotional, pleaing for the well-being of foreign factory workers and claiming that no US jobs are lost in these Corporatist trade deals. Noble as it may seem to take care of "at-risk people" under foreign and oppressive regimes, this is not the duty of the US gov't. The duty of the US gov't is to ensure the well-being of American citizens, not try to improve the lives of all people in the world. That job lies to the individual in other countries. In addition, Pro makes the argument regarding Mexico and 25 other States. This assumes that Trump wants to cut off all ties. This is absurd, as a businessman such as Trump understands the importance of foreign trade partners. He has stated many times he merely wishes to renegotiate these trade deals. I also find it absurd that Pro supports a corporate tax but abhors a tariff, which is a tax in and of itself, one that will draw further income from powerful corporations.Gun RightsPro called my argument a straw-man regarding this topic. Then why is there a Delegate saying that Ms. Clinton will support a total gun ban, under the guise of "Common Sense Legislation?" http://townhall.com.... To quote David Hume, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."CorruptionPro sites many examples of Trump's corruption, and claims this negates Clinton's corruption: "This doesn’t become irrelevant until it affects the wellbeing of the country which Con has failed to elaborate on making this argument non topical." Clinton's corruption is in fact a major threat to the security of the Nation. First, I must discuss how all of Trump's "corruption" is either nonsense or not corruption at all. There are many successful graduates of Trump University. The whining of a few failures who have been picked up by the Progressive media is equivalent to an unemployed Stanford grad blaming Stanford for his failures. Hiding tax returns can be the same as Obama choosing not to expose his Birth Certificate. Personal documents, he has a right to privacy. Financing his own campaing! Are you mad, Pro? How is this corrupt? It should be honored and revered as opposed to Clinton who accepts large swaths of money in exchange for shady deals with gov't. Dodging the draft is something that should also be praised. No one should go to a war that they do not support. Accepting KKK endorsements, well, this Trump supporter expains it better than I can. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...As for adultery, did not Hillary excuse the infidelities of her husband, does she not excuse his repeated trips with the Palm Beach Pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.^ Now we come to the joint issue of asking a foreign Nation to hack Clinton's emails. First, this claim was little more than a conspiracy theory put forward by the Clinton Camp to hide their manipulation of the primaries to steal it from Sen. Sanders. However, I'll bite that Trump did so: but if we accept one conspiracy theory, why not two? There has been one theory floating that the Sandy Hook Elementry massacre was a false flag, done by the US gov't in otder to create an oppurtunity to enforce stricter gun legislation. This was done while Clinton served as Sec. of State. IF we can accept one conspiracy theory, that Trump asked the Russians to hack Dem emails, than why not accept an equally valid theory.The final case for Clinton's corruption is one Pro tried to ride off as unimportant. Saudi doantions to the Clinton Foundation, her family's personal slush fund. Discussed below.Foreign AffairsFirst, let us explain what ISIS is: They are a Wahhabiist movement that utilizes Maoist guerrilla warfare to fight against superior forces. One must ask, where exactly do they get their funding? Look no further than the pushers of Wahhabisim for the last 400 years: Saudi Arabia. To end what was said above, Clinton happily accepts donations to her personal funds from a bunch of theocrats, regardless of the consequences, even if those consequences are Iraqi, European, or even US casualties. Even from an altruistic point of view, Clinton cares little for her fellow man and is unfit for the Presidency. Pro also knocks Trump's plan of enlisting allies, comparing it to the now failed Obama plan. It is nothing like the Obama plan, which seeks to place the same Galulan limits upon foreign armies as Bush and Obama did to the US army. Trump's plan is to wage a violent war with ISIS. And yes, violence includes civilian casualties.** Clinton's plan amounts to little more than trying to prop up a puppet state under the same old idiotic mantra of "bringing democracy to Iraq". It is, as I have stated above, absurd that the US gov't should place the well-being of foreing Nationals on it list of priorities. Win the war at any cost. This obsession with the welfare of foreign peoples is exactly the same nonsense that led to the fervorous support for the initial invasion. Even if Clinton's plan to destroy ISIS works, there will be another enemy rising in Iraq to replace, funded with Saudi money given to them by Clinton's deals. One cannot merely export democracy, or any ideology for that matter. To quote "The Incorruptible" Robespierre, "Nobody likes Armed Missionaries".Trump's plan would allow for the defeat of ISIS, which would most likely end with the dissolution of Iraq. This is good because this decreases Saudi influence in the world, and would again show the other Nations that the US is unafraid to wage war as it used to do.ImmigrationPro claims I made some argument against immigration. I cannot recalle one. I do support Mr. Trump's opposition to illegal immigration, though. However, what I did discuss was the Refugee crisis currently plaguing Europe. It is far better for the US to accept all of Mexico than to accpet one million migrants desired by Clinton. This is because the US and Mexico share similar cultures, although not the same. The Middle East is nothing like the Western World. The rapes cited in the previous argument will only come to America, because the culture of the mideast is quite misogynistic. This is who Clinton WANTS to import. Clinton will not care, because she and her own loved ones will be safe behind the protection of the Secret Service.Trump in BusinessUnlike Clinton, who's experience in dealing is merely bribing with other people's money, Trump has had to negotiate many deals with many people. This would be very beneficial when dealing with foreign Nations. Unlike Clinton, who will serve her own interests (as she has done countless times before), Trump understand how not to "give away the farm" when dealing. He could preserve US interests instead of merely bribing, as Clinton is want to do.Media (again)Although Trump does have his support from select news sources, the Progressive media outlets, as said before, have abolished all standards with regards to this election. They see it as tolerable to lambast Trump while asking Clinton simple questions, but are infuriated when Jimmy Fallon laughs with Trump like a regular man. This is dangerous because Progressive Journalists do not want to be the journalists. Instead, they strive to assume the roles of priests and ideologues, telling the people what we must believe, instead of merely reporting facts. How can we be sure, if we allow Clinton to win and their wishes to be fulfilled, that they will be honest ever again? To elect Clinton will give her friends in the Media a free pass to act like Soviet State Media.Clinton's EmailsPro wrote this off as unimportant, claiming that Clinton broke no laws. This is flatly untrue. Clinton violated the Federal Records Act, Executive Order 135126, and arguably the whole thing was designed to protect her during the Benghazi affair.^^ Again, this is truly Hobbesian. Comey merely refused to go forward with further investigation (he is an investigator, not a prosecutor, thus he cannot decide to charge) in order to garner favor with Clinton should she win the White House. This is quite akin to J. Edgar Hoover's corruption in office, andd again we see that Clinton relies on the corrupt to hide her own corruption.