Sincere and earnest question I don’t know answer to: Is there truly anything illegal or unconstitutional about either him nominating a judge for SCOTUS just before election, or him not paying a lot of taxes while essentially bankrupt? I can’t find real evidence. Please explain.
— Sean Ono Lennon (@seanonolennon) September 28, 2020
২৮ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২০
Sean Ono Lennon weighs in.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৬৫টি মন্তব্য:
I follow Ono on Twitter. He's an independent thinker, that's for sure.
The responses to his questions are amusing. First one up (from someone identifying as Max Nordau") was "No" and "Also no".
Others responded with whataboutism on steroids, to which Ono replied, in one instance re: the SCOTUS question, "So it’s a good faith argument. Well they’re clearly using the Kavanaugh thing as their excuse to ignore that social nicety." (Perhaps he meant Garland?)
Sean may say it was a sincere question that he didn't know the answer to, but his responses show that he absolutely knows the answers. Troll master.
He's smarter than the average Progressive. I'm very impressed with Sean. Smart kid.
No, and no.
Thanks for asking.
His tweets are consistently good!
Well being a bad businessman doesn't include paying too much in taxes.
Evidence?
He's no Prog.
I too am confused. If Trump as a businessman is a failure why would he pay taxes if he's losing his ass.
But Trump is a rich successful business man gaming the system and we need to punish him and change the laws.
Which is it?
INCOME tax
not wealth tax (yet)
RMc already handled the first two questions, so I'll take this;
"I can’t find real evidence. Please explain."
It should be fairly simple to find real evidence regarding the constitutionality of a late-term appointment. Read the Constitution. If it is not prohibited there, check the Amendments. Still no prohibition? It's not unconstitutional.
As to the taxes, don't feel bad. No one knows any way to find out what the law is regarding taxes, other than filing your taxes and seeing what happens.
Smart kid.
He's in his forties! "Kid" is a little diminutive.
Normally falling off the woke bus might hurt a man, but presumably all that Beatle money makes for a soft landing.
beautiful,
beautiful,
beautiful questions.
Darling Sean
Answer to both of your questions - No
But both of your parents would be among the hysterical left saying otherwise.
Tax lawyers can tell him. Real tax lawyers.
And btw, Sean, Trump has been compliant with the tax laws enacted by numerous Democrat-controlled Congresses, going all the way back to 1913.
How about this? Is this illegal? Is this serious? Is this OK? Just wondering.
"Biden’s Texas Political Director Implicated in Massive Mail-In Ballot Harvesting Scheme in Harris County"
"With the help of mass mail-in ballots, the illegal ballot harvesting operation could harvest 700,000 ballots, one Harris County Democrat operative allegedly bragged."
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/28/bidens-texas-political-director-implicated-in-massive-mail-in-ballot-harvesting-scheme-in-harris-county/
TAXES? SOMEBODY SAY TAXES?
https://noqreport.com/2020/09/28/as-the-left-brags-about-how-much-joe-biden-paid-in-taxes-they-missed-one-important-question/
Joe Paid HOW much?
No, and taxes are paid on income, thus income tax.
Obviously his father John would have been cancelled by now.
I keep hearing how Trump was a "bad businessman"
Yet this "bad businessman" started from less than zero net worth in 1990 or so and over the next 20-25 years built a net worth of about $9billion.
Not very many people have ever done that. They would be measured in dozens, if that.
I wonder what these numbskulls would expect from a "good businessman"?
John Henry
I wonder how many people here know how many creditors lost Any money in Trump's bankruptcies?
Short answer:none
Long answer: not a single fucking creditor
John Henry
"Sincere and earnest question"
Sean! You know better than that! Stop it!
Two points:
1) Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden wrote (or voted for) the current tax laws
2) If Nancy Pelosi thinks he did something illegal, then doesn't that mean she doesn't trust IRS employees to do their jobs?
Ono Lennon's phrasing of his second question shows that the fake news framing of Trump's financial situation has gained traction.
I love everything that has come out of Yoko
John , Trump started at age nine with millions from his father who continued to support Trump into his his bad business deals so give up that mythical story. And not paying taxes depends on what one claims as deductible to have that status, we need to look closer here.Making a move to appoint a Supreme Court nomination closer to an election than in any time in the last one hundred years is an outrageous power grab full of steep hypocrisy considering the Republican story Four years ago. Of course none of this is illegal to a person with no morals or ethics.
"I love everything that has come out of Yoko"
She probably took a shit today.
I have enjoyed reading Sean’s social media posts, but anyone thinking that he should run for office better beware: he could be the Trojan horse for Yoko.
God forbid...
Ono definitely highlights the inconsistency of the media with the second question. Which is it- is Trump going bankrupt or not?
Blogger Howard said...
