I agree with this wholeheartedly, Iran is a threat to world security given they will start another decades series of wars that will affect American lives.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, Iran is a threat to the world due to the wars it will start. These wars would obviously cause death amongst the world and most importantly other Americans

The democratic institutions of Iran are enough there to ensure there isn't a widespread rejection of any form of government, as people don't listen much to people who don't listen to them. Though the authoritarian aspect of their government is hidden behind a religious banner to justify it, strict sharia accordance, Islamic law, and little Shia laws amongst it all. Given Iran's history of funding terrorism, the nuclear deal will quite obviously allow them to develop weapons to start trouble be it outright or through extremist puppets. The 150 billion for whatever needed is dumb, Iran has plain-faced said it wants Isreal blown off the map, they will not tolerate a Zionist Jewish state in the area. If the deal were made obvious wars would get started in MENA and that would in turn of course waste many innocent American lives on the conflict. The inspections are something that have lopeholes in them, the same as anything. Iran simply cannot be reasoned with

There are levels to the government with checks and balances on all sides and parts, it is not an elite majority completely controlling of all other governments.

The constitution does not create a Unitary government, but a federalist one.

This sort of perspective is that of someone divisive, you cannot have a unified country that is decentralized into states, the state will begin to matter more than the collection of the country and at this point, you get warring city-states squandering under the name of "country"

The constitution is there for a reason, it is a stronger form of government and keeps the states focused on the country as a whole rather than just their states, which in turn makes us stronger and harder to be easy pickings for enemies(which at that time would have been a serious concern). If we look at history we can see that decentralization is almost always inferior for states, since they are less strong and create more faction problems between the states(and within the states). Centralized states on the other hand take into consideration and create a compromise to get goals done and take what they need for their collective betterment.

I agree with your statement tenfold. This is something that we should all come to understand firstly, teaching the things that happened arent the problem, politicizing them for X and X party is. Just as any other thing this should not be a discougared topic but one embraced differnetly.

^agreed. everything Vulgar has said here are my thoughts. These are two different scenarios and no one said anything about ruling over the other, history should not be forgotten, it must be remembered. However what needs to be done is do no overblow it(on both sides of the spectrum) for political reasons

I think race is talked about too much when it shouldnt be, race is a relavent discussion on things such as unproportionate shootings of black males vs other races who arent(for the same things as well) with data to back it up along with it. Claiming someone is a racist and wants to "return to the old days" because they don't agree with you or share your sentiment is an improper way to use it, a way that is becoming the norm today. This leads to race being overspoken on to the point where when race actually matters people don't want to hear it and take it for complaining.