.......Alright, you're an actual idiot. You ignored half of what I said, changed your target argument because I called you on your crap, and apparently want everyone alive to live in half acre lots while also spouting bull crap about pollution and calling for depopulation to 1950s level.
You're either actually stupid, or a troll. So I'm ending this argument chain. No sense in arguing with someone who ignores everything they're told because it doesn't fit their world view and just outright lies about things while calling for depopulation.
Assuming I'm wrong, might want to do a bit of introspection, since you sound eerily like a WEF stooge calling for everyone to be required to live in half acre houses with no choice over where they actually get to live and also calling for us to depopulate to the tune of 171 Million people (the difference between todays population and the population in 1950), "in the name of pollution and resource demand."
You literally sound like klaus schwab at this point, so if you're being serious, then I have no choice bit to label you a troll/glowie.
Nice necro posting three days after a post was basically dead and no one is here to respond to you but me. But you didn't refute a single one of my points.
First of all, you're conflating apartment buildings (specifically low income apartment buildings) with all non-owner occupied housing. That's like taking a statistic about pitbulls and saying "see, all dogs eat babies!" It's inaccurate to the whole picture and dishonest to try and paint the situation in that manner.
Even in the 50s and 60s, when the economy was in it's prime, young people still typically rented for the first few years after college/leaving their parents house. Furthermore, the reason it's the number one path to wealth is because ANYONE can do it moron.
Anyone can go out and buy a house if they have enough money. It's not a groundbreaking idea. It doesn't require anything other than basic financial knowledge. Most people who own a rental, don't own an apartment building, they own a few actual houses, a lot of which are vacation rentals (Cabins, lakeside, ocean front, etc.). which are in gated communities. Further disproving you're apparent "point".
Finally, let's ASSUME you actually manage to pass such a law how do you enforce it or deal with the fallout? You seem to have a gripe with apartments specifically, so let's address that.
Apartment buildings, typically are self metered, meaning every individual unit does NOT have it's own meter to read power consumption, water consumption, etc. etc. The owner just assumes a standard rate based on average consumption and adds it into the rent.
So if every single apartment building in the country suddenly had to be converted into single unit condos, meaning the entire building would need to be overhauled to allow for such upgrades, who would pay for it? The current owner certainly wouldn't, and you're entire defense is that people don't have money to own a home, so the people wanting to buy certainly don't.
Who pays for those upgrades? You're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in upgrades. And that's just for metering. Multifamily is zoned different because building standards are different. You'd also have to upgrade the fire systems, electrical systems, etc. etc.
Who pays for that?
And I can almost guarantee you'll just say to tear them down and build single family homes. In which case I ask you, do you hate farmland and forests? Let's use NYC for example. If every single apartment building in NYC was demolished and replaced with single family homes, the urban sprawl required to replace all those housing units would take up the entirety of New York State, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and part of Pennsylvania. And that's not accounting for the other major cities in the NY Metro that have their own multi family housing buildings. Just NYC.
At that point you also run into problems like having a house that's literally 5 hours away from where you work because of traffic.
So yeah, you're grand design of having no more multi family housing and having nothing but single family homes and/or condos is a fantasy that is neither feasible, nor possible.
I read that assuming they meant 10 Equal "sell off value" minimums over a decade, but I suppose you make a good point. Legal semantics like that are the difference between being technically legal or illegal.
Alright, you're an idiot or a troll. I'm not sure which, but you obviously read neither the original post, nor the bills, nor my own comments, and are just spouting random bull crap to get a reaction.
This is the last time I'm responding, as I have a "final post" rule when it comes to an identified troll/dumbass, but I'll break down one last time why you're wrong on basically every point.
First of all, blackrock is NOT a subsidiary of the federal reserve. Blackrock is an investment fund/wealth management company. They're publicly traded, and you can literally see a list of who owns more than 5% of blackrocks stock. The federal reserve is nowhere on that list.
Second of all, blackrock gets fined all the time, and they pay those fines. A quick google search would tell you that much, but apparently that's asking too much of you to just look something up before spouting your inane nonsense.
Blackrock, like most large companies, considered fines a part of life. There is not a single large business on planet earth that doesn't account for fines in their expenses budget every year. But a 50% of MARKET VALUE fine, is bankrupting for any business.
