.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
.
One vote per natural person, and in the location of their primary residence.
So what happens if the elites buy up all the property, and nobody can buy a house, and you can only rent. Then what how did those people vote? You do see where this is going don’t you. Blackrock and Vanguard are already buying up properties all over the nation, so people cannot purchase them, and afford them. They would be forced to rent. Hard-working, Americans! But muh… You have to be a homeowner to vote. This is not for your support in anyway shape or form.
I mean even BLM is homeowners. They could register homes to different people, and then have a vote for a home that they own. Just because you’re a homeowner doesn’t mean that you’re a good person, or is that you’re a person who wants the best for this Country.
There are many people who are caught up in politics, LGBT, BLM, and all the other rhetoric that are homeowners.
Why did the founders set up the electoral system for landowners only? Besides the reasons I mentioned, it's because that's an efficient way to do it in the 18th century. Each property is registered with the locality as to who owns it and pays the taxes. There's all kinds of other people in society that have no papers and no one can verify where they've come from. We have similar issues today.
This is nonsense. Blackrock 's assets under management is $10T and Vanguard's is $7T. As of several years ago, the total land value in the USA was estimated to be $23T. If these companies were to only buy land, they'd be $6T short, and again, that's the land valuation as of 2015; it's increased since then. The US Stock Market is worth $53T and all Treasury bonds combined are worth $24T. So since Blackrock and Vanguard are the registered owners of a large portion of the US Stock market AND US Bonds, they can't possibly also be buying all of the land. (Granted they do own some real estate companies which buy land.)
Yes, real estate is increasing rapidly in dollar-denominated value right now, but that's not because of Blackrock and Vanguard. That's because of the government and the federal reserve. We've had over a decade of interest rates at zero, followed by the government handing out money left and right due to covid reasons. When dollars get injected into the economy there's a short-term economic boost and a buying frenzy on everything. And everyone races to convert those dollars into real assets before the other guy realizes that the dollars are shrinking in real value. And the dollar is shrinking. Inflation reached the 40-year high and has been getting worse. There were more I-Bonds (a way to escape inflation) sold in the single month of December than the entire year of 2018 which was the previous record year. The crash will come; everyone sees the writing on the wall. Wells Fargo laid off something like 500 mortgage officers this month.
Lastly, renters overwhelming vote liberal. And that's because most of them don't have their shit together, so they want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. This article offers some good evidence https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/renter-voting-preferences The median net worth of a renter is $5200. That shows me they have a hard time planning for the future. If they can't plan for what could happen a few weeks from now, how can we trust them to vote for candidates whose policies will affect America for generations to come? This article also laments that if renter tournout had just matched landowner turnout, Clinton would have won all of the swing states.
There are certainly some good people who rent. And there are some shitty people who are landowners. But landowners have consistently voted for candidates that would increase the prosperity and standard of living for ALL Americans whereas renters have consistently voted for socialism which will destroy America if left unchecked.