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