I love everything that has come out of Yoko
There’s been some bad sushi over the years, you sick puppy...
Who can read his tweets and not have greater respect for his parents? Somebody did some parenting.
Lies lies lies yeah
Making a move to appoint a Supreme Court nomination closer to an election than in any time in the last one hundred years is an outrageous power grab full of steep hypocrisy considering the Republican story Four years ago.
Oh, r/v. You know the so-called "McCconnell Rule" was not a statement of intent but a statement of fact: when the Presidency is held by a different party from the Senate, then the Senate has no reason to bring a vote on a SC nominee of that president. Why would they? Similarly, when the Presidency and the Senate are held by the same party - as now - there is no reason for the Senate NOT to bring a vote on a SC nominee. Why wouldn't they? And thus has it literally always been, throughout this nation's history.
Ç'mon, man. Elections have consequences.
Shortly before his death John Lenon used to say provocative things, like saying nice things about Reagan in a interview, whether entirely sincere or trolling. And of course he savaged the orthodoxy of his own era in Revolution, but opaquely enough that probably many people didn’t realize he was mocking them. May Sean continue to troll and expose and provoke into a ripe old age. I bet his dad would be proud.
True, rv. But he lost all that money and in the late 80s early 90s had a negative net worth.
He owed tens of millions, iirc, more than he owned. Inherited money? Poof. Gone.
But he had investors and lenders who were willing to back him. Because they thought they would get their money back with profit/interest and they did.
That let him climb out of the hole and accumulate @$9bn by 2015.
According to his fec filing in that july. Unless you think he lied to the fec AND hilary & Co were to stupid to call him on it.
John Henry
True, rv. But he lost all that money and in the late 80s early 90s had a negative net worth.
He owed tens of millions, iirc, more than he owned. Inherited money? Poof. Gone.
But he had investors and lenders who were willing to back him. Because they thought they would get their money back with profit/interest and they did.
That let him climb out of the hole and accumulate @$9bn by 2015.
According to his fec filing in that july. Unless you think he lied to the fec AND hilary & Co were to stupid to call him on it.
John Henry
Didn't his Dad write "Tax man"?
Of course none of this is illegal to a person with no morals or ethics.
Yeah, if you want morals and ethics, vote for the guy who managed to turn 40 years of government service (while his wife was a schoolteacher) into being a multimillionaire.
I came across this website today - may have to check it in the future. Here's a good read about taxes (roesch/voltaire might want to skip it because it would hurt his feelings):
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/09/28/no-you-idiots-thats-not-how-taxes-work-an-accountants-guide-to-why-you-are-a-gullible-moron/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-you-idiots-thats-not-how-taxes-work-an-accountants-guide-to-why-you-are-a-gullible-moron
Of course none of this is illegal to a person with no morals or ethics.
A quintessentially stupid and circular comment from the quintessentially stupid roeshe/voltaire.
Of course, none of this is illegal to a person well supplied with morals and ethics. This obviousness completely eluded roesch/voltaire, otherwise, he would have not taken the time.
Many people of a certain age despise Yoko Ono for her participation in the destruction of the Beatles.
I consider it her only praiseworthy artistic accomplishment. Too bad she didn't destroy them immediately after Sgt. Pepper's. The dissolution would then have been tragic rather than farcical.
roesch/voltaire typed "Of course none of this is illegal to a person with no morals or ethics."
This sentence cannot be made to make sense.
Yes, there are several things illegal about Trump lying on his tax filings. First he claimed that he had a total loss on his stock holdings when he drove his casino holdings into bankruptcy six times because he received 5% of the stock issued by the new companies buying out the bankrupt properties. Second, he deducted personal expenses such as $70,000 in hairdos and gifts to Ivanka, calling the family giveaways as business consulting fees. Thirdly he violated the Emoluments clause of the constitution in accepting payments from foreigners at his properties after becoming president.
But the biggest problem lies with the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt that he personally guaranteed subjecting him to extortion if he did not do as his lenders asked while president.
Finally there is the big lie, reinforced by the NY Times article, that the IRS is suing Trump for his illegal actions on tax filings. The IRS Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury have already stood in the way of any investigations by Congress and the DOJ shut down all Bobby Three Sticks investigations into financials. We already know that Trump uses these key administration employees much the same as he uses Billy Barr to prevent any pursuit of justice.
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
I can’t find real evidence.
Exactly, Sean. That's a feature, not a bug.
Roesch/voltaire (???)
Why limited it to the last 100 years? What so sacrosanct about 1920? Why not go back to 1801, when John Adams appointed our greatest Supreme Court justice, John Marshall? Adams did that AFTER he was already a lame duck in 1801?
Such a big to-do about NOTHING!
