2
BeerMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why would they be concerned if they have nothing to hide?

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

I stand corrected.

It's not so much "renters and transients" as you say. The welfare State is directly attributed to women having the power to vote. Woe to me for saying that. It is the taboo subject of today.

This is true, and you're right that it is taboo. There should only be one vote per household.

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

Blackrock and Vanguard are already buying up properties all over the nation

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.

3
BeerMan 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is he talking about Trump?

How would Trump overthrow a government in which he is the President? Trump's last tweet was before Jan 20, 2021.

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Property tax has existed since the founding. The Founders saw it as a necessary evil to fund their local government.

What's changed is a bunch of renters and other transients were given the vote, and kept voting for bigger government necessitating larger tax bills. Once the rent gets too high, they move somewhere else and stick the landowners with the bill.

If it was only landowners voting, the taxes and the size of government would be much smaller.

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also Bill Gates… How much land does he own? How many votes does he get? A vote for each property that he owns? This doesn’t pan out in the end.

One vote per natural person, and in the location of their primary residence.

3
BeerMan 3 points ago +3 / -0

Our Founding Fathers were political geniuses

This is why only landowners were given the vote: Because you have to have your shit mostly together to be a land owner. You need to be able to afford land or be credit worthy enough for a mortgage. You need to maintain it. And you need to pay your taxes to keep it. Most of the degenerates in America can not do this.

If you want to be a transient or whatever, you're free to do so, just don't mess up the communities the landowners have established.

5
BeerMan 5 points ago +5 / -0

France is lost. All that remains is Frankistan.

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Coulter's Law?

The longer the media goes without describing the race of the assailant, the less likely that person is white.

5
BeerMan 5 points ago +5 / -0

No wonder Trump wanted to buy Greenland

by BQnita
2
BeerMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

The 27th Amendment says Congress can vote themselves a raise, but the raise is not effective until that member of Congress is reelected.

It took 203 years to get this Amendment ratified by the states.

2
BeerMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's the 17th amendment and it's horrible. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the States, and the House is supposed to represent the interests of the people. That's why Senators should be selected by the state legislatures and Congressmen are elected by the people. Only when the States and the People agree can legislation be passed.

The Nebraska legislature leans GOP.

2
BeerMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe it originated by looking at the House of Lords and House of Commons in the UK. The House of Lords exists so the aristocracy can still have an outsized share of political power over the common man, and that persists somewhat in bicameral legislatures. At Nebraska's founding, it was decided that it's ridiculous to maintain that, thus the unicameral legislature.

7
BeerMan 7 points ago +7 / -0

The mental gymnastics are to prevent them from acknowledging that they're actually retarded.

"Is Brandon causing this rapid inflation? No, that can't be it because I'm smart and I voted for him. Clearly Orange Man has done this!"

1
BeerMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Will JA reveal his source?

I saw a live stream previously where he refused to do so. I think that either 1) Seth Rich is still alive and as such JA will not reveal that SR is the source, or 2) Seth Rich is dead, but JA still won't reveal his source due to journalistic integrity.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›