Third of all, as the original post pointed out, this only applies to hedge funds and other large, institutional investors. The literal, legal definition of an institutional investor is an organization that invests on behalf of a group of people (Some definitions put a dollar amount limit requiring they manage at least $50-100 Million of investor money on the behalf of others as well). Ergo, a retired couple who owns their own portfolio of 10-20 houses (Which at the US average of $400K would only be worth $4-8 Million and not be owned on behalf of another) with no middle man, would not be have this applied to them. Nullifying your supposed "point" about retired boomers.
So no, the Ma and Pop landlords aren't going anywhere....Especially when you consider 70% of "small rental units", meaning single family to quadraplex, are owned and managed by ma and pop landlords
Likewise, Blackrock, does NOT, repeat after me, NOT, own the majority of single family rentals, Heck, institutional investors in general only own 0.7% of all single family homes in the united states.
Let's do some math real quick.
https://www.statista.com/topics/5144/single-family-homes-in-the-us/#topicOverview
There are 82 Million single family homes in the United States.
Every single institutional investor combined owns a collective 574,000 Single family homes. (Blackrock themselves own 24,600 for the record as their own website states they own .03% of all single family homes in the US.)
Now then, what is 574,000 / 82,000,000?
.007 or when converted to percent 0.7% of all single family homes. Compare that with the 15,939,000 single family rental homes owned by Mom and Pop Landlords. (You can achieve this number by using the nar.realtor link above, but the math is 49.5 Million *0.7= 22.77 Million which you then multiply by 0.7 again for 15.939 Million. For context, there are 49.5 Million rental units in the US, of which 70% are 1-4 units, of which 70% are owned and managed by Mom and Pop Landlords).
So let's see here Mom and Pop landlord own 27.77 times more houses than Blackrock and every other institutional investor combined. So let's see, for your bizarre fantasy of blackrock buying out every single one of those Mom and Pop land Lords, at the US average of $400K per single family home, they'd need $6,375,600,000,000. That's over $6 Trillion for the record, if you can't see all the commas. They have just over $10 Trillion in total assets, meaning they'd have to liquidate over 60% of their total assets in order to achieve this outlandish goal, and they'd have to shutter countless funds, which would bring all the wrong kinds of attention. But most importantly, it's literally impossible to do.
Blackrock invests in EVERYTHING. Stocks, derivatives, bonds, real estate, private equity, venture capital. If it makes money, they'll try it. The only thing in that list that can be easily, and quickly liquidated would be stocks, bonds, and some types of derivatives. And if you tried to liquidate over $6 Trillion in assets over.....well any amount of time really, you'd tank whatever markets you're selling in. For comparison, the Lehman Brothers (the big bank that went under in 2008), had $600 BILLION in total assets, they're STILL being liquidated in bankruptcy court to this day, 15 years late because doing it any faster would tank multiple markets.
And I know exactly what you're going to say. "Oh they'll just print it, they won't sell anything, dur hur!"
Well let me burst that bubble for you. There are currently $2.26 Trillion actual total USD in circulation
So they would have print nearly triple, the total dollar amount currently in existence, to achieve this magical plan.
Remember what happened in 2020 when they printed something like 80% of all dollars in circulation currently? Now imagine the hyper inflation that would occur if instead of an 80% increase in dollar supply, the dollar supply suddenly tripled on top of that 80% increase.
Venezuela? Nah, Weimar Germany would probably be closer. They had a literal 100 Trillion Mark (Their currency). For comparison, the exchange rate for dollars at this point in time (1923) was $1USD for 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. So hyperinflation doesn't even begin to cover what would happen if they "printed" the money needed to buy up all the single family rental homes.
Here's two links for the information about Weimar Marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiermark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
And we haven't even covered the other 40+ Million NON rental single family homes in the United States.
So as you can see, every single argument you're attempting to make falls flat in the face of actual facts.
I'm not saying black rock isn't evil, they are. But you have literally no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this specific topic.
Assuming I'm wrong and you're not a troll trying to bait people, then please, for the love of all that is Holy. Just do a freaking google search or two before you make baseless claims that anyone on the internet can debunk and disprove in five minutes with less than 10 google searches of their own.
......That is....I don't actually know how I should put it, but it's just wrong. Not EVERYONE who owns a rental property is a cabal stooge. You do realize that right? A lot of people's grandparents or parents have a small property portfolio of 10-20 houses that they rent out for extra retirement income.
Is every well off boomer now a member of the rothschild family? Because that's what you're implying with you're bizarre logic.
I don't even know what to say, since your rebuttal was actually retarded. And I'm not trying to be mean, I just legit don't know how else to describe such a one dimensional, childish response.
"Everyone who owns a rental property is part of the cabal!"
