Romney should be elected over Obama

I'd like to clean this debate up a bit for the readers and give the voters 3 main voting points. The arguments in the previous rounds brought forth by my opponent and I have categorized into 3 main areas: Domestic policy (to include the economy), foreign policy, and integrity (to include competency). This round will be my ideology heavy round, and my final round will be my fact heavy round (I will not introduce any new debate topics in my final round.)Domestic PolicyMy opponent has put forth some very compelling arguments. Starting from the beginning of his contention about Obama's economy efforts, it is very clear that my opponent is intending to make that the number 1 voting issue here on DDO about the economy— as it has been made to the American public. In his efforts, he's attempting to make it appear as if this economy is doing worse than it was 4 years ago. If my assessment is true, he is wrong. In fact, Mitt Romney doesn't even hold this viewpoint. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...) My opponent's motion to engage in a debate of smaller numbers to attempt to prove the point that the economy is doing worse, will not be granted. His own candidate is against him in that aspect, thus it doesn't garner a response. Romney just feels as if he's more capable at getting the economy up to speed faster than it is moving. (http://slog.thestranger.com...) If my opponent can make it clear that his minor debate has a realistic approach at the overall debate topic, I will be pleased to debate issue. Now that it is clear that our economy is moving forward, it is imperative that it be made clear that this section of the debate is to be about whether or not we prioritize military spending or social programs. It is clear that Mitt Romney wants to prioritize military spending, money that Obama wants to go towards social programs. But how does Mitt Romney's plan pan out? According to multiple sources, most importantly fact check. org, it doesn't add up mathematically. (http://www.factcheck.org...) Saving the details of this plan for my final round to save space in this one, let's move to the last economic issue, Obamacare. It is clear that Romney wants to remove Obamacare, and allow states to then construct a health care system in which it would be more specific to their citizens. But when given that option as Governor, Romney chose a plan in which Obama seemed to have gotten the basis for his plan. He wants to prioritize the state's ability to make 50 different identical plans to Obamacare on the basis that we cannot afford it as a country. Essentially advocating that the more wealthy states afford these plans and extend benefits while the more poor states are forced to allow its citizens to suffer when it came to needing health care. If this is not the case, then it appears that the case is to be made that we have different types of human beings in different states to which each state won't benefit from having the same kind of plan to aid the sick. I ask the audience, do citizens in certain states get sick in different body parts than others? Is it accurate to say we can't afford it as a country? No (http://www.factcheck.org...) but if it was accurate that we couldn't, would it make sense to extend our military budget more by the trillions if we could be using that money to provide each citizen with aid? Last question, if the reason we won't consider aiding each of our citizens because we fear socialism, is it reasonable to then say that we are enabling preventable death because of a false ideology? The notion is silly when you take into account that one of Romney's greatest achievement in Mass. mirrors The Affordable Care act in many ways.The job growth chart my opponent brings into play is ironic because it cuts off just before we would see an extreme slope in our unemployment rate, but I will address this argument, and the argument my opponent has put forth in direct conflict with mine about subsidizing food, in my next round following a few charts of my own on economic improvement.Foreign PolicyThis is the main function of the Commander in Chief. A function that Romney is in neck deep with no understanding of, and it was very evident in the last foreign policy debate.As February 28th, 2012, Romney criticized the president for giving a deadline for leaving Afghanistan. Stating in Detroit, MI that it was his, "biggest mistake," and he was, "wrong." On January 14th 2011 he stated, "It Is My Desire And My Political Party’s Desire To Support The People Of Afghanistan And Not To Leave." This just passing debate, he agreed that 2014 was an excellent leave date for Afghanistan.On April 27th, 2011, Romney expressed disinterest in pursuing Osama, in the last debate he agreed that Obama chose the right plan of action and praised Obama's decision.On August 22, 2011, Romney Attacked Obama For Calling For The Removal Of Qaddafi Saying "Who’s Going To Own Libya If We Get Rid Of The Government There?" The very next Monday he stated, Romney Said "The World Celebrates The Removal Of Qaddafi." On September 27, 2006 Mitt said he would have taken the exact same action Bush had taken right down to the war strategy in Iraq. 2 Years later on January 24th 2008 Mitt stated in the GOP debate that, "The Iraq War, After Hussein Was Captured, Was Under managed, Under prepared, Under planned, Understaffed."Not only this, he concurred that all of the President's actions on foreign policy were the right things to do, despite campaigning against nearly every single one of them over the last 4 years, and preceded to speaking on economic issues. Not mentioning troops or veterans a single time in his closing speech during his foreign policy debate. The issues he decided to discuss disinterest in, the smaller number of ships for example, proved that he had little to no knowledge of how our military operates. The man in charge of everyone's sons, daughters, husbands, and wives, would have no idea what to do if the country needed him. Much like GWB.The fact of the matter is that Romney is a wishy washy candidate, who has no true stance on a large amount of key issues in this year's election, leading to the 3rd and final topic.IntegrityMy opponent mentioned Obama is not the true American dream because he has used drugs, because he spent time helping the poor& homeless, and because he spent time around a far left liberal. But these have absolutely nothing to do with social mobility and is an attempt to skew Obama's character. He then goes on to talk about wealth distribution as if someone has attempted to take a wealthy citizen's entire pay check to redistribute amongst those who are less fortunate. Obama is not a communist, he believes in maximizing your potential and being rewarded for it. The difference is that he believes in a safety net, and that all should have at least a manageable starting point.Not to say that Romney is a man against the people, just that no one knows Romney's true stance most anything. He has no consistency. In regards to the video I listed in the previous round, my opponent stated that it was 5 years old so that it should be inadmissible. However, that is not very long ago. More importantly, Romney has essentially switched positions on all of his foreign policy issues, wavered his stance on abortion, wavered his stance on economic issues, illegal immigration, auto-bailouts, foreign policy, health care, & women’s rights since the Winter/Spring of this year. "Romney is a sober guy. Obama is a politician."~The Great Roy LathamNo man afflicted with Romneysia can or should be considered sober. I've run out of characters and will address all dropped arguments in my next round.