Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

Hello wryan, and thank you for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. Let me first set the record straight: 1. Wealth redistribution is one of the most outrageous concepts in our capitalistic democracy. I feel sorry for you that you even think it's principally justified to take one's wealth, albeit earned or not, and give it to someone of lesser wealth, for any purpose, and especially to "even out personal financial gains a tiny amount". This is a classic case of the Clinton's pitting one group against another. Hillary (and Bill) has been attacking the wealthy, including businesses, for the sole purpose of getting the votes of those people who aren't wealthy. Hillary uses this method to conquer and divide. And, with a Democratic congress, if she were elected president, she may very well be able to deliver on her promises to steel from the wealthy. This very thing is what Hitler did in order to gain power, and maintain it. Hitler pitted the middle and lower class against a group of wealthy people, the Jewish people. He made a target out of them, and gave the other people a group of people to hate. The similarities are disgusting and frightening. Hillary is advocating abolishing capital gains, so your argument that a bill would need to be passed is beside the point. I'm curious though, would share an A+ you received in math with someone who only received a C? No, because you would have EARNED the A+, just like the person who EARNED the C. 2. Having socialized healthcare is not better than having no health care because more people are adversely affected than not. Just ask all of the people in Canada, France, and the UK that cannot get dire operations for seven or more months because the doctors don't exist, nor do the medical resources. Right now we have a choice when it comes to our medical care, and supporting Hillary Clinton, who has no experience in the medical industry, would undoubtedly take that choice away. Americans who don't have health insurance have made that choice, and nowhere in our Constitution does it say the government's role is to provide free health care. To the contrary we are guaranteed the "pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of happiness, nor health, nor wealth. If you want to live in a socialized society, then move to anyone of the failing countries in Europe. 3. First, polls are totally untrustworthy, inaccurate, and the fact you think our leaders should make decisions on the polls of a biased media, whose questions are loaded in order to receive a specific answer, is irresponsible. Just look back at the exit polls in the last elections where Kerry and Gore were supposedly the clear winners. Furthermore, why even have leaders in your proposed world? Just take a poll, right? Wrong, we need to elect leaders based on their PRINCIPLES, and trust them to let those principles guide them when decisions need to be made. In Hillary's case, I would argue she lacks any principles. She will stick finger in the air, and like a true politician will say whatever gets her elected. 4. I'm sorry, but your argument again holds no water. Hillary Clinton has absolutely no experience in the health care industry…none. She is simply offering free goodies without regard to the destruction her policies will cause to this country, solely to be elected. By relying on advisers and helpers, do you mean like her husband Bill? Maybe she'll bring back Monica Lewinsky. Or, maybe we'll get Sandy Berger back who stole from the intelligence archives secret documents and hid them in his underwear and socks in order to cover up Bill's foreign failures. The Clinton's advisors are the most corrupt, money hungry, power hungry group of people to hit Washington. This is further backed up by the hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal funds she received from Chinese dishwashers and waiters who don't even exist. Of course, I'm sure you're not referring to the fundraising staff as her advisors and helpers. 5. Being divisive has nothing to do with winning 51% of the vote. Being divisive is the process of pitting one group against another, in this case the middle and lower class, against the wealthy and corporations. Also, I never said, "everything Bill Clinton did was also done by her." I said, both Bill and Hillary have a track record of using divisive politics to win elections. That was my only mention of Bill in my opening argument. But, since Hillary has chosen to stand by her man, I would say she is equally responsible. If she was a true feminist, and a true leader, she would have left Bill years ago. Instead, she stayed with him for political gain. On a side note, you are clearly not going to change your mind about Hillary, and neither am I. So, I'd like to point out some blatant lies Hillary has told the American people. I'm sure you'll just ignore them. http://www.hillaryproject.com...