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
Not to be rude, but there's multiple problems with that. As pointed out in the post, they want a 50%, not 20% tax.
That is neither sustainable, nor legal, in many places. Quite a few of the biggest markets in the country (California and New York for example), have rent control that prevent landlords from raising rents more than the inflation rate+2-5% a year.
So a 50% cut would be bankrupting once you account for all the costs involved with owning and upkeeping a rental.
Likewise, yes, quite often these properties are purchased with cash. But then they immediately go out and put a massive 80/20 mortgage on them by doing what's called a cash out refinance (where you get a mortgage on a property you own to free up cash for further investment).
Which means that 50% tax would make literally every one of these investments less that worthless, since they'd have vastly more debt than income.
Believe me, I LOATHE agreeing with any liberal, but for once, I actually do agree with this, and I do believe it would work.
Now having said that, I also believe it won't go anywhere, since this is exactly what the deep state wants.
But I do believe these bills, or something similar SHOULD be done at some point to prevent hedge funds from commercializing people's homes. This isn't how it's meant to be. Normal people are supposed to own their own home, buy a handful of rental houses themselves that they rent out to students, young people, vacation goers, etc. And then gradually sell and move up until they're into commercial real estate territory.
That's how literally 90% of wealthy people made their money. It's a slow, gradual process, where you buy and/or sell properties every few years, thus keeping supply and demand in relative equilibrium, which keeps prices down overall.
Institutionalizing the basic building block, single family homes, messes with the entire process and pushes normal people out of both home ownership, and wealth building.
Dumbest take I've ever heard. Renting doesn't destroy community or concentrate crime. "Low income housing", AKA, government subsidized housing does. There IS a difference.
Besides, what you're describing would basically destroy the number one path to wealth. Literally 90% of Millionaires and/or Billionaires (AKA wealthy people), made the majority of their wealth in Real Estate.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-real-estate-creates-90-millionaires-ben-lovro
Since I know a source will be asked for, there's one, but a quick google search will provide hundreds of other such examples.
So what you're describing would destroy the absolute number one path that normal people have for creating wealth for themselves and their children. I agree, institutional investors should be banned from owning single family homes, but a blanket ban on "non-owner occupied housing" is the literal dumbest take I've ever heard. It's the exact same crap you hear on literal communist subreddits like r/antiwork.
And before anyone says "just don't invest in housing", newsflash, commerical properties (Retail, office, Hospitality, etc.) are an entirely different animal and require millions of dollars for a down payment on a "low end" property.
On the flip side, in a decent economy, like what we had under Trump, a normal person with a decent job can go out and put down $50K they saved over a few years on a single family rental.
That's how literally 90% of people build wealth for themselves. I agree institutional buyers need to be banned, but a blanket ban is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You can't gradually shift into "bigger" things if you cut people off from starting at the small things.
What you're suggesting would literally be playing into the WEF's hands by cutting off the number one way people drag themselves out of poverty or the middle class into the bare minimum of "being wealthy". In other words, that'd be killing the American dream.
Funny how you didn't deny anything I said in my rebuttal about your application of insurance logic and instead changed the topic to the farm part of things to try and get a win. But I'll bite.
First of all let's address the blatantly wrong Ohio Tax situation. I found not a single source stating that literally half of Ohio counties are going to see 37-44% tax increases on their property taxes. In fact, the ONLY thing I found was that 6 counties have seen an AVERAGE HOME VALUE INCREASE, of that amount.
And even the article points out, that doesn't mean a 37-41% increase in TAXES. If you read it, it'll point out that taxes are only increasing by an average of 9% as a result of the massive increase in home value. Market value and tax assessed value are two different things, and the massive increase is MARKET VALUE. Tax Assessed Value is ALWAYS lower than Market value. Hence, taxes, in 6, not 44, of Ohio's counties are increasing my an average of 9%.
Granted, that's still not right, but an extra $600~ a year (as pointed out in the charts in the article) is hardly bankrupting for most people .
Now let's move on to your falsehoods about the farmers.
No, no they aren't. Farmer's aren't selling out, and blackrock is most definitely NOT the "major buyer" of such land.
96% of all farms in the united states are family owned.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/archive/2021/01-22-2021.php
Even if you go off the admitted decrease of 4% since 2012 (this is the most up to date USDA data since it's from 2021 and they do it in ten year cycles), that's .0044% decrease per year.
But even THEN, that doesn't account for the fact that in 9 out of ten cases, the farms being sold, are bought up by another nearby farmer to add to their fields. Farmer's are typically VERY close knitt and will mostly sell to another nearby farmer if they are going to close up shop because none of the kids want to get involved.
