Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

Before I give my closing statement I would first like to say thank you to Con. Con has been a very good debater, also I apologize for my horrible structure in the beginning. This is my first formal debate, Con gave me a good opportunity to learn the ropes. Saying that, I will now give my closing statement.Whitewater: Con is correct in his statement. My final point in this is: Whether she is guilty or not, this proves my point above, Hillary has a habit of associating herself with people she shouldn't be. Although there was not enough evidence to convict her, there was enough evidence to try her three times. That makes me even that is suspicious. To me this is different than if someone is tried for murder is ruled innocent. Hillary was tried three times, keep in mind, being ruled innocent doesn't mean that she didn't do it, only that there was some doubt that she didn't.Benghazi: In defense of Hillary in the case of Benghazi, Con said, "how can one be held accountable for someone else's role?" The thing is that it is her role. There is the reason the Secretary of Defense wasn't held accountable. Hillary Clinton was the one who received the emails and warning from the ambassador. She is the one who is supposed to keep in contact with him and report issues that have to do with security to the Secretary of Defense. She did not do that, therefore she did not do her job. Do you really think that the entire government would try Hillary Clinton but not the Secretary of Defense if it wasn't her job? It may be the Secretary of Defense's job to command military action when the matter is discovered, but it was Hillary Clinton's job to discover that information when communicating with the embassy's.Terrorism: I'm sorry for the miscommunication, I misspoke. Hillary Clinton's action did not create ISIS, but it allowed for the rise of ISIS. If we didn't pull out, like Hillary was advocating, we would have been able to keep powers like ISIS at bay. Con then mentioned again that it is not her job. But she was advocating and giving advice to who's job it was, which the advice she gave led to the growth of ISIS. Whether she was SoS at the time or not, she has political power. She used her power and encouraged people to make a poor choice. Con then asks for my source that claims there have been 66 terrorist attacks from 2009-2013.https://www.start.umd.edu...It provides the number of terror attack in United States per year. The number of fatalities and separate from that, the number of worldwide fatalities do to terrorism. But the number giving the amount of terror attacks is strictly ones that took place in the United States.Email: It is true that this single instance may not prove she will be reckless during her presidential term, but take this for example. If you are hiring someone to babysit your child, are you going to hire the person who fell asleep last time he babysat? Con's argument that nothing bad happened is irrelevant. The fact is, in the example, you left a child unsupervised. Although in this case, Hillary left about 30 classified and 9 top secret emails unsecured.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 is what England has, this is what China has, although Australia technically did not ban all guns, they arguably forced people to partake in the "Buy Back Program." As I argued in round 3, the gun control plan Con provided, "It is necessary to impose background checks to prevent the mentally ill and criminals from obtaining guns." As I already said, that has not worked in other countries and in the American states it has been enacted. Only 10-15% of criminals obtain gun legally. Therefore, only 10-15% of criminals will be stopped, even then they are criminals. By definition criminals do not follow the law, therefore they would just find an illegal way to obtain a gun.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...Taxes: It's obvious that getting the poor richer will increase GDP growth, but the problem is how to get them richer. Hillary Clinton's plan would make this virtually impossible for anyone to get out of poverty. One reason being, the most efficient way to get out of poverty is to start a business. Hillary's tax plan greatly favors large businesses. The reason being that only big business can survive the harsh taxes, small ones would be smothered in taxes, then in the wake of their destroyed business, drown in debt. It is only logical that people will continue to reinvest into America. Look at any rich person, not only are most of them philanthropists. But they also own businesses or are great investors. Most people don't reach a point were they are content and will no longer continue to strive to make more money, they will always want more, it is only human nature. So they will continue to reinvest to make more money. I would also like to point our Con did not argue that taxing the rich would continue to yield large amounts of money, like I claimed it wouldn't.Conclusion: Hillary Clinton like most any person has many faults. The only problem is, she is like most every person. In her political positions she has shown a lack of motivation. She has shown no effort to go the extra mile, which can be a defining trait of any successful person. She even has trouble meeting her normal expectations, like demonstrated in her time as Secretary of State. Hillary has been documented, this is not rebutted even by the strongest of Hillary supporters, lying constantly. This is a horrible trait for a president to have. Not only that, but Hillary has been involved in many scandals, significantly more than the average politician. Guilty or not, this shows she commonly associates herself with bad people.