Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

In this round I would like to Rebut Con's claims, as well as to protect the arguments I presented in the previous round. I will Follow the same order as Con's rebuttal in the previous round. 1a, Benghazi: As Cons states, "He fails to mention anything of prospective diplomatic consequences, or the incredibly complex process through which a response is formulated." That statement is correct, if I were to deny that it isn't as simple as making a call it would be a lie. He also brought up the point that Hillary Clinton's elected role is not to manage defense. But you have to keep in mind, although it is not her specific role, she is involved in decisions as well as communication. She was aware of this and even though it was obvious no one seemed to be doing anything about it, she decided not to step up to the plate. It is not rare for someone of a certain position to step out of what they were originally elected to do. For someone running for president I would expect her to make those strides to try and better America and the world to the best of her ability, even if that is not what she is specifically assigned to do. Con later on questions how this would be relevant to making a good president. As I said before, I expect someone who will be assuming the role of the most powerful person in the world to be willing to go the extra mile and work harder than expected. They need to show excitement at the sight of opportunity to better America and the world, in this case she was given an opportunity to go the extra mile but did not take it. I would also like to point out, although it is true that it does take a long time for information to be processed, the Ambassador began sending warning weeks before the attack. Even excluding that, it is not considered normal to have a 13 hour response time to a problem like that. Even in Iraq, Iran, etc. response times are very quick even for single units that have been caught in an ambush. Lastly as directly requested by Con I would like to answer, "explain how this doesn’t implicate the secretary of defense, as opposed to Clinton who was the secretary of state." To answer it, I do not believe that the Secretary of Defense should not be held responsible for what happened in Benghazi. I do not believe either of them should face any legal punishment, but I most certainly believe it shows incompetence, which is bad to have if you are running a country.1b,Isis/Terror: Once again Hillary Clinton was obviously not the only person involved in this argument. But nevertheless she was involved, not only directly, but in many speeches she supported taking boots off the ground. When they succeeded and this happened, it left a hole from were the Taliban used to be that was replaced by ISIS. I feel like I was quite clear in my argument why this shows that she would be a bad president but I will restate my point more clearly. In order to have a productive country, you must have a safe country. Seeing that Hillary has had trouble with her involvement with security as fore mentioned, that would mean she would have trouble keeping a productive country.2a,White Water: The scandal regarding Whitewater to me is one of her worst. I am aware that Hillary was tried three times, but the point is, why was she ruled innocent three times? She directly helped write the contract, she directly helped manage the properties, and she got money directly from the investments in question. Everyone involved, including some less involved, were jailed for fraud except Bill and Hillary Clinton. 2b,Emails: Con brought up the point that it is not illegal to use a private server, which he is correct in saying. I did say that it is illegal to use a private server, but I was not specific enough. What I meant more specifically was that it was illegal to use a private without approval. Before you can use a private server for government use you must first get approval from the State Department inspector general. She did not get this approval, therefore she did not do it legally. Yes she has admitted it was a mistake she still did it. For instance, if accidentally crashes into another car, even though it was accidental it still happened. That person would still have to face the consequences of their actions. Con has also claim that this does not establish Hillary as a bad president, I would disagree. As you may know it is difficult to set up a serer system. Although she did not set it up, she did pay money to get it running and keep it running. That was not an accident, she also didn't look at the laws, even though she used to be a lawyer, and she didn't think of the possible negative consequences of her actions. It is not good for a president to first of all not look at laws and second to not fully think out all there actions.Taxing the wealthy again: In Con's rebuttal, "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," is based on the understanding that having less money does not decrease the amount of money you will get. But that is inaccurate, there is a reason the rich got rich in the first place. The reason is because the rich got there because they new how to do business, make investments, and how to save the money they get. So if you take away their money they can make less businesses, make less investments, and are forced to push money of shore to avoid taxation to save their money. It's true that the rich will continue to generate money, but they will generate less because they have less money to make investments. It would make people instead of investing $2 and getting $4 back so you have more to tax and they have more to invest next time, you force them to invest $1 so they only get $2 back but you tax that $2 so they only have $1 to invest again. In the second part of this argument Con says, "this didn’t work under Reagan and it’s not going to work now," but what you failed to know is that it did work for Reagan. Frequently Reagan critics like to point to his first and second year of his first-term, which was a complete disaster. But his last six years as president were exceptional, he was one of the last president to deliver consistently high GDP growth with an average of 3.64% per/quarter. Reagan is also credited with stabilize the growth of the national debt which later exploded under Bush[II]. Reagan was also able to stabilize inflation which allowed for it to be diminished under the following presidents. Reagan also created an average of 165,760 jobs per month. Reagan was also able to lower the unemployment rate to the lowest it was for the past 15 years before he left office. So based on those statistics I would argue Reagan economically a very good president. I would also like to point out a recession hit America weeks into his first term which is not completely based on national, but often on the global economy. But even with the recession, Reagan was able to become economically one of the most successful presidents in recent history.http://www.usnews.com... Gun control: To be honest I am quite confessed about was Con is trying to say in his rebuttal, but he starts off by saying, "Pro did not argue that control wasn’t effective in other countries." I have never claimed gun control has not been effective in other countries. But besides Australia which Con mentioned and England, I don't know where gun control was implemented, or at least successful gun control. But the problem is, those countries used methods that would violate more than just the second amendment. Second, Con says, "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," I think this is very important in the gun control argument so I will rebut this. The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First of it sates that a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I think that is very self explanatory. It then goes onto say the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not a right of the militia, it says the right of the people. Even if it is referring to the militia only, militias are made up of people. If you were trying to legally buy a gun, but only militias could get guns, then that person would have to openly be a part of a militia. Which would then get that person arrested, in case you didn't know, it is illegal to plot against the government. If a militia was necessary, that would mean the government is most likely tyrannical which would make it even more difficult for a militia to obtain weapons. Saying that, it is important for people to own weapons so they can form a militia at anytime if need be without the most likely tyrannical government's permission which they most certainly would not get. Con ends his point by saying I have not provided a reason why the gun control measures that were effective in other countries wouldn't work in America. Once again, I never claimed it wouldn't, but those gun control measures would violate the second and multiple other amendments.Clinton recent Wikileaks: Recently many emails from Hillary and her associates have gotten released to the public. One of them includes Hillary's campaign manager say, "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans." This is a real email from Hillary's current campaign manager. Because of the limited characters I will elaborate on this more next round.http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...