So most of those "decreases" are just local famers condensing ownership among themselves as some retire and don't have kids that want to be part of the farm life.
And finally blackrock. I WAS going to pull up a statistic to show that it's a lie that they are buying up farmland, but guess what. When I tried searching for such a statistic, I couldn't find one.
Because there isn't one. Blackrock hasn't bought ANY farmland in the United States. They only countries I've found they've bought agricultural land in are Ukraine (big surprise) and Australia (Also big surprise). Blackrock's North American Funds are focused on upstream and downstream Agricultural products instead of farms.
So things like Fertilizer, farm equipment, meat packing, processed products (like canned vegetables, juices, etc. etc.) They have literally zero direct investments in Agricultural land in North America. I even tried looking to see if they own shares in any of the few Agricultural REITS (which are few and far between because they're just not popular and only own a few 10K acers at most of the nearly Billion acres of Agricultural land in United States alone).
Nope, they don't even seem to own any shares in Agricultural REITs.
At this point, you're just making up blatant alarmism lies because you can't be bothered to control+F through a quarterly fund report on Blackrock's website.
So please, stop arguing over something that's just blatantly not true. You're not helping anyone by spreading falsehoods and creating alarmist responses.
In your original post you specifically mentioned Hotel owners and business owner friends as part of your examples, ergo, I was pointing out the flaw in your logic of applying commercial insurance rates to normal insurance rates.
So obviously you either forgot what you wrote or you only skimmed my post.
Normal insurance rates ARE going up for normal people. But nowhere near as much as you let on. For example, in the area I live (semi-rural area with a few principle cities and a metro population of over a million), our insurance has gone up a whopping $20 over the past 3 years. So a little less than $7 a year.
But we also don't have stupid high crime rates, and our district attorneys will actually prosecute criminals. Change the location to, since you were using MIchigan and New York as examples, Detroit, and yes you'll obviously see a lot higher increases because Detroit is always in the top 10 most crime ridden cities in North America, and has gotten worse since Michigan decriminalized basically everything up to a certain dollar amount of damage while refusing to prosecute any crimes.
This is why blue state cities are seeing exoduses.
So no, most people aren't millionaires, as you snarkily pointed out, but most people in the us ALSO don't live in a city. The USA is still very rural/suburban in terms of population spread.
Meaning the majority of people don't live in an area where insurance rates are going sky high because of retarded policies. They WILL see increases, some larger than others (not everyone is going to experience the $20 increase I have for example), but most aren't going to be bankrupted by it either.
Though I will admit the notable exception is california, because their state level politicians have screwed things up so bad that now most insurance companies have just opted to outright pull out of the state and won't renew policies after their current cycle.
But there again, that's not really bankrupting people, because instead of having "high insurance" payments, they have NO insurance payments. Which is also bad, but not a problem that will immediately lead to being bankrupt.
Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. This isn't entirely true. I won't be rude as I usually am, because I can see how someone would look around and see something like this, but it's just not true. ESPECIALLY, on the farmland side of things.
First of all. let's address the fact that there are two separate issues being discussed here, insurance rates and taxes.
Let's talk about Insurance rates first. Yes, they're going up. The rates you're giving though, are only applicable to inner city crap holes. Those rates are reflective more on urban crime policies than anything else. You mentioned Michigan and New York Specifically. Both states have went on a spree of decriminalizing all kinds of crap up to a certain dollar amount, and have also made it next to impossible to actual prosecute any criminals in inner cities.
This is why those rates are increasing by a ridiculous rate in such places. Now you mentioned hotels. So let's go for a hotel in say, downtown Manhattan or Long Island, since we're still talking New York/New York Metro in that case.
The rates on such buildings in those areas aren't going up anywhere near as much, despite the recent influx of "immigrant trouble". Why? Because they're high value buildings in gateway markets. Even if you completely trashed the building to the point that it's no longer suitable for human habitation, the land it sits on is so valuable that, if you demolished the building, you could probably make your money back and then some on the sell of the land and air rights (which is is a thing in new york, you can buy and sell the rights to the air above the land parcels you own), so the insurance won't increase by THAT much, because they know that if push come to shove, that land is still going to be of value.
Detroit doesn't have that luxury, since it's a complete crap hole without a single positive market appeal. It's a dying city and has been for decades. So you can get away with jacking up insurance rates.
