Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

Darren burford For so far I know the UK is in talks with 4 countries and hasn't got anywhere yet. Australia is desperate to have a deal? Basically all countries already have stated or insinuated that a trade deal with the UK can't endanger a (possible) trade deal with the EU, so this will make negotiations even harder if there is a no deal brexit.
13
So essentially like most sides in war do? During every war nearly every side did/does propaganda like this. As for the use of fuel. No idea how much fuel that takes, but we know that Hamas holds fuel for the war aims, which this is considered under. Any side in a war will keep strategic reserves of things like fuel and use it at their discretion. There is a lot of bad and reprehensible things Hamas does, but I feel that this is pretty standard or at least not really a problem like you are trying to turn it into.
3
Satellite networks will keep working regardless. It makes sense for international news agencies (and maybe even foreign aid workers) to bring the equipment needed to use satellite networks with them specifically for this reason. I wouldn't even be surprised if this is being brought in by aid agencies in limited quantities specifically so there can still remain communication and understand what is happening.
3
CFHforever he's lowered my taxes and if you aren't higher class or a bussiness by around 2025 it will be higher than before increased the GDP which is just a continuation of what happened under Obama strengthened border security by seperating kids from their parents, which he had to turn back due to pressure (this is seen by basically everyone as one of the Trumps government worst scandals btw) decreased unemployment which again was already going down at the same rate as under Obama. Unless you show me a sudden jump difference this is nothing really special. Want to try again?
3
CFHforever I'll now adress your post and if I find time I'll adress the video's you used as argumentation. so obama told us that gdp growth over 2.5% would never happen and all we could do was manage the decline. It DID NOT grow under obama and attributing it to him is a common dem tactic When did he say that? It would be weird that he'd say that, seeing he had gdp growth's of up to 5.1 in comparison to Trumps best so far at 4.1. Maybe he might have said it in his first term, but for his second that would be weird. Just like he inherited a bad economy from Bush, Bush got a good economy from evil Clinton, Clinton got a bad economy from Bush sr. They do it every time. If it is the truth, then what could you say otherwise? Can you show me that it is wrong? That the economy at the end of Obama and Clinton wasn't booming and at the end of Bush's terms failing? (PS I never claimed Bush sr gave a bad economy to Clinton, I wasn't there, I haven't looked into that and won't support this claim without evidence, which there is for Clinton-Bush-Obama) As far as separation of families at the border, that was an existing obama policy, even though the dems encouraged people to bring children to help them ILLEGALLY enter the country. Obama's policy of detention of illegal immigrants happened during a period with a lot of new arrivals/crossings, like 1,5 times as many as now, and only on a non-frequent basis where children seperated from their family (in cases where there is more illegal activity than just illegally crossing the border, like also smuggling drugs). This compared to the Trump administration who made it a standard practice to seperate children from their parents and then even call these children "unaccompanied minors", while they were originally accompanied by someone. So your claim that this was a practice also executed by Obama is a gross overexaggeration. You know why Trump had this policy implemented? Because in his first few months the number of new arrivals was unusually low and he claimed this was his doing. When after that the numbers started to rise again to normal levels, he freaked out, suddenly he couldn't claim low numbers anymore. I also wish to note that Trumps deportation numbers are still around the same as in Obama's first term and that Obama had the largest amount deportations of any US president. Not to mention the problems with child trafficking at the border. Many of the people bringing children aren't even related to the children they're bringing. Numbers and evidence please, thank you. And unemployment barely moved under obama. In october 2009 the U-6 unemployement rate was at 17.10%, in December 2016 it was reduced to 9.10%. In my eyes an 8% reduction can't really be classified as barely moved. This is a yearly decline of 1.14%, Trump's average unemployement decline so far is 0.88% each year, so 0.26% lower. Thy hey claim to have created however many million jobs, but it doesn't equal the jobs lost under obama. When Obama entered office the U-6 was at 9.2%, when he left is was 9.1%. From these numbers you could assume that he created only few jobs (and definitely more than were lost), but he became President in 2008. The first year of a presidents term, they are still working on the budget and policies from the previous president, and it is in that year that most jobs were lost due to the 2008 crisis. In january 2009 the U-6 was already at 14.2%, going from this to 9.1% already indicates the creation of many jobs. But a crisis like in 2008 isn't easily stopped and dealt with. The ultimate point at which Obama's policies changed is around when the U-6 was at its maximum of 17.1%. Again to reach from this back to 9.1%, you need to create a shitload of jobs. Where you get your us news? Bbc? Think for yourself, you've been lied to I do think for myself, I don't watch the Bbc, fox, whatever. I research things myself and look for statistics and different explanations. I can hardly be lied to by US media if I don't follow US media.
