arrestpaul's past comments

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    WASHINGTON - **U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday that Germany owes “vast sums of money” to NATO

    and

    the U.S. “must be paid more” for providing defense, reiterating his stance that European allies need to meet their end of the bargain if they are to continue benefiting from the military alliance**.

    Germany agreed to support NATO. It's the obligation of every NATO member to meet it's obligation to NATO. Every nation. The NATO member nations certainly expect the U.S. to meet is obligations. If NATO nations are allowed to arbitrarily ignore their obligations then NATO has certainly outlived it's usefulness. If one nation choses not to pay today, other nation's might not want to defend them tomorrow.

    Maybe it's time for Europe, or maybe the E.U., to handle their own group defense?

    This is not a new issue. Even Obama wanted all NATO nations to pay what all NATO nations had agreed to pay. Obama wasn't able to do anything about it. Maybe Trump can?

    Posted in: Trump says U.S. must be paid more to defend Germany

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Germany rejects Trump's claim it owes NATO vast sums

    I understand that haters gotta hate, and personal attacks seem to be the new norm on the internet, but

    does anyone have any comments on Berlin’s defense budget having long been below NATO’s target of 2 percent of a member’s gross domestic product?

    Germany agreed to fund NATO. Germany is not meeting it's obligation. Should Germany be expected to meet it's obligation?

    p.s. Unless CrazyJoe holds some elected position within the U.S. government, CrazyJoe only speaks for CrazyJoe. CrazyJoe does not have the votes to change anything. Of course, CrazyJoe is free to apologize for his own behavior.

    Posted in: Germany rejects Trump's claim it owes NATO vast sums

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Geronimo - Must've been something very embarrassing and / or serious enough for the US to do this and decline interviews. Rumours will be rife. Let's begin. Take your best pick ... a) nasty drunken punchup resulting in a death or very serious injury of a local b) crime of passion with local resulting in a death c) caught wiretapping phone calls d) something weird involving a sheep

    Is this how fake news starts? "Death"? "Very serious injury"? "Sheep"?

    New Zealand authorities say they’re unable to investigate an incident involving a U.S. Embassy staffer based in Wellington after the U.S. government elected to shield him by invoking diplomatic immunity.

    NZ police can still conduct an investigation. One witness is not available for questioning.

    They said the American had left the scene before police arrived, and nobody was taken into custody. In their statement, police declined to release further details of the incident but said they’re keeping the investigation open.

    Did anyone else leave the scene before the police finally arrived? I've heard that people have been known to do that. Did witnesses scatter like rats leaving a sinking ship? Did the reporter, Nick Perry, care about anyone other than "the American"?

    Posted in: New Zealand says U.S. invokes immunity for embassy staffer

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    lostrune2 - Sessions was with Trump when they met Bharara at the Trump Tower, so technically Trump and Sessions made the promise together with Bharara.

    It's not Bharara's problem that no one has confirmed is claim-

    Bharara was fired. That's Bharara's problem. He was asked to resign, and he refused. That is also Bharara's problem.

    The only one actually involved who says Bharara was asked to stay on is Bharara himself. Others have reported that Bharara told them that he was asked to stay on, but that is not a confirmation of Bharara's claim. That's Bharara confirming Bharar's story.

    Lizz - Schumer also confirmed that Trump asked his opinion on the matter and assured him personally he he wanted Bharara to stay both in a statement last November and the Friday after his firing.

    Schumer hates Trump and never misses an opportunity to attack, or try to embarrass his administration. Hardly an unbiased outsider. Trump doesn't like Schumer. Such is politics. Schumer gave Trump Schumer's opinion as to whether Trump should keep Bharara. The final decision was that Bharara was one of the many U.S. attorneys who were replaced. That's SOP for incoming administrations. Bharara doesn't like that decision, but it was never his choice.

    Posted in: Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors in U.S.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Lizz - I don't understand the controversy on this point. It was reported extensively at the time that he was asked to stay and confirmed by Senator Schumer among others.

    Schumer only confirmed that Bharara had told Schumer that he was staying. Bharara told many people that he had been asked to stay on. Media outlets reported Bharara's claim that he had been asked to stay on. Extensive reporting? The reports were all the same - Bharara said he was staying on. That is not conclusive proof that Bharara had actually been asked to stay.