Likewise, while rates ARE increasing, they're not increasing by the ridiculous amounts you pointed out everywhere. Take Florida for example. Hotel central. Yes, the rates have increased in Florida, but the most I've seen over the past 3-4 years is 20%, or roughly 5% a year. Hardly the 50-100% you're talking about. It's annoying, but hardly an amount that can't be absorbed into the cost and passed on to customers. And let's be honest, people who want to go to miami beach are gonna pay that cost and never blink an eye about it.
Here's the other thing about insurance specifically that you don't seem to understand. Commerical insurance is much different from personal insurance. Typically, you sign commercial insurance contracts in terms of 10-20 years, and then the insuree has at least 2, but usually up to 4 two-five year extensions on that contract.
Commerical insurance is a long game. They want to lock in those big money customers for decades at a time. The extensions ARE often negotiable, but typically speaking, what you're describing of "insurance shopping" being impossible is completely false when it comes to commercial insurance. There are literally entire teams out there that are dedicated to poaching insurance customers from one firm to another by offering them the absolute lowest possible rates they can offer once they've been pissed off because their current provider tried to squeeze them.
Insurance companies are a rather unique entity. They really and truly, don't have to pay out that many claims throughout a year. Sometimes that's because there aren't that many claims and other times it's legal shenanigans, but either way, the point is they don't have to pay out too many claims, because large scale disasters are actually pretty rare in the grand scheme of things.
This puts them in the unique position of being able to collect your payments or "the float" and not have to pay out for years at a time. Which allows them to invest your payments for years, decades even, without ever having to pay anything out, and make more money for themselves. So it's more beneficial for them to have a long term contract with a large scale client, than to try and squeeze as much as they can out of that same client and run them into the arms of a rival provider who will offer them better terms for a 10+Year contract.
Now that we've established that the insurance side of things is only true in crap hole ghetto inner cities, let's address the taxes.
I'll just be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about here. 99% of farmers in the United States are eligible for what is called an "Agriculture/Homestead (depending on where you live) exemption". Basically, it freezes your property taxes permanently at a lower rate so long as the land is being used for agricultural purposes. It doesn't matter what happens around them, development, lots of house sells, etc. etc. Their taxes stay as low as possible so long as they keep farming. And any land they add to their farm's portfolio (because farms are registered as a business in 99% of cases) instantly have that super low tax rate applied to them.
Likewise, farmers have other special tax exemptions and rules. For example, you've heard everything is deductible as a joke before right? Well in the case of farmers, literally everything IS deductible. Everything from their electricity bill, to grocery bills, wages for workers, fuel for any vehicle registered as "company property" regardless of actual use, what little property taxes you pay, animal rearing and crop rearing costs, etc. etc.
Literally everything you do that has some effect on the farm is deductible. In 90% of cases, farmers don't actually pay taxes. By the time they end up claiming all of their deductions, they pay no taxes at all. This is why people say farmers are the most heavily subsidized business sector in North America. Not because of actual subsidy payments (though those ARE a factor), but because they get such favorable tax treatment compared to everybody else that only the absolute largest of farms (King Ranch, Three Mile Canyon Farms, etc.) actually end up paying any kind of taxes. And even then it's usually only a small amount.
Likewise, Insurance on farms is ALSO set up in decade long contracts, with 5 year extensions. Mostly because the assumption is that the farm is going to continue for generations as the farm is passed from Father to son again and again, and food production is the single most stable and needed industry on the planet.
And finally, this "there's less people" theory is also wrong. So far, there's been 20 Million excess deaths globally over the past few years. I know that sounds like a lot, and it is, but when you're talking about a global population of nearly 8 BILLION, that number starts to be much smaller. I can tell you right now, you go to ANY tourist trap in the USA right now, and it'll be just as crowded as any other year, despite all the financial problems people are experiencing.
Why? Because people are stupid. They'll prioritize short term joy over long term 90% of the time. This is why the beaches are full (and therefore the hotels and other small businesses). This is why Vegas is cram packed. This is why you still see people on long island vacationing and the golden coast in chicago, etc. etc.
So yeah, Insurance IS going up, but it's not having the effect you seem to think it is. Besides even assuming the $80K number WAS true universally, most medium sized businesses, like the Holiday Inn you mentioned, could easily absorb that cost. Medium sized hotels, in decent spots will make several $100K a year minimum. In GOOD spots? Easily over $1 Million a year. So yeah, it's not right that they'd have to absorb that extra cost, but they easily could.