3
@llt8101 Yeah exactly. Even in this video you had those Israeli blatantly lying. It was also stark how that one couple acted like the children of Palestinians were worth less then Israeli.
2
The economic crisis was due to bushes policies. The first few months of a presidents term the economy is still a conqsequence of the previous president (Trump even took credit for the good economy that back then was still a consequence of Obama's policies). The crisis was caused due to mostly deregulation under the bush administration, meaning Bush isn't just responsible for the failed wars in the middle east, but also for the crisis. Scandals? Iran deal a scandal? Even though any great european ally of the US supported it and it actually was a good deal for both parties? Collapse of Obamacare? You mean the thing that was based on an original republican plan that the gop blocked every way they could? Obama even said that the ACA wasn't ready or good yet and that it needed a lot of improvements. What did the reps do? Basically getting rid of it, without a real alternative. Everyone in the world living in a country with healthcare and who has some intelligence could see that it would fail/failed because it didn't go far enough and still left way too much power in the hands of the private insurance companies. Uneamployement at 12%? Like that isn't normal after the greatest economical crisis since the '29 crash. And it actually was at it's highest 10% and this was halved to 5% by the time he left office and the same trend is still going on now under Trump, a great deal due to Obama's policies still. Or do you maybe mean the U-6 unemployement stats, which at it's highest were 17% and after Obama less then 10% (and again going down at the same speed under Trump). This was in 2000 at it's lowest point at 6.9%. After bush it was 9.10%, so despite a strong economic crisis, Obama got it at the same result as it was when he went in, Bush even with a good running economy couldn't stop it from going up by 2.2% by the end of his term. Fast and furious? You mean an operation like one which already once had been executed in 2006. The operation of which was later found that ATF agents were at fault and that the head of the justice departement didn't even knew about it, let alone the president?
2
I don't know how anyone can support Israel looking at this. They literally show people being bullied and forced out of their house just because Israeli settlers illegally came living in their neighbourhood and a tank opening fire on a car trying to turn around. Obviously Hamas' actions should be condemned, but so should the Israeli ones. And as long as Israel is doing what they are doing, there will remain conflict in that area and for good reason. I don't think anyone in the west would accept someone coming in, taking part of their land and then constantly colonising more of it while treating you the original occupants badly, bullying you and killing/arresting you if you try to refuse/protest and imprisioning you in a large open air prison (almost a gigantic ghetto). People resisting against that would be called freedom fighters and hailed as heroes and while you obviously want to think (and likely early on try) to only focus on acceptable military targets, if that doesn't work you'd likely also turn to terror actions. It isn't like all these people that support Hamas wants to have to have a conflict or wants to support such an organisation, but they almost have no other choice but to. A more lenient organisation like the PLO just gets nothing done, they are a lapdog, by everyone in the west in a similar conversation they'd be seen as a collaboration government.
1
James Witheley It is, a second or third muslim in a developed country overall has a lower fertility rate than those that live in their place of origin.
1
+Undercover Genius If these public services weren't part of a socialized system, they would be provided by private corporations, and you would need to pay for them. You would need to pay private companies for using the roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, police, army, fire departement, ... (maybe even to vote, although there probably wouldn't be a reason to vote.). America is a capitalist country with socialist parts. No pure capitalistic country is succesful. If you weren't part socialistic, but pure capitalistic the companies would run everything and you wouldn't need a government.
1
Hamas is already named a terrorist organisation by most nations and the use of human shields repeatedly condemned, it is just not focused on, since it wouldn't matter. It isn't like Hamas would change their approach suddenly. And it is also weird expecting a terrorist organisation to follow international humanitarian law, they literally are a terrorist organisation because they don't follow it.
