Exactly - the sanctions are being lifted very slowly, leaving Iran's economy struggling and flat. It's citizens are unhappy, and the deal is doing nothing important/productive for Iran. It's a US centered deal and it's simply unfair to Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian Supreme Leader and hardliner, states that "they [America] give promises to our face but conspire and prevent any progress." The United States has failed to keep their side the bargain, and this is only PART of the problem. The deal was supposed to help Iran economically, but their economy has stagnated, citizens/voters are not happy with the economic situation in Iran, and they are growing impatient - their living standards aren't improving. Sanctions are being removed only incrementally, and foreign companies are not wanting to invest in Iran's deprived economy.

Another point: Nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic law - Iran is NOT planning on using these weapons for war or destruction. Therefore, the deal doesn't do much for Iran and is simply just another way the United States can assert its power and control other nations.

Religion is religion, and I acknowledge that. Religion should remain remotely untouched, and religious tolerance is important, but there comes a point where enough is enough. When other groups are being intolerant towards US, it is not the time to be tolerant towards them. When it's in someone's religion (or being promoted by someone's religion) to hurt the citizens of this country, or any country, and go against everything we believe in, actively and violently, it is time for our government to step in and shut it down. I still think religion should be respected and protected, but to certain extents; everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to promote and participate in basic components of their religion (etc. wearing burkas, wearing crosses, public worshiping), but if these actions cross over the line and into the area of harming anyone, without their consent, it should not be tolerated. There is no justification for the removal of basic human rights, and as a democracy we should work to protect them. Intolerance should not be fought with tolerance; it should be fought by the government with dedication and consideration for the country's people.

One huge reason jobs are sent overseas is because it's cheaper. "Made in America" sounds great, but when you get down to factors like cost and workers' rights, it's much easier and cheaper to send these jobs overseas. Sadly, workers in countries like China get paid much less and work in harsher conditions than they would here, but it's less expensive for our companies, so that's exactly what they'll do. Also automation is playing a big role in unemployment, and I'm not sure what we can do to fix that. I certainly don't think, however, that backing out of this partnership would do anything about to fix it...

Immigrants are all generalized as rapists and drug dealers, but in reality there's no sufficient evidence to prove so. A very small percentage of the 11 million illegal immigrants actually have a criminal record.

Some drugs may come from Mexico, but I wouldn't say it's entirely the immigrants' fault that the Americans are buying their drugs. After all, they're not forcing our "fellow Americans" to buy these drugs. These American citizens would find a way to buy them if they really wanted them, whether they're from Mexico or not.

Also, a 20% tax on Mexico imports wouldn't be a sufficient way to pay for the wall. With the wall's estimate around $25 billion, the funds would take YEARS to collect. People won't buy as many Mexican imports if there's an enormous tax on them, simple as that. Plus, Donald Trump claimed "Mexico would pay for the wall," but in reality, it's the Americans that are paying, both economically and socially.

America is a country that has been founded by and built by immigrants. I'm not saying that it is okay to have swarms of illegal immigrants in our country, but there are many misconceptions about them, and it's unfair and illogical to discredit their fundamental role in the nature of our country.

Also, globalization is a good thing. Opening borders and allowing trade between different parts of the world can only benefit us in the long run. Power does not mean cutting our nation off from the rest of the world; power does not mean adopting the protectionist, overly nationalistic mindset and doing our best to ignore the rest of the world.

One thing to think about involving the labor argument is that automation and outsourcing are the main causes of unemployment; not immigrants. People claim that "immigrants are taking their jobs," but a lot of times in reality, they're jobs these people would never even think of doing.

For anyone who didn't know, we already have a wall. And it isn't working. A slightly larger wall would make little to no change. People who really want to come here would still find a way to do so.

Trump is imposing this idea of a wall on Mexico, who wants nothing to do with it, and is telling Americans they won't have to worry about paying for it. "Mexico will pay for it." Yet Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto insisted they will NOT. News flash; there will be a 20% tax on Mexican IMPORTS, which means Americans are paying for it. Even with the tax, however, it would take years to make enough money to pay for the wall. The whole situation makes no sense and is fairly slight of hand on Trump's part.