This isn't going to bankrupt as many people as you think it is. If it does, then I hate to say it, but they're either in bad location for business and need to move their business anyway, or they're bad at being a businessman and probably took on too much debt, so they were bound to fail anyway.
Brutal, but honest.
There's a simple answer to this. I still don't like it, but it's not as bad as people seem to think. The US is responsible for the maintenance of most of the UN hardware. We also happen to have "donated" most of it to them. That's why all their crap is the stuff we were using a generation or two ago as far as military hardware goes.
So there's various places our military and government uses to store UN vehicles and hardware before either shipping it out (in the case of newly donated equipment), or bringing it back in for maintenance (in the case of equipment already in use).
So yeah, I don't like it, since we should neither be donating equipment to them nor maintaining it for them, but the sight of UN vehicles in the US is not THAT out of the ordinary.
Now if we see actual blue helmets or UN vehicles on the streets.....that's another matter entirely and justifies some elaborate target practice.
Numbers like this are VERY misleading. That includes run aways and children "reported missing" by a divorced parent when they don't want them to spend time with their other parent during a messy divorce.
The general rule of thumb I've seen is that whatever number you see being thrown out, 1-5% are actual abductions/kidnappings/missing cases. So in this case, 5-25 a month.
If these numbers were real Virginia would have ZERO children since it's something like 300K cases of "missing" children a year in Virginia because of the high runaway and false reporting cases.
For the record, when I say "runaway", I mean like, a stupid edgy teenager that decides they're going to go stay at a friends house for a few days without telling their family because they're fighting with their parents, and so get reported as missing, even though they're really not.
Don't get me wrong, it's horrible that 5-25 kids a month are going missing anywhere, but the 500 number is artificially exaggerated.
TL;DR: Most of these "missing" children aren't actually missing, so the stats are misleading.
I'd argue that kentucky IS a southern state, but I digress. your argument is flawed when nearby west virginia, with the exact same background, is the second most conservative state in the union after Wyoming.
Beyond that, there are numerous reports, most of which were posted on here yesterday and last night, about vote switching being reported in kentucky. And let's not forget the "gas leak" that was basically the exact same as what happened in atlanta in 2020.
It was cheating, period, end of story.
Fraud nullifies everything. Once the fraud is finally mainstream and something is done about it, then everything done via fraud is null and void. Truthfully, once it's proven that hussein cheated to get in (and possibly bush), then EVERYTHING, on the federal and state level since at least 2008 (possibly all the way back to 2000) will be null and void, since it can't be trusted as legitimate.
Honestly, it's probably just "luxury" apartments. It's kind of the thing now. Find a crappy office building or slum-like apartment building, buy it for dirt cheap because the owner can no longer afford the mortgage payments, and then spend a fortune converting it into "luxury apartments/condos" which basically means a 1,000 square foot box with a "nice" view.
It used to not be feasible to convert things like office buildings to apartments because of zoning and internal construction differences, but now it's becoming more feasible as companies are able to pick up prime location properties for dirt cheap because of office defaults since the plandemic.
Still not easy, but it's more feasible now.
Hence my point about why it's actually less regulated on the international market, as compared to civilian weapons.
Eh personally I think people are blowing this WAY out of proportion. The overflow thing is just biden preventing lake city (the largest military ammo production facility) from selling to the public anymore. He made that move over a year ago, and it's just now coming into effect as per the executive order.
Likewise, I'm not sure how many people realize this, but it's been illegal for decades to export "military style firearms" from the US to other countries, with the notable exceptions of Foreign military bases. This is to prevent enemy nations (IE China, Iran, etc.) From buying up mass amounts of Premium American Civilian market firearms, and reverse engineering them.
Military grade equipment really isn't that good. It's just the "best" for the price of being able to mass produce to the tune of millions of units a year. Your average middle market Civilian AR-15 from Smith and Wesson or Ruger is about 10 times as good as a M4. The disparity get's even worse when you start getting into "S-Tier" Manufacturers, like Daniel Defense, Radian, LMT, Kinetic DG, PWS, etc.
At that tier, you're talking about guns that are so much better than "military grade", that it's not even remotely comparable.
The same is true about ammo. Yeah, you can buy federal ammo in pretty much every NATO nation on the planet (even the most strict nations DO allow hunting and some form of firearm ownership), but the internal recipe is different for domestic and export ammo.
Export ammo tends to use a different, older style powder that's based on the stuff we had during Vietnam and Korea. Doesn't burn the same, and is underpowered compared to modern powder. Bullet design is also a big thing. Exports typically are only allowed to export "basic bullet designs", no fancy hollow points, no fancy ELR berger style bullets, etc. etc.
