Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
13
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1