bucknaway

9a9278cd91ddf22fbd6da354bda226a2.mp4

6ad8fce303404769a6fab7a0c4711c01.mp4

b318ee12a0f4d30ae61dd78a1b750806.mp4

fa7acd642e4e2decf4720976e3bc83eb.mp4

Enjoy me while I last. Come Monday it's back to work and back to reality 😇

There isn’t a single reason companies leave “blue” states, but a mix of cost-related and policy-related factors motivates many of these moves. The trend has shown up in several high-profile relocations out of states like California and New York to places including Texas, Florida, and other lower-tax states. Here’s what business leaders and data point to as the main drivers: 1. Lower taxes and operating costs Companies often pay lower corporate income taxes, lower personal income taxes for executives, and generally lower costs of doing business in states like Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and others. That can boost profitability, especially for firms with thin margins. 2. Cost of living and cost of labor High living costs in blue states can translate to higher wages and benefits firms need to offer to attract workers. In contrast, many firms see savings in states where housing and wages are relatively lower. 3. Regulation and legal environment Heavier regulatory requirements around employment, environment, land use, and corporate governance can make planning and expansion more complex or expensive. Some executives explicitly cite this as a factor in relocation decisions. 4. Quality-of-life and workforce recruitment Firms also consider where they can recruit and retain employees who want affordable housing, less congestion, or different lifestyle options. In some cases, companies leave expensive urban hubs because employees choose jobs in places with a lower cost of living. 5. Competitive incentives from other states States trying to attract business will sometimes offer tax breaks, grants, or other support that makes relocation financially appealing. 6. Broader migration trends Businesses don’t make decisions in a vacuum. When workers and families relocate to other states for cost reasons, companies may follow to stay close to customers and talent pools. Demographic shifts show strong inbound migration to many Sun Belt and Mountain West states. 7. Specific legal trends in incorporation law Separate from state migration, even states known as corporate havens, like Delaware, have seen firms reincorporate in other states because of changes in corporate litigation and governance environments. There’s debate about how much of this reflects policy choices versus broader economic shifts, and many firms still operate successfully in traditional hubs. But for a significant number of relocations, reducing costs and finding a policy environment that fits their long-term strategy are core reasons.

c63e0a8c1738919c4743aeb7d4998b56.mp4

338d3755dbef409d2485b6e6206de64f.mp4

f630479c8a58b02e1c6fd51ce118e2fc.mp4

3cd6833ee8ff951b8c70f96604353eb9.mp4

750a61805504283ba7c59a7ea9979926.mp4

5966c571985e6a725cd754448ac23036.mp4

cd87d5a03e382650e3731c8b6c2cf04d.mp4

50df176890a0feca8a4e6f139da9186d.mp4

f2b251ccaa70883d70e15a72bf8c33ba.mp4

2c27385df5bd256f2aad3b5fa06069b8.mp4

abd1b09d64b3dade837874f5d4911291.mp4

Short answer: no. Mainstream media in the U.S. is not mostly owned by conservatives or the right. Ownership and editorial direction are two different things, and they often get mixed together. Here’s the clean breakdown. --- 1. Who owns most U.S. mainstream media? Most major outlets are owned by large publicly traded corporations or wealthy individuals. Ownership itself is usually profit-driven, not ideological. Some key examples: Comcast Owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC Corporate leadership: generally centrist, pro-business Editorial split: NBC is mainstream, MSNBC leans left The Walt Disney Company Owns ABC News Corporate stance: apolitical publicly, pro-market Warner Bros. Discovery Owns CNN Historically center to center-left editorially Paramount Global Owns CBS News Traditionally centrist, institutional tone News Corp Owns Fox News, Wall Street Journal Clear exception: conservative editorial direction So structurally, ownership is mixed, not dominated by conservatives. --- 2. Editorial lean vs ownership This is where confusion usually comes from. Editorial content can lean left or right Owners tend to prioritize audience size, advertising, and stability For example: MSNBC leans left, but its owner (Comcast) is not ideologically left-wing Fox News leans right, and its ownership (Murdoch family via News Corp) openly supports conservative politics Editorial choices are often about market positioning, not ideology. --- 3. Overall balance of influence If you look at reach and influence: Left-leaning or center-left outlets dominate: Network news Most major newspapers Public broadcasting Right-leaning media is: More concentrated (especially Fox News) Highly effective with a loyal audience Disproportionately influential relative to its number of outlets So the landscape looks like this: More outlets lean center or center-left One dominant outlet (Fox News) anchors the right --- 4. Bottom line Mainstream media is not mostly owned by conservatives Ownership is corporate and profit-focused Editorial leanings skew center to center-left overall Conservative media influence is real but concentrated, not dominant in ownership If you want, I can also break this down by: TV vs newspapers Audience size vs number of outlets U.S. vs international media ownership Just say the word.