Case design, again, is an important factor, and you're typically only allowed to export "basic designs". So like, 30-06, 308, 223, etc. etc. None of the super fancy American designs that allow you to take a 308 case and turn it into a mile+ ELR rifle that bucks the wind for about how that range, thus making a sniper's job much easier.
A lot of people don't realize, weapons (including guns and ammo) are technically, "open state secrets", That's why export is so heavily regulated. In some cases, between friendly allied nations, you'll have a case where a foreign weapons company will be allowed to build "localized production plants" in an allied nation to make guns to sell to non military customers (Think like Sig and Glock having American branches to build guns here in the US because it's much easier than trying to import them from Germany/Austria). But for the most part, weapons trade, even among allied nations, is heavily restricted to older designs that aren't up to date when it comes to "the cutting edge", so as to prevent reverse engineering, and weapons/ammo ending up in the hands of enemy states.
So yeah, bit of a rant I know, but this is basically nothing new, and everyone is trying to act like this is some new phenomenon that's just now happening.
Well look at it this way, once it comes out the last three presidents sans Trump (biden, hussein, and Bush Jr.) were all illegally elected in some way (Jr. and biden cheated to get in, and while obama MAY have been elected legitamately the first time, he was never eligible as a kenyan native), then everything signed into law by them, or done by their supreme court justices will be overturned because it was all illegal in the first place.
That include legalizing gay marriage among many other things (like the establishment of the NSA, the patriot act, etc. etc.). Though I will admit that it WOULD be better for the government to just get out of marriage in general, but at the same time, I believe the better way to deal with "the gay problem", is to take the route Russia, Hungary, and Poland did.
Ban all public expressions of sexuality and forbid any kind of talk about sexuality or sexual expression with children except for parents. Boom, the alphabet populations in all three countries crashed. They didn't go away entirely (there's always been gays), but they don't proliferate without the brainwashing propaganda apparatus that is being used in most of the west.
Truth be told, I personally don't think it will be much of a problem in the future. I firmly believe that it's a mental illness (whether you think it's parasites, or something else is up for debate), and I think there's a cure for it just like there's a cure for diabetes, cancer, etc. etc. But it's being withheld by the cabal because queers are easy to manipulate and make into an "oppressed group".
The only problem I see going into the future is how do you get all the current gays to take the cure. You can't force them (obviously), and who knows how many will willingly take it. I suppose you COULD feasibly force them to take it like you would a schizophrenia patient if they're unhinged enough (let's be real a lot of gays are just insane), but it's a problem for the future, no use worrying over it right now.
It'll be a problem that has to be solved during the rebuilding phase, right now we need to finish winning the war.
Being realistic, no 14 year old (especially 14 year old girls) care too awful much about politics. That weird age of 12-15 is like, THE WORST time in your life as far as hormones go, so even if you could redpill them to an extent, it's entirely possible that they'll change their opinion on everything the literal next week because of peer pressure from school or some other outlet (social media, etc.)
All kids want at that age is to "fit in". So being brutally honest, there's not much you can do unless they've already formed a strong belief about something. It's a lot easier with guys, because a lot of male oriented hobbies typically have SOME form of political undertones. Guns/hunting involve gun politics. Cars involve emissions and environmental politics. etc. etc. That's why you see a lot of tween/teen guys developing hardline political beliefs at that age, whereas with girls, they change their opinion based on whatever "the current thing" is, like most sheeple.
And no, I'm not being sexist. I'm just stating facts, tween/teens, and especially tween/teen girls, are the most wish-washy people on the planet, and it's entirely because of puberty hormones, confusion from outside stimuli, and peer pressure.
So yeah, you can drop some hints, see where it leads, but I wouldn't expect anything to stick too much until the cabal falls and the media propaganda and peer pressure shifts from pro-cabal/pro-liberal to pro-patriot/pro-conservative.
That's when all of the people with the sheeple mentality will finally start changing their tunes.
Well no, not my point. I meant everyone seems to be saying "WW III has started" from this. My point is that this isn't anything new. There was just a 4 year gap while Trump was president.
It's not good by any stretch of the imagination, and I agree with what you said, but It's hardly an invasion of Poland or Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
I mean, not to belittle it, but what's the big deal? Didn't Obama do this for all years of his "presidency"? If I remember correctly, his rampant bombing of Syria and several other nations in the area resulted in a domino effect that revived the North African Slave Trade.