Another factor to consider: not all illegal immigrants are criminals. In fact, only 2% of illegal immigrants have criminal records. It's wrong to assume all of them are rapists, gang members, and drug dealers. Using common sense, we can infer that those aren't normally the type of people seeking to escape where they are and begin a new life, anyway. Even if you take the side that immigrants are all "trash" and "useless," I hope you'd believe that they are smart enough to know that the United States is not a place where they could excel in these criminal ways of life. Most people are attempting to seek opportunities and start a new life; one free of the violence and danger present in their own towns and homes. And most of the time, they'll do anything to blend in with everyone else. If they commit the smallest crime, they risk being sent home, and they know that.

Problems do not only arise with the idea and effects of a wall, but also with the fact that it will be difficult and expensive to create. The border between the United States and Mexico is roughly 3,100 km (1,900 miles) and runs along diverse and rugged terrain, with the Rio Grande close by. This wall would not only be illogical to build but unrealistic. Not to mention expensive: Trump said he is great at building walls and that he can "build them very inexpensively." If you consider $25 billion inexpensive, then you got it. Trump claims it would cost between $10 and $12 billion, but looking at the facts, there's just no way.

Other issues that arise are that of the environment and geological aspects. Ever year, many species of animals and birds migrate between the north and south of the American continent. They cross the border in order to mate with animals from their species that are genetically different from them, an essential part of keeping these species alive. With this wall impeding their natural path, many species would become endangered or even extinct.

But even if you don't care about the fragile ecosystem of the Rio Grande, or about the wildlife that live throughout the American Continent, maybe an issue involving humans will resonate with you. Much of the land along the border is PRIVATE land, and I'm not sure how Trump would plan on taking this land from the citizens that have lived there longer than he's thought about being president, or maybe even longer than he's been alive.

There's no real, strong evidence in favor of the wall, and it's an all around illogical and vacuous idea.

"My understanding is the Articles of Confederation are the original Constitution minus the Amendments." This is where you are wrong. The Articles of Confederation are much different than the Constitution without the amendments. Here are some reasons why:

Under the Articles-- states are sovereign, no independent executive, no federal courts, congress had no taxing power or power over interstate or foreign commerce, each state has one vote, ammended only if it had approval of all the states, congress had specific powers, only the state government could act directly over the people.

Under Constitution-- People of the whole nation are sovereign--exercise

of sovereignty is divided between states and the

central government. Independent executive chosen by electoral college.

Separate federal court system, with power to resolved disputes between the states. Congress has power to "lay and collect taxes, duties,

imposts, and excises." Congress has power to regulate commerce with other

nations and among the states. Congress consists of two bodies. Number in House is based on population and each state has two Senators. Amended with approval of 3/4 of states. Congress has implied as well as specific powers. Both central government and state governments acts directly on the people.

I think one of the most important parts of this deal is how it addresses these important concerns (required minimum wage, child and slave labor, workers' safety and other labor laws). This will be an overall good move for not only the whole world, but our country specifically. What you mentioned about foreign labor becoming more expensive and outscourcing becoming less appealing is a very important aspect some people are missing; one of the main points of the partnership is to make labor in the East safer and, in turn, more expensive. Outsourcing wouldn't be as much of a problem as people think it would.

You say the TPP would be a hindrance to the economy, but in reality, it would be a great thing for not only our economy but the economies of all the countries involved... boosting GDP, income, and overall quality of living. Trading more would bring better economic opportunities to our country.

There are many stipulations with the TPP, but ultimately it would be a favorable deal for the United States. Bringing awareness to issues such as requirements for minimum wages, labor laws, and environmental standards would ameliorate all of the countries involved and bring them closer to the level of the United States in these areas. Globalization is a good thing; trading with other countries in general, but especially the eleven in this deal, would open the United States to more possibilities and more economic opportunities. These 12 countries alone would create more than 40% of the world's GDP; the partnership would decrease tariffs over time and make our exports cost less. In all the countries involved, the partnership would increase income and GDP and improve living conditions.

The deal would also make the United State's presence in Asia more prominent, allowing more competition, and it would open the way for the United States to trade with Japan, allowing the West to be less dependant on China. China's economic influence in the east and even west, however, will decrease, allowing the United States (and the partnering countries) to have more economic control. Without the TPP, China's economy will continue to grow and China will continue to "steal our jobs," instead of facing a major setback as far as economic control of the east.