Comments by "John P" (@johnp139) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. They were voted in.
    4
  2. Congress set the criteria for receiving the loans, not tRump.
    2
  3. That is like saying that there are anti-life groups rather than pro-choice.
    2
  4. Then we need a Constitutional Amendment for that since that currently isn’t a requirement.
    2
  5. Constitutional
    1
  6. Voters
    1
  7. The vaccines have NOT YET BEEN APPROVED by the FDA.
    1
  8. Because they met the requirements of the Constitution and they were voted in.
    1
  9. Just the opposite. These applicants met the requirements for the loans based on the law that was passed. It would be criminal to deny the loans.
    1
  10. That’s against the 1st Amendment.
    1
  11. He had nothing to do with this. And they probably legally qualify for the loans.
    1
  12. That’s not what the PPP is for.
    1
  13. Why? They qualified for the loans. Idiot
    1
  14. That’s a good point. I wonder.
    1
  15. On what grounds?
    1
  16. You need to gather evidence and ensure that you have a good case. A grand jury needs to indite. It’s not like on TV.
    1
  17. Informed consent
    1
  18. Congress WROTE THE BILL!!!
    1
  19. If he had Covid, what does going to Walter Teed for TREATMENT have anything to do with vaccines?
    1
  20. Um, obviously that isn’t true.
    1
  21. That’s not how the law was written.
    1
  22. Since the Constitution STATES that it INCLUDES all of those other things, then you are not adding anything. That’s like saying the answer to “what do you breathe” is NOT AIR, because it is Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide and Argon!
    1
  23. It’s called the 2nd Amendment.
    1
  24. So you have the authority to decide which organizations are “deserving”? That wasn’t in the law.
    1
  25. Evidence?
    1
  26. Innocent until proven guilty.
    1
  27. Did they meet the criteria for the Payroll Protection Program? If so, you have no case.
    1
  28. There are procedures for congressional impeachment.
    1
  29. Probably because they were legally eligible.
    1
  30. He didn’t approve specific loans, idiot!
    1
  31. So what other organizations that you DISAGREE WITH should be denied loans that they are qualified to get JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR PHILOSOPHIES?
    1
  32. That might actually happen after Armageddon.
    1
  33. It’s not ANTI vaccine, it is informed consent.
    1
  34. There are no requirements in the constitution that congressmen need to pass a psychological test.
    1
  35. No one is trying to stop you from getting a vaccine. That is like saying that pro-lifers are trying to force others to have abortions.
    1
  36. What’s criminal about it? It is just the opposite since the applicants met the requirements of the law. Idiot
    1
  37. That’s irrelevant
    1
  38. What? Banks approved the loans based on eligibility, not the tRump administration.
    1
  39. So which criteria did they NOT meet?
    1
  40. 4th Amendment violation.
    1
  41. She was voted in and she hasn’t been impeached.
    1
  42. It’s what she SAID, not factual until verified.
    1
  43. She met the Constitutional requirements and was voted in.
    1
  44. True, but she was legally voted in.
    1
  45. They qualified for the Li an. STFU!
    1
  46. Trials are required to determine that.
    1
  47. People don’t understand how to objectively evaluate data.
    1
  48. It also is for non-profit organizations.
    1
  49. Then we need to amend the Constitution with specific requirements for congressmen.
    1
  50. Because that’s their right?
    1
  51. You mean pro-choice?
    1
  52. The Constitution
    1
  53. Then you better get started on that Constitutional Amendment.
    1
  54. He had no part in that. The applicants met the requirements of the law.
    1
  55. Why would Biden even offer this, and if he did, it would be AFTER the inauguration.
    1
  56. What you think is irrelevant.
    1
  57. The only requirements to be elected to congress are citizenship and age. Any additional requirements would require a Constitutional Amendment.
    1
  58. Yes, and the bill was signed by Trump.
    1
  59. You can’t make laws that override the Constitution.
    1
  60. She was voted in, that’s all that currently matters. If you don’t like the requirements to be elected to congress, then change the Constitution.
    1
  61. Stupid misleading vlog.
    1
  62. You can’t force someone to resign.
    1
  63. And why does it matter if they met the criteria to get the loans.
    1
  64. They are not for profit organizations and if they qualify, they are entitled to the loans.
    1
  65. Fake news.
    1
  66. “Shall not be infringed” applies in the US.
    1
  67. Just very misunderstood, right?
    1
  68. Why? Did they meet the criteria for the loans?
    1
  69. Why shouldn’t she be?
    1
  70. Why should it be?
    1
  71. He had nothing to do with this. The applicants met the requirements laid out by Congress.
    1
  72. That’s not a requirement to be elected to congress.
    1
  73. Dumb
    1
  74. So who here realizes that millions of people are getting vaccines that have yet to be approved by the FDA?
    1
  75. Why is it horrible? They met the legal requirements for the loans.
    1
  76. You’re
    1
  77. That won’t happen
    1
  78. But did they meet the criteria to get the loans?
    1
  79. Why? If they met the criteria for the PPP, then they should get it.
    1
  80. Then get started on that Constitutional Amendment.
    1
  81. Look into the vaccine court and how much has been awarded.
    1
  82. There is a difference between the house floor and the Capital Building.
    1
  83. No, because these applicants met the congressional requirements for the loans.
    1
  84. No. They didn’t commit treason. Look up that word.
    1
  85. It is because tRump had nothing to do with this. The applicants met the criteria for the loans outlined by CONGRESS!!!
    1
  86. Not all are that way. Do you call pro choice people anti-life?
    1
  87. Commercial STRAIGHT UP, nevermind.
    1