So yeah, It's not good (obviously), but I don't see what the big deal is as far as major world events. It's just more of the same.
Notice how you refused to list a single time in history that open acceptance of homosexuality has led to any positive in society? I'm not going to argue about retarded fallacies, since that would be nothing more than a back and forth. So I'll still be waiting for you to list a single instance of "positive homosexual influence" to counter my multiple examples of negative homosexual influence.
By the way, I didn't mention it initially, but since you're calling my logic flawed and calling me illiterate, I'll mention it now. Your logic is flawed. You can make homosexuality illegal, Poland has done it, Hungary has done it, Russia has done it. All you have to do is make it illegal to advertise ANY sexuality in public, and magically, all the gays go away for the most part. Of course there are still small populations of the alphabet crew in those countries, but when they can't spread gay propaganda out the wazoo without it being a felony, then "magically" the number of gays decreases and the ones that do exist actually keep it in the bedroom behind closed doors like most want them to.
So yes, you CAN ban homosexuality, and every other perversion that leads to moral degeneracy.
The whole "raise your kids" better argument doesn't work here when LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD is coming against you in order to brainwash them. Are you just going to keep your children in a bubble on the family farm? That may work in the short term, but what about when they have to leave your hundred acres to start socializing and meet people to start their own family?
This is why you have to have top down solutions for certain problems. I'm generally not a fan, but certain problems have no other solution when literally every institution and person of power is colluding towards a single goal. It doesn't matter how well you raise your kids, if the moment they leave your carefully crafted bubble, they're inundated with brainwashing propaganda every single moment of every single day.
Oh get over it already and accept the fact that homosexuality is a "gateway deviancy" into all the morally degenerate crap we see going on today. Every single time in history the homosexuality became openly accepted, it's always led to various forms of degeneracy, with the end goal being pedophila in every case. Ancient Greece/Rome, Ancient Japan, Weimar Germany, etc. etc.
Every single time, it always ends the same. I personally believe it's a mental illness and there's probably a cure for it, but regardless, the historical evidence speaks for itself. Homosexuality, leads to rampant degeneracy.
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
If two people wanna be queer behind closed doors, fine. That's between them and God and I agree the government has no right to decide what happens in a private home.
That's why I'm against things like the old Texas "Anti-sodomy law" that let Texas Police break into someone's house if they were accused of being gay (similar to red flag laws).
But open acceptance of homosexuality has led to nothing but degeneracy where we have queers in San Fransisco singing about forcibly converting children into being gay, public schools brainwashing children into being gay, trans, non-binary, etc. etc. and pedophile drag queens dressing up as LITERAL DEMONS, reading gay propaganda to children in libraries.
When you're defending homosexuality, YOU ARE DEFENDING THAT DEVIANCY.
And that's all there is too. So stop trying to take the "moral high ground" on this. Even if you're not religious, historical facts speak for themselves. Homosexuality is ALWAYS a net negative. Name a single time in history that open acceptance of homosexuality has led to anything positive in society?
I'll wait.
Oh get over it already and accept the fact that homosexuality is a "gateway deviancy" into all the morally degenerate crap we see going on today. Every single time in history the homosexuality became openly accepted, it's always led to various forms of degeneracy, with the end goal being pedophila in every case. Ancient Greece/Rome, Ancient Japan, Weimar Germany, etc. etc.
Every single time, it always ends the same. I personally believe it's a mental illness and there's probably a cure for it, but regardless, the historical evidence speaks for itself. Homosexuality, leads to rampant degeneracy.
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
And every time it's brought up on here, you come running to defend it. Get over it and accept that if nothing else, it's a gateway to degeneracy. If two people wanna be queer behind closed doors, fine. That's between them and God and I agree the government has no right to decide what happens in a private home.
That's why I'm against things like the old Texas "Anti-sodomy law" that let Texas Police break into someone's house if they were accused of being gay (similar to red flag laws).
But open acceptance of homosexuality has led to nothing but degeneracy where we have queers in San Fransisco singing about forcibly converting children into being gay, public schools brainwashing children into being gay, trans, non-binary, etc. etc. and pedophile drag queens dressing up as LITERAL DEMONS, reading gay propaganda to children in libraries.
When you're defending homosexuality, YOU ARE DEFENDING THAT DEVIANCY.
To be fair, US steel isn't exactly top dog anymore. Nucor is the new top dog in North American Steel production. If I remember correctly, they produce either double or triple what US steel does in a year. So yeah, kind of a big fall, but not exactly the end of the world as far as US Steel production goes.