    Posted in: Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors in U.S.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    lostrune2 - Trump is a showbiz guy - he knew exactly what happens when people go in front of those elevators. And Trump never contradicted Bharara. Bharara is a smart guy - he would not had said what he said if Trump was ambiguous with him. Even now, Trump has not claimed what Bharara said back then was incorrect. So more than likely, Bharara was correct with his assessment back then.

    "More than likely"? Really?

    Bharara has also claimed that Sessions made the same promise. Bharara's problem is that no one has confirmed his claims. No, wait-a-minute, Bharara's problem is that he is "more than likely" still fired, because he refused to resign. All U.S. attorneys understand that they can be replaced by the next incoming administration. Bharara seems to have a problem with that simple fact.

    Posted in: Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors in U.S.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    SuperLib - He met with Trump and Trump said he would keep him on. Its not the end of the world, but

    It's Preet Bharara who claimed that the President-elect wanted to keep him on. Unfortunately for Bharara, there doesn't seem to be any confirmation of his claim.

    Bharara, along with many other U.S. attorneys, was asked to resign. He refused. Bharara was then fired. The firing and hiring of U.S. attorneys by the incoming President is a normal practice.

    It must be a really slow news day if the news outlets are choosing to make this a major story.

    Posted in: Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors in U.S.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Some nutcase jumps the WH fence, the intruder was apprehended, no one was hurt, and the usual suspects take to the internet to use this as another opportunity to personally attack Trump. SSDD. I understand that haters gotta hate. That's what they do, but this is getting ridiculous. Is it at all possible to discuss the actual story?

    Posted in: Trump praises arrest of 'troubled person' at White House

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    The request for resignations from the 46 prosecutors who were holdovers from the Obama administration wasn’t shocking. It’s fairly customary for the 93 U.S. attorneys to leave their posts once a new president is in office, and many had already left or were making plans for their departures. Sessions himself was asked to resign as a U.S. attorney in a similar purge by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993.

    But the abrupt nature of the dismissals - done with little explanation and not always with the customary thanks for years of service - stunned and angered some of those left behind in offices around the country.

    It's bizarre that some in the media are suddenly making a big deal out of the "customary" change of U.S. attorneys. The U.S. attorney's are usually changed by incoming Presidents. It's SOP.

    Much of the public attention since Friday has focused on Preet Bharara, the high-profile Manhattan federal prosecutor who said he was fired despite meeting with then-President-elect Donald Trump and saying he was asked to remain.

    Why should Bharara be treated any differently than any of the other U.S. attorneys? Why don't the usual rules apply to him?

    Bharara is the one who claims he was asked to remain. The President replaced him. It looks like Bharara didn't understand the situation, or doesn't want to understand the situation. Bharara, along with the other U.S. attorneys, all had the same option. Resign, or be fired. Either way, Bharara was leaving his position.

    Posted in: Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors in U.S.

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    zichi - There are many reports based on sources about Trump having a meltdown with his WH staff over the Sessions scandal and storming off to Florida without his main staff.

    Based on the CNN story? Repeating fake news doesn't mean it's not fake news. It just means it's become popular fake news. It also allows people to say, "there are many reports" when the reports are simply a rehash of the original fake news story.

    Posted in: Trump asks Congress to help find evidence Obama tapped his phones during campaign

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    Trump is a counter-puncher. It appears that he is willing, and able, to defend himself against attack. Trump's counter-punching, hitting back, engaging in self-defense are all objectionable to Democrats.

    Having lost power in both houses of Congress and the WH, whining about Trump is the only option Democrats have left.

    Posted in: Trump, hitting back, accuses Schumer of Putin ties

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    Simon Foston - How likely do you think that's looking at the moment?

    There should be a prompt, and proper, investigation to settle the issue. What exists today is a whole lot of "yes he did" and "no he didn't". Neither are very convincing arguments.

    LFRAgain - Because these aren't "charges." They are bull-shite trolling, at best.

    Then you should not object to a prompt, and proper, investigation in order to actually settle the issue. Key phrase - actually settle the issue. There is no reason that Obama can't speak for himself. The use of surrogates doesn't actually settle the issue.