1
It is an absurd comparison, since Hamas is so brutally specifically because it lacks the strength of the IDF. But in the same situation? I would think so yes. If their leadership think logically, they'd also know that assaulting an urban area full of citizens and IDF looking like citizens would be much more difficult than an urban area with most citizens gone. I honestly think this is also one of the reasons why the IDF does it, because it makes their job in the end easier with every person that leaves (their safety is hardly their main concern imo, considering people are still dying due to strikes in the "safe south" and they didn't reopen things like water lines etc to the south). Now would Hamas spare innocents Jewish civilians without such tactical considerations? Probably not, they are still a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organisation. Would Israel do the same to Palestinian civilians? No, they wouldn't but that is normal for a functional state or they would be a terrorist state themselves. Though they might still just deport/displace these civilians if it fits their policy. Anyway, these questions serve no real purpose. Hamas is objectively worse, that however doesn't condone all Israeli actions and policies either, even if they are always (slightly) better than Hamas. I think we can safely agree a normal state should be held to higher account than a terrorist organisation.
1
@javiervargas2488 The taliban also runs Afghanistan, doesn't make them less of a terrorist organisation. ISIS also governed quite some land for a time. Just because a terrorist organisation governs something, changes that at all what they are or how they should be perceived/treated. Now if Hamas had diplomatic relations with most/many countries, we could discuss this, but that isn't the case.
1
@javiervargas2488 Neither you can argue if they are less or more of a terrorist organization. Nor did I. Now, you are arguing Hamas would carry out themselves like the IDF is doing with Gazans if they are part of an estate that carries diplomatic relationships with other countries What I meant is that if Hamas has diplomatic ties with a lot more countries, it would get threated much differently, in that there would be more pressure on them to avoid civilians casualties etc like is being done with Israel. But because the nations know that Hamas doesn't care or has no diplomatic relations, it is useless treating them in the same way diplomatically/publically. They aren't going to stop endangering civilians just because they are called out.
1
Yeah, it is weird they immediately freed someone and it happened to be a soldier, surely hostage will be kept deep in the tunnels were Israeli troops will not come without a very hard and long fight? Or she was just recently captured during an incursion and Hamas wasn't able to move her into the tunnel system.
1
MartinIDavies name 3 pieces of UK legislation that Scottish MP's on their own where able to initiate and bring into existence (or prevent) because they didn't think it is a good idea? Indeed, none. That's why you work in groups, parties and coalitions, you idiot. If the UK MEP's stood alone, then it's their fault, not the EU's.
1
MartinIDavies You do know this 70 billion was over a period of 6- years, not yearly. What you are talking about is the UK's contribution from 2014-2020. And about the import/export tariffs, you first need to get those though. And revenue from that isn't going to be so high. Besides, as the tariffs go up, it will be the british costumers that feel it. And please which super highways? Do you mean those that transfer data? And the commision is accountable through the EP, which can decide to fire the commision
1
Bot are you Blammit? Theresa May is appointed by her party, her ministers are appointed, so why do you have a problem with the commisioners being appointed?
1
I am for a parliamentary system, but doing that in the EU would take away power from the memberstates, fuelling the anti-eu even more and thus making it unlikely to come about soon. And I did cast a vote, for my national government, which then appointed a commisioner. By your logic I should find the EU council bad, because I couldn't vote for the other 27 (soon 26) governments or the European parliament because I couldn't vote for MEP's from the other countries. Or even closer to the UK, should someone not agree with the UK parliament system because they couldn't vote for a member outside their region? We are talking about just different forms that are still democratic, eventhough one might be better than the other. Because the Commission forms a de facto government over the whole of Europe without a single vote being cast. Isn't this the same for the UK ministers? Forming a government, check. Over the whole of the UK, check. Without being personally voted for, check.
1
That's indeed the one I have in Belgium and what I want in the EU, but it is unlikely to happen because like I said this takes away power from the memberstates (they can't appoint the commisioners) and ironically enough the UK would be one of the countries most against this exactly for this reason.
1
it is superfluous if they work on the same topics, this is why with a political reform you also should include a clear partition of powers/resposibilities. External trade, external border protection, environment and even external immigration should be in my eyes on the EU level (and eventually also the military except some kind of national guard). Cultural and other stuf should be on the national or even regional level. Personally I don't really see a difference whether these things are on the EU level or national level. You always will need to be part of a larger group to influence such levels and as one can see, you basically have very similar political party divisions across the borders.