I have long contended that if Sean’s father John hadn’t been murdered, today he’d be divorced from Yoko and a frequent, witty commentator on the inanities of contemporary leftism. He was always reflexively counter-cultural; and since today’s culture is thoroughly left, he’d be against it. “You tell me it’s the institution, well, you know, you’d better free your mind instead.”
No, and No. That is why the left has their panties in a wad.
They have had 4 years to dig up anything/everything on Trump. They got squat. I would love to see Nancy, Bill-ary, Biden, etc. have to undergo even half the investigations that Trump has been under.
The best they can do is "he can be crude". OMG! What a revelation! Oh, and he pays as little in taxes as is legally allowed! Off with his head!
Tax Man was a George Harrison tune. John's political opus was Revolution, and trolling progressives in his last Playboy interview.
Sean, watch the movie Idiocracy. Then you'll understand.
Yoko raised Sean well.
>>FunkyPhD said...
Do we have to call you "Doctor" Funky? :)
Sincere question.
How is renting rooms in hotels you own to foreigners, where they pay the same rate as everyone else, an emolument when people like that stayed in said hotels before he was president?
"Making a move to appoint a Supreme Court nomination closer to an election than in any time in the last one hundred years is an outrageous power grab full of steep hypocrisy considering the Republican story Four years ago"
The thing that seems to get lost in all of these arguments about 2016 is that McConnell gambled - big time. If Clinton had won, her appointment likely would have been younger and more liberal. The Republicans would have likely still held the Senate, but they would not deny the first woman president her nomination.
On the other hand, if (when) Biden wins, he'll likely replace Thomas, so it's not like the Supreme Court is going to be conservative for ever and ever and ever. At the most, the current battle is mostly a holding action.
1. Tax Man was written by George.
2. Yoko did not break up the Beatles. There are many causes but the issue that brought things to a close was Paul’s refusal to accept Alan Klein as manager and his subsequent law suit to dissolve the Beatle’s business relationship. A few years later John admitted that Paul was right about Klein.
"Outrageous Power Grab" or "Exercising Granted Authority"... you decide.
But the biggest problem lies with the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt that he personally guaranteed subjecting him to extortion if he did not do as his lenders asked while president.
We should have a amendment to the constitution that says that all presidents must come from a specific group of people so that we don't elect businessmen anymore. Perhaps it could be a group of people whose sole role is the business of government.
We could even make it a single family. The presidency could just pass down from family member to family member.
We could call it a monarchy.
Red Pill Alert!
Call the Thought Police "Well, well, well now, son - it looks like you've had a little too much to Think"
Here's a quick question: We've had these Election Year scenarios before, when a President has a vacancy and nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court and either fills or fails to fill the seat, depending on the Advise & Consent confirmation vote. It would be highly illustrative to see a table of this record, incidentally.
Have we ever had a situation where a President has a S.C. vacancy and chooses not to fill it, because the opposition doesn't like it? Has the President ever failed to execute his Constitutional responsibilities in this scenario?
Susan said...
Sincere question.
How is renting rooms in hotels you own to foreigners, where they pay the same rate as everyone else, an emolument when people like that stayed in said hotels before he was president?
-------------=============
who expects a USA President to be productive member of society while in society ? it is unheard of for 2 centuries or more.
Weird thing is I'm starting to think Trump is a much better politician than a businessman.
“ 9/28/20, 8:15 PM
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
"I love everything that has come out of Yoko"
She probably took a shit today.”
Much better than her “singing”.
I mean, have you listened to that caterwauling? Jesus.
is an outrageous power grab - R/V
It's not a power grab if one already has the power, dumas.
"Making a move to appoint a Supreme Court nomination closer to an election than in any time in the last one hundred years is an outrageous power grab full of steep hypocrisy considering the Republican story Four years ago"
=========
There is Checks and Balances at play here.
The Executive has the responsibility to nominate a SC nominee. The Senate, representing the Legislative branch, has a responsibility to Advise and Consent. Obama nominated Garland correctly. Now if one is saying that it is required of the Senate to hold SC hearings (Advise) then one is ignoring the Checks and Balances power of the Legislative branch.
Certainly it is messy and confrontational. And not outrageous in the least.
"Certainly it is messy and confrontational. And not outrageous in the least."
Not for progressives, if they got their way. They'll expect that their nominees will be approved and that their opponents will nominate someone progressives approve of. Because fairness.
He live blogged the debate on his Twitter feed. It wraps up with these two tweets:
'It is mind boggling that if you criticize or compliment something ppl are so simplistic they can only imagine you either hate or love that thing respectively. What happened to making rational observations? It’s terrifying we have essentially lost our ability to think w out feels.'
'Here’s an exercise kids: if you see the best looking pair of shoes you’ve ever seen in your life, but then someone you despise puts them on. Does that mean the shoes are no longer nice shoes? If you say they are nice does that mean you love the person wearing them?'
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন