Mitt Romney would make a bad president.

1) "He will push for de-regulation"Just because Romney wants something doesnt mean he will get it (assuming he does want to de-regulate). Most people forget that the path to change in America runs through Congress, and any change that any president or presidential hopeful wants to make needs the blessing of Congress in order to become a reality. As of right now the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. If this stays the same following Romneys election (should he get elected) then any change Romney wants to make would have to get through the House and the Senate. There is always the possibility that a few Republicans dont support the plans in the House, but there is a definite possibility that the Democrats wont allow any deregulation to pass.Any change Romney does want to make doesnt have any guarantee of becoming a reality since Romney needs Congress to make his changes, and anything regarding De-regulation will likely get shot down in the Democrat dominated Senate2) Foreign PolicyRomney has had a few gaffes in foreign policy (that have been blown out of proportion by the Democrats) but heres the thing, the President isnt the position that handles foreign policy the most, that power lies with the Secretary of State. In the Obama administration right now Obama has only visited 30 countries outside US borders http://en.wikipedia.org...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton though has visited over 100 countries in the same time period http://www.huffingtonpost.com...So really if Romney gets elected, the person he appoints to the secretary of state will handle foreign relations more than him. Policy wise any change Romney wants to make that could alienate Israel or Russia again has to go through Congress first, which would not be guaranteed because again, the Dems control the Senate.3) Tax Returns"It is obvious that he has something to hide as this has become a real problem for Romney"These kind of scandals dont reflect the qualities that Romney would display as president. When Clinton underwent the Monica Lewinsky scandal he didnt have a record of opposing women's rights and benefits, it was just a lapse of character, and this is the same thing with Romney. Just because he wont release his tax returns it doesnt mean that if elected he will pursue shady business tactics that he may or may not have carried out in the distant past"He pushes for de-regulation which means these organisations can take even bigger risks and behave even more irresponsibly as there is no one telling them what they can and can't do."CONGRESS. Any financial policy change Romney wants to change HAS to go through Congress like I said before, and any policy this extremely conservative will quickly be shot down in the Democratic-controlled Senate, meaning that should he be elected nothing this extreme would be enacted into law as long as the Dems control just part of Congress, which has been the norm. 4) Economy"as the way the U.S economy is set up means that it simply cannot afford to let the banks fail"we cant afford letting ALL the banks fail, but the economy could more then handle letting a couple small banks fail or even manage a handful of large banks failing too. If banks drive themselves into debt because of their own screw ups then why not let them go through bankruptcy like any other company? 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. On another note, it could be argued that the banks are doing fine now. The main concern with the economy doesnt lie with the shady and risky behavior of the financial system anymore, the main concern is now about job creation. There are no longer frequent bank failures like what was seen during the worst part of this recession, so worrying that Romney may or may not choose to bail out the banks may not even be a problem since bank bailouts really arent an issue anymore. "The last Government bailout reached $700 billion [2] and if Romney wins and he continues to kiss all the banker's backsides then bailout debt will continue to grow and grow"The bailouts were started by Bush, continued by Obama, and approved by many Republicans in Congress. Now though Republicans almost universally opposed the bailouts now, including Romney's VP Paul Ryanhttp://www.washingtonpost.com...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. Even Romney's own VP would be against it. 5) Foreign policy (again)"Mitt Romney will implement a strategy that makes the path of regional hegemony for China..... there is no way that Romney will be able to implement any sort of legislation....."So if the Pro admits that Romney wont be able to change relations with China, then why fret about it? Just because presidential hopefuls want to do something it doesnt mean they themselves will follow through with it. Remember when Obama wanted to shut down Guantanamo Bay? Yeah, but its still around, and even Obama is glad that it is. Just because Romney wants to do something it doesnt mean he will follow through with it, its most liekly just political talk to gain voters. And since this is China he's talking about, then there is no possibility his idea will come into fruition because China is such a valuable trade ally, and even the Pro knows that.6) Gaffes"His 'gaffe,' in Israel was even worse and perhaps more shocking. Romney said that the reason Palestine was less well off than Israel was because of it's culture."Presidents arent perfect and they occasionally make mistakes they even later retract. Hell when Obama said that the private sector "is fine" he retracted his statement about 3 hours later admitting he was wrong. Romney's comments on Palestine were regrettable, but it was a simple mistake and it didnt impact relations with Israel. It was a mistake, you cant criticize him of not being perfect because Romney, Obama, and just about every modern president in history have had their shares of saying stupid stuff. "If he makes similar speeches as President, I dread to think what the U.S's reputation will look like."Wait, if anything makes the US look bad it would be Romney's comments? Have you seen the US's reputation yet? The US has done FAR worse to annoy countries and make our reputation look bad then poor word choice in speeches. Hell weve nuked a country twice, pursued vicious drone warfare all around the Middle East, we let dictators get away with genocide and only step in when they are about to be overthrown, we have shady policies of our own.... Point is that the US reputation will be damaged by numerous other factors more than a few Romney gaffes....============================================================================Ok look, Romney does have a questionable business past and isnt the most well spoken person out there, but any radical change Romney wants would most likely be shot down by the Democratic-controlled Congress. On the other hand foreign policy relations are the duty of the Secretary of State and not Romney, and his handful of gaffes can be seen as honest mistakes, slip ups, and instances of where he should have put his foot in his mouth. They do not imply how Romney would act as president and just because Romney wants something, it doesnt mean he will actually follow through on his promises or even agree with them later because lets face it when you think of people in the GOP who flip flop, you think of Romney.