1
did the german states become worse when Germany was unified? Is the UK worse of with scotland, Ireland and Wales? throughout history one of the major themes is the growth of nations. They rarely become smaller and are better for it, on the other hand, when regions are part of a larger nation they often are better off (there are exceptions ofcourse). You have the right to think that the abolishment of your nation as a selfgoverning political and cultural entity is a terrible thing. And if this happened due to war and conquest, you would be even more right. But I am not talking about abolishing your cultural entity, only about unifiying the countries under a single higher government in terms of politics (and this only for certain things). This is already the case in the UK with the UK government and the lower governments of scotland, wales and NI. Is your country worse because of it? Furthermore holding onto your system because it is your system is only going to lead to stagnation which is shown in the past to not be so great. We are coming into a new age where larger nations and economies will be more important than ever, where the west is if not in a decline or stagnation, at least in a time of lower growth, while other nations are quickly catching up and might eventually outgrow us. Globalisation and progress is what's pushing us to unite more, ignoring that will only lead to you slowly decline both as an economy and a world player.
1
+MartinIDavies But you shouldn't look at the gross, because this doesn't incorporate the rebates (money the UK eventually doesn't need to pay) and the money you get back. The net figure would be more around 8-9 billion, which is considerably different. * Meanwhile we do know EU tarrifs will be offset against reductions in tariffs from trade with non EU countries* What do you mean with this? Other countries aren't just going to lower their tarrifs because you're not in the EU anymore, and lowering your own tarrifs to let the products in cheaper, would mean you have to do this for every country, basically taking away any protection your "industries" have and lowering the UK's income from tarrifs. So I don't know what you mean by that.
1
Bot are you Blammit? I didn’t say cultural identity Neither did I as a self governing political and cultural entity You mentioned cultural entity, while I in my post before that already stated that culture would remain in the hands of the regional/national governments.
1
+MartinIDavies Ofcourse they can be reassigned or continued, but it's not money that they will "gain". Also you do know the rebates are payments they don't need to make and which stay in the UK, therefor they can already be assigned as the UK wants.
1
Independent sources already concluded that the initial investigation supports a trajectory coming from Israel most in the hospital bombing and discredited an audiorecording that was used as proof. This makes the word "likely" even more important. If the the PM was certain that it was an Hamas rocket, he'd never have used that word. So it seems both the US and UK are just supporting Israel's side of the story for the sake of supporting Israel, rather than knowing it wasn't them.
1
@sigmaalpha9989 More conquerors than occupiers. The difference is whether the people can stay were they live and essentially just continue their regular life (mostly). Israel has repeatedly pushed out the Palestinians. If they are not occupiers, they'd try to at least integrate Palestine into Israel, the problem with that is that it would make Israel a majority Arab nation, something most in Israel would never agree to.
1
@scottmccoy127 Unfortunately that is what usually happens with such insurgencies, if they can't hit the miliary/important people, they'll start targetting whatever they can. The reason is the same: trying to make the conflict too costly for the other side. Ofcourse it isn't allowed under international law, that is why they are deemed terrorists. Many "freedom/resistance fighter" organisation of the past would also likely fall under the terrorist banner, while they now might get hailed/remembered as heroes. I think this is also why you saw an increase in rocket attacks after the IDF pulled out of Gaza: the resistance couldn't hit the IDF as easily anymore. And IDF bases usually have better anti-air defenses, so difficult to target with rockets (especially the inaccurate ones). Just to be clear, I don't condone or agree with Hamas' actions, but I can understand why they do that and not for example focus solely on military (and thus "allowed") targets.
1
CFHforever the media covered for him I doubt fox and other conservative media would cover for him, they tried to make him look bad on he things that was a positive. Were there a few scandals? Probably, I don't think any presidency these days is without them, but nothing as large as now and with so much impact.
1
CFHforever please do send the list, I am not american, so I wouldn't see anything but large scandals here. I'm not in the mood to start a list of Trumps government scandals, so I'll just keep it at this, in just 2 years Trump has been pushing away old allies, lowering US standing amongst the world, playing right into the hands of China and Russia. Trump has caused more to hurt the US in the world then any president in recent history (maybe even all of US history). And this is just foreign, let's not even start on domestic issues.
1
And? It is obvious these tunnels are for strategic use. These aren't large scale shelters that can house tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands. Moreove most of these tunnels won't be that wide, meant for movement more than shelter, so you can't really shelter people there without causing access problems (both for Hamas and the people seeking shelter). Next to this Israel is claiming to specifically target these tunnel networks, so how much safer would civilians then really be there? Unless Israels attacks can't reach to them, but then this would take away the reason for many Israel strikes as communicated by the IDF and thus many unnecessary innocent casualties.
1