    Posted in: Trump claims Obama had phones wiretapped; Obama denies it

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    zichi - Video of Trump in meltdown over Jeff Sessions and then storms off to Florida for the weekend without his senior staff. Like a child who had his candy stolen. Trump swearing like a trooper.

    https://youtu.be/Ija-VZwcznE

    Is this fake news? The video doesn't show what you claim it shows.

    It does show a CNN spokesmodel/reporter claiming to know what happened in a closed-door meeting that CNN did not have access to, and CNN even provided a video of several people, viewed thru a window and a very long distance lens, having a discussion about something. CNN provided no actual evidence to back up anything their spokesmodel/reporter claimed.

    It's sad that CNN did such a bad job of reporting, if that can even be called reporting.

    Posted in: Trump asks Congress to help find evidence Obama tapped his phones during campaign

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Simon Foston - But what if it is without merit? That would leave a lot of people feeling and looking a bit stupid, wouldn't it?

    But what if the charge does have merit? That could really leave a lot of people with hurt feelings, and quite possibly the same sad expression on their faces that many Democrats had when it became obvious that Hillary had lost her 2nd chance to become POTUS.

    Why hasn't Obama himself denied this charge?

    Posted in: Trump claims Obama had phones wiretapped; Obama denies it

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Haaa Nemui - Hitting back is retaliation. Retaliation is not the same as defense. Retaliation can happen months or even years after an attack.

    You object to Trump defending himself against attacks by Democrats. Personally, I'm in favor of self-defense. It's a natural reaction. Your attempt to tell the victims to stop defending themselves doesn't sound very convincing, except maybe to the Democrats.

    Posted in: Trump, hitting back, accuses Schumer of Putin ties

  • -6

    arrestpaul

    Trump claims Obama had phones wiretapped; Obama denies it

    President Donald Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of having Trump Tower telephones “wire tapped” during last year’s election, a startling claim that Obama’s spokesman said was false.

    Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said a “cardinal rule” of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered in any Justice Department investigations, which are supposed to be conducted free of political influence.

    According to the article, Obama didn't deny it. Some former spokesmodel/lackey for Obama claimed that Obama had a policy against doing something like this. That's not the same thing.

    Posted in: Trump claims Obama had phones wiretapped; Obama denies it

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    The United States Soccer Federation has instituted a policy that requires players on a national team to “stand respectfully” during national anthems

    "Stand respectfully". This is simply a matter of common courtesy and respect for all of the teams, nations, players, and fans involved.

    It's only my opinion, but KEEP PERSONAL POLITICS OUT OF SPORTS.

    I don't care if the Rapinoe-types ever play the game again.

    Posted in: U.S. soccer players must stand for national anthem

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Haaa Nemui - No it's not. Where does it say defends himself in the headline? Hitting back is not defense. It's offense.

    LOL. Hitting back means someone hit you and you retaliated. Hitting back IS self-defense. And the Democrats don't like it when their intended victims counter-punch. However, the Democrats do appear to be equal opportunity haters and bullies since they also attacked fellow Democrats who defended Bernie Sanders from Democrat Party attacks.

    Posted in: Trump, hitting back, accuses Schumer of Putin ties

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    SuperLib - What I said was the Democrats are using the Tea Party's organizational methods.

    The main difference is that the Tea Party gained the trust of the voters which enabled them to elect Tea Party candidates in spite of opposition from both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Tea Party was successful. The Democrat Party has been losing seats because they lost the trust of the voters. Which is why the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. If progressives, liberals, and Democrats were to start a movement independent of the Democrat Party, they might be able to equal the success of the Tea Party. If not, well, four years, or maybe eight years, isn't really that long of a time frame.

    Posted in: Hundreds chant 'Coward!' amid Paul Ryan's Rhode Island visit

  • -9

    arrestpaul

    Haaa Nemui - No it's not. "You did it so it's ok if we do" is not defending yourself. Look at it as if it was the crime of murder.

    Yes it is. Did you read the headline?

    Trump, hitting back, accuses Schumer of Putin ties.

    Trump was defending himself, and the Democrats don't like it when their intended victim strikes back.

    Murder? That's absurd.

    Posted in: Trump, hitting back, accuses Schumer of Putin ties

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

View all

Find Your
Apartment
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!

Search