Comments by "D. San" (@DSan-kl2yc) on "MSNBC" channel.

  1. ​​ @TheRealCrimdor  What would be the logic in thinking it's okay for the president to mount an insurrection Why would they think an insurrectionist should hold office as president when they made this amendment against it? The point made here is that what disqualifies a person is having taken an oath to serve and committing insurrection the president falls under it. No one may hold office who having taken an oath to the constitution As an officer of the United States. to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
    18
  2. ​ @JescaML  You saw where it says officer. The president is an officer of the executive branch. That's why the state part says executive or judicial officer ect. Essentially it means anyone who has sworn to an oath to the constitution and broke it. Why would you want there to be an out. At that point you're admitting Trump did it but you want him to weasel out
    6
  3. ​ @thesink5723  this is about qualification. People who previously insurrected don't meet the qualification unless Congress removes the requirement.
    5
  4. ​ @politicas3361  it's not peace to threaten and steal land
    4
  5. It's not that he can't. They decided not to. Because it wasn't criminal, it wasn't willful beyond a reasonable doubt. You're confusing the personal theoretical ideas of a trial with the reality.
    4
  6. There's always a few crazies. The issue is how many side with her, to what extent, or whether she's an extremist.
    3
  7. ​ @n1kkri  he wouldn't say good to that. That'd be followed by disbelief
    3
  8. ​​ @TheRealCrimdor  This is such a weird thought process here. People are telling you what they are. People who hold office. People who are given a duty and governmental power. That's what it means to hold office in the US.
    3
  9. ​ @SoulThrashingBlackSorcery  we did see this coming. People expected it to be a missle strike. Only surprise was that it was direct
    3
  10. ​ @JescaML  "or as an officer of the United States" Any office that swore an oath The reason those offices are mentioned is to clarify that they are officers because that was uncertainty in them. There isn't any uncertainty with the president. Now in the present, it's become an issue because people are trying to be weasels. But how could they have guessed the future.
    2
  11. Every judgement should be based on what people do at that moment. Especially countries. Someone can be wrong on own thing and right on another.
    2
  12. In this case they're just catching up with popular sentiments that have been around for years. Even in just the past 3 years
    1
  13. Over what?
    1
  14. ​ @psychloptic9024  that's too ridiculous. I'm against how and what Israel is doing. But that would make no sense
    1
  15. ​ @TheVirginGary  Right. They didn't care if people died when it became a partisan issue. The answer is it was every health professional and health organization that wanted people to take it.
    1
  16. What did they say? I havent seen one news story about any major group of people saying anything. Its getting angry over something that hasnt happened. Or happened very little.
    1
  17. ​ @CereCerebration  who said anything that encouraged anyones safety? Especially in the US or colleges. Who said what Only peoole who've said anything was when Republicans were saying those number of words. Its crazy you guys think these weird, sensitive college kids are gonna be saying anti semitic stuff.
    1
  18. What does that have to do with the US?
    1
  19. Theyre two separate incidents with separate circumstances that are both being investigated
    1
  20. ​ @benitosalazar3749  You're being ridiculous and verging into conspiracy. Nothing indicates the political affiliation of the people involved.
    1
  21.  @benitosalazar3749  It's still being investigated. In this case where someone went up to these people for no reason, with a deadly weapon it seems far more likely. The Kessler thing is more ambiguous. They were both protesting. Kessler was apparently in people's face. So the likelihood of it being accidental is high. Even if it's deliberate, it could be because the guy was on his face. So it'll be harder to determine. Was he attacked because he's Jewish? Was that the motivating factor? Would it be because he supports Israel, which wouldn't count. But not everything with people of different ethnicities makes it a hate crime.
    1
  22. There's no bad statement. It's a bad expression? Maybe if you push it. But no one's going to argue over talking to Israel. Literally the US is the one putting itself in front of Israel and the UN.
    1
  23. ​ @TheRealCrimdor  depends what you mean but I'm in the east coast
    1
  24.  @thesink5723  of the candidate for president / any government office
    1
  25.  @LakegirlKathy  you're wrong. They're lenient if it's not with willful intent. They were lenient with Trump too but he kept obstructing justice. Biden went to them. Biden cooperated. They just decided it wasn't criminal. The end. It'd not that they couldn't. It's that they didn't think it was criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.
    1
  26. ​ @saroshvarghese362  people like you can be trusted. You guys sound brainwashed and incredibly biased.
    1
  27. ​ @kevinzink9063  tyranny comes from someone overthrowing the government and establishing their own authoritarianism. Not from democracy. A tyrant was one that overthrew the government, and ruled. They had a habit of being authoritarians to keep their rule in place. As long as it's democratic, Trump would be the tyrant in this scenario.
    1
  28. ​ @KennethLeary-q1p  he also worked behind the scenes to overturn the elections.
    1
  29. ​ @mattb8754  you're example works against you, they waited for him to leave
    1