Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

Before I offer my closing statement I would like to offer a few short rebuttals. Whitewater: I don’t know what else to say. Pro says that being found innocent does not mean you didn’t do it. While this is true in an epistemological sense, it is demonstrably untrue within the realm of legal discourse. As aforementioned, in a court of law, if you are not found guilty, for all intents and purposes, you did not commit the act. If you are found innocent, no one can hold anything against you. I understand pro’s point, however this is to assert that she’s guilty by association. Let’s say I have friends who sell drugs, but I don’t, and they get arrested for selling drugs. Can I be held liable? The correct answer is no. I don’t think it’s fair nor rational to assess Hillary’s aptitude for presidency by something she was found innocent of three times, while she was still a lawyer. The big take away is that she was found innocent. I can’t stress this enough; I have never seen anyone trying to implicate someone for being found innocent, none the less THREE times. Benghazi: Pro has failed to respond to my most important point, that Clinton did not have authority to deploy military forces. Essentially the argument is it took too long to deploy or mobilize forces, and 4 Americans died and this is Hillary’s fault. Remember the NCA:”“Constitutionally, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the national defense rests with the President. Since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the President has used the Secretary of Defense as his principal assistant in all matters relating to the National Military Establishment (NME) -- later the Department of Defense. The Secretary has statutory authority, direction, and control over the Military Departments and is responsible for the effective, efficient, and economical operation of the department.” The Secretary of State is nowhere to be found. So even if she wanted to, she could not have. Also, as I have said many times, which pro has not responded to, expert testimony indicates that the situation was handled well given the conditions. The House Armed Services Committee and the Accountability Board both praised the response. As Hilary was not part of the NCA, she could not have mobilized forces, and if she could be held accountable, it would reflect positively upon her as expert testimony praised the response. Terrorism: It would appear pro failed to understand my point. I stated that ISIS was founded around 1999, Hillary was first lady at the time. I was unaware that the first lady could be held accountable for foreign policy decisions. We began leaving Iraq in 2007, while Hillary was senator of NY. However, ISIS was well established before 2007. Furthermore, before Hillary become SoS in 2009, George Bush, at the end of his presidency, signed the status of forces agreement, stating we will be out by 2011. Once again, like many things pro blames Clinton for, she is not accountable for this. While this event may have in someway led to the current state of ISIS, I fail to see how this implicates Clinton. Pro has pretty much nothing to directly implicate Clinton, so pro resorts to something along the lines of “it really wasn’t her job, but she was kind involved so it’s her fault”. On no other subject would this be acceptable, so I’m in disbelief of how it’s acceptable on this one. Also, his source concerns total domestic terrorist attacks, and we are specifically speaking in radical islamist context. However, once again, this is the DoD’s job. Emails: Pro seems to now agree that it was not illegal nor was national security was breached even though throughout the debate he has argued that both were the case, and that would establish Hillary as a bad president. As I have conceded, it was a mistake, however it is human to make a mistake. This is what I was talking about when I said pro unfairly stacks the deck against Hillary. She acted within the confines of the law, and did not jeopardize security, yet this action entails she would be a bad president? Come on now. And I think pro even realizes the folly of this argument by stating” It is true that this single instance may not prove she will be reckless during her presidential term”. That’s precisely my point. We both agree that it was a mistake, and pro concedes that it illegal and that security was not breached. My point is that this doesn’t necessarily establish her as a bad president, and Pro appears to agree, so the argument is no longer relevant to the resolution. Tax: Pro’s discussion regarding poverty is a red herring. I only spoke about taxes regarding the top 5%, which is the opposite of poverty. Pro says”It is only logical that people will continue to reinvest into America. “ It may be “logical” or “intuitive”, but it’s likely not the case. You recall me stating “Eliminating deferral on foreign profit would generate 900 billion dollars.” That’s in one year. The way it works is, the rich can defer taxes on oversea income, as long as they keep it overseas. This provides an incentive to not invest domestically, it saves them a lot of money. “I would also like to point our Con did not argue that taxing the rich would continue to yield large amounts of money”. Once again my prior use of “first” was as an intensifier, not hinting at diminished returns. Say a corporate lawyer makes 500k a year, and is taxed 35%, which is 175k, so he brings home 325k. He still makes 500k a year, but takes home less of it. So as long as he doesn’t quit or get demoted, the government can still derive 175k on tax per year. So no you don’t “run out of other people's money”. Those who are taxed don’t generate less revenue, they only take home less income. And it’s not like they’re gonna get lazy and generate less revenue because they’re getting taxed, if what pro says about the rich is true, they would go out and make more money, which in turn generates more income for them , and more tax revenue for the government. If you recall my main point, it was along the lines of, if taxing the rich generates well being, it’s a good policy and should be enacted. I demonstrated that raising taxes on the rich would generate enormous revenue, which could be put forth towards many public institutions, which does generate well being. Pro has never argued against this, he’s merely concerned with duration, which is not a problem as I just displayed. Gun control: “Con once again says that I did not rebut his point that gun control would be effective. The only form of gun control that has worked up unto this point, is a blanket gun ban. “ This a conceptual failure, if a gun ban reduces gun violence immensely, then moderate gun control would reduce gun violence moderately, which is still good, given that Americans are disproportionately affected by gun violence. Also guns aren’t banned in the UK, one can still have one with a certificate. I never mentioned China, because it’s not analogous, it’s far too different of a country. My argument was ceteris paribus, gun control would be effective in the US, I believe I have demonstrated this an pro seems to agree. Regarding background checks, I guess we're just looking at different data.NPR states "A 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers assssed Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides." Nonetheless pro never refuted by initial argument, that gun control was a good policy, if it increased well being. Given that we agree that reduced violence increases well being, and gun control reduces violence, so it follows that it increases well being, and that it is a good policy. http://www.npr.org... Remember the resolution: Hillary Clinton Would Make a Bad President I believe I have provided valid argumentation for why she would be a good president, predicated on policy, and why she wouldn’t be a bad president by refuting pro’s arguments. Is Hillary Clinton perfect? No. However, she has good policies, as I have vigorously defended, and most arguments against her try to hold her accountable for things she shouldn’t be, which I have blatantly pointed out, furthermore it appears that Hillary opposers hold her to an unrealistic standard as I displayed through the fallacious syllogism in R4. I am greatly appreciative of pro for an intellectually challenging debate, and I have learned a lot from it. However, pro has failed to uphold the BoP, and failed to affirm the resolution.