Remove Barack Obama from white house yes or no & explain your reasons

Closing StatementAs I make my closing remarks, I would like to say that the official document is enough to say what the deal is about. As many might have said on the right, we are funding the Iranians. This is just not true, they are actually getting their money back. It was their money that was on hold/frozen and has been thawed for their use. The money doesn't come all at once. If we dismiss the official papers of the deal, we are simply falling to confirmation bias by saying we can only trust what article and not what the papers say. If Iran fails to follow the deal, they don;t get their money. If they wanted to make nukes, they would just not do the deal. It's that simple. And again, there are two options. Invasion or the deal. I don't think we should trust anyone claiming the former is better than the latter. And most of the democrats agree with the deal. This mythos that the right hates it and most of the left is false and has no true backup. I ask the viewers to just do their own research and read the deal themselves and look at Iran themselves. Here is why you should ignore the critics. They have never once given better alternatives. They are against it and what do the all say? "Iran will get Nukes" and I think pro even saying we are giving them money, nuclear tech for nukes and so on is obviously false. Nothing supports it and those that do support the truth even show that this lie is false. I believe the fact pro stated "giving Iran 150billion dollars to Iran, guess who is forced to pay for that 150billion, that's right the US tax payers, " is evidence enough he has not researched the deal. The nuclear deal that says they get money is actually Iran's money that had been on hold. So no, we are not, as tax payers, giving anyone in Iran money based on the Nuclear deal. I think the fact pro stated my comments on the documents not meaning anything just shows that pro does not want to listen to the facts of the deal.As I have stated, and I will say my points extend to this argument, the ACA is not impeachable and nothing about it warrants impeachment. That s why he has not been impeached, because it doesn't violate the constitution as cited by pro. And no, the ACA has not caused people to be let off or companies to be shut down. all the ACA does is create a portal to insurance. The insurance one would go and buy themselves, only the ACA lets you enter information, your income and where you live and about yourself, and then gives you a list of insurance companies with their premium and the cost and the quotes. That is all it does. In fact, the ACA has given people insurance and helped millions as the numbers will show you. Are you going to impeach a man and remove the bill that gives millions of people insurance, like me, and impeach a man for doing what, getting people insurance? The next step is universal health care paid by the tax payers. Are you going to try and impeach a President for helping the American people on a deal that obviously is better than not having it?Under the Constitution, the Gay Marriage act was legal by "all men are created equal and should be treated equally" and no one should vote for others to not get something that doesn't affect the person voting. Gay marriage doesn't affect the person who is heterosexual in a monogamist marriage. Al t he law does is say that marriage for homosexuals is legal. It isn't illegal. If anything voting to prevent people do to do something that is is not religious based, but rather government based, is illegal. The state can marry people, not just religions and it isn't a religious thing anymore and is not a Christian thing nor is this nation founded on Christianity. So the fat straight people can vote to say these gays can not get married when it doesn't affect straight people is wrong and discrimination. The documents of this nation stated all men are created equal, doing what the anti-gay crowed does is not following the word of the Founders.And the reason the Court can do it is the same as the past. The past. The state can not arbitrary vote and say these x people can not do what we can (the majority) on illogical bases. Like saying interracial couples can not marry or that blacks can not be with whites and must be separated. By saying marriage is a states right is the same as saying the state can tell blacks to not marry whites, in which case you might as well say blacks can not be mixed in places with whites. You can't because it's illegal. Why? Because blacks can not change their skin and as such you should not treat them differently on the basis of who they are and you also can't change gays, as it's not a choice, therefor they fall under the same protection.I hope the audience can make their own choice. Please for con.