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

R1 & P1While yes the majority are a against it, they are all majority Republicans who listen to Prime Minister. Netanyahu, who, by the way, has been making the same empty threat for a long time. More than twenty years. They have also threatened Iran with nuclear weapons in the past and is also one with out a clean slate, and as such has no right to argue Iran as he has. If Obama does as you said he would, he would be in complete power. There really seems to be two outcomes, and I do not mean to create a bit of a false dichotomy. First, Iran had eyes on a nuclear weapon for a while. You can't really blame them with Saudi Arabia (SA/S.A.) not far off who dislikes Iran. If we do not do the deal, the only other option to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons would be invading them, which is not a good idea at all. Second, the Nuclear Deal is nothing as you stated it, and quite clearly the opposite. On just page 3 on the 3rd point of the document on the nuclear deal with Iran (out of the 159 pages), it specifically says: "iii. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons". There is not a single thing about the Nuclear Deal that has to do with giving Iran any form of nuke tech. [1]What the deal does say in regards to Iran and nuclear technology is as following: "iv. Successful implementation of this JCPOA will enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the nuclear None-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in line with its obligations therein, and the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any other non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT." [1]So as you can see, the deal in just these two of the hundreds of points, is to, as transparent as it is, not produce, seek or otherwise similar approach to nuclear weapons, but able to use nuclear energy for power like any other sovereign nation, such as the United States, Germany, Russia, and so on.It has become quite clear, with the two sides in order to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you have the deal which is more peaceful, less lives lost, a chance as trust, nation building and so on, or you can go to war with them. The former is abundantly clear to be best for the nation.Both the left and right do not want Iran to get nukes, and even the right who oppose the deal made that very clear, which means their only choice is war. Choosing war vs a peace deal is not best for the nation and is a good reason why Obama doing as pro said would be better than shedding blood because we wanted to be the police of the world.R2 & P2It was quite fine and acceptable to compare Obama's amnesty to both Bush and Reagen, because all three of what they did were perfectly legal and within the power of the President of the united States. Sadly, Obama can not go through congress anymore. Even on things they agree with or say should happen, they disagree with and will not support or simply refuse to vote on things Obama brings too them. Such as the fund for the boarders he came to Congress about only to tell him no. On a subject they support, obviously, and clearly Rick Perry who has asked for aid. So there is no reason one could not compare the plans, especially when the purpose was very much the same. Allow illegals to be come legal in a sense, but they must meet a certain level, thus does not encourage Mexicans (let's face it, that is what you mean) to arbitrarily jump the boarders and become legal. Especially when it officially puts those who qualify on the radar. R3 & P3To address the point on Affordable Care Act (ACA) or commonly known as Obamacare. You claim it is a direct violation of the commerce clause, but it is in no way a violation. You only support is that it forces (because that is what the clause is in regards too) the people to buy a good or service and therefor subjects him to breaking the clause and therefor impeachment. The reason he has yet to be impeached is because Congress has no case. Obamacare doesn't force anyone to buy a service. Obamacare is simply you use the portal to find a healthcare service that fits your budget (it gives you companies based on your income and so on) or, if you do not want healthcare, then you can have between $300 something or 3% of your total income of the year taken out on tax day. That is in no way forcing you to buy it nor has he changed any laws that he can't do.So no, I did not ignore it, but I can only write out 5k characters and thus can not completely give everything I can on your post. It does not violate any laws, not is it impeachable. It is also sustainable enough to be used. It's not perfect and no one has implied it is perfect universal healthcare. It's just a footstep. So not does not force you to buy healthcare at all. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cited Work~~~~~~~~~~~~~1) Iran Deal Text, pg.3, points 3-4. http://www.documentcloud.org...