I asked chat GPT... Short answer: yes, parts of that post could plausibly draw attention from federal law enforcement, even if no action ultimately comes of it. Here’s why, broken down plainly. --- What crosses the line legally In the U.S., a lot of political speech is protected, even ugly or extreme speech. But there are limits. Statements that advocate or endorse violence against the U.S. government, the President, or Washington, DC are treated very differently from general political ranting. Key red flags in that post: “Bomb DC” That is a direct reference to violence against the nation’s capital. Even if the poster claims it’s rhetorical or sarcastic, those words alone can trigger scrutiny. Calls to arrest or remove a president by force Saying “arrest Trump and bring him to justice” by itself is not illegal. But when paired with violent language and references to bombing, it can be interpreted as endorsing unlawful action. Endorsing or encouraging violence broadly The post repeatedly endorses bombing countries and arresting leaders “who gives a shit about proof,” which reinforces a violent, lawless tone. Federal agencies do not need proof that someone will act. They look at whether speech could reasonably be read as encouraging violence. --- How the FBI typically handles this Federal Bureau of Investigation does not arrest everyone who posts something inflammatory online. What usually happens instead: The post may be logged or flagged, often automatically Analysts assess context, credibility, and pattern If the poster appears unstable, persistent, or escalatory, it may lead to: A background check A knock-and-talk (informal interview) Monitoring, not charges Most cases go nowhere, but the attention itself can be stressful and permanent in records. --- Protected speech vs risky speech Protected: Harsh criticism Profanity Saying a president should be impeached, tried, or voted out Expressing opposition to wars or policies Risky: Explicit references to bombing U.S. locations Language that sounds like advocacy of violence, not metaphor Combining rage, targets, and violent verbs The poster may intend satire, but intent doesn’t control how it’s evaluated. --- Why forums warn users like this The reply saying “be careful” is actually smart. Online posts: Are permanent Are searchable Can be copied out of context Can be attributed later even if deleted People often assume “I didn’t mean it literally” is enough. It isn’t. --- Bottom line Could it get the poster in trouble? Yes, it could draw attention. Is arrest likely? Unlikely by itself. Is it reckless? Absolutely. Is this the kind of language federal agencies flag? Yes. If someone wants to criticize a president or government action forcefully, there are many ways to do it without invoking violence. Once you do, you’ve left the safe zone. If you want, I can also explain what specific federal statutes this kind of language brushes up against, or how moderation systems usually detect posts like this.

I wonder if this is the type of post that gets the FBI's attention or another federal agencies attention? I'd never suggest attacking the USA, it's capital or its president. Be careful...

There aren’t any reliable projections yet for how much the upcoming Melania documentary is expected to gross worldwide. No major box office forecasts have been published, and it’s too early for industry analysts to estimate global ticket sales before the film even opens. Here’s what is known so far: The documentary, directed by Brett Ratner and focused on Melania Trump, will get a theatrical release worldwide on January 30, 2026 before it streams later. **Amazon MGM Studios reportedly paid about $40 million for distribution rights, one of the larger sums for a documentary licensing deal. There’s no current box office forecast for global gross, and without advance ticket sales or early industry estimates, any specific number would be speculation. Documentaries typically vary widely in theatrical performance. Some political documentaries with strong interest can do tens of millions worldwide, but many earn much less at the box office, especially once they move to streaming. Actual gross will depend on critical reception, marketing, and how audiences respond once it’s released.

859d8e55e3659b3b36180e075ad937aa.mp4

c64bafe8e73c1ee4a86196a20eba6e64.mp4

Oil refineries are leaving California for a few very specific, structural reasons. This isn’t about one regulation or one company decision. It’s the combined economics of operating a refinery in the state. Tight environmental regulations California has the most stringent air-quality, emissions, and fuel regulations in the country. Refineries must meet standards that don’t apply elsewhere, which drives up compliance and capital costs. Even routine maintenance or upgrades often require long permitting timelines. Cap-and-trade costs Refineries must buy emissions allowances under California’s cap-and-trade program. As allowances become scarcer and more expensive, operating costs rise every year. These costs are much higher than in refinery-heavy states like Texas or Louisiana. Special fuel requirements California uses a unique gasoline blend. That means refineries must be configured specifically for the state’s market and can’t easily import fuel from elsewhere when production drops. It also means upgrades are more complex and expensive. Aging facilities and high upgrade costs Many California refineries are decades old. Keeping them compliant requires major capital investments, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. Companies increasingly decide those investments don’t make sense given shrinking demand and regulatory risk. Declining long-term demand State policy strongly pushes electric vehicles, fuel efficiency, and reduced fossil fuel use. From a business standpoint, that signals lower gasoline demand over time, making long-term refinery investments harder to justify. Legal and policy uncertainty Refiners face uncertainty around future regulations, potential new taxes, price-gouging rules, and litigation. Even if a refinery is profitable today, companies worry about sudden policy changes that could erase margins. Better economics elsewhere Other states offer lower taxes, fewer regulatory layers, faster permitting, and proximity to crude supplies. Refineries in the Gulf Coast can also export fuel globally, which California refineries generally can’t do as easily. Consolidation, not just relocation Some refineries aren’t moving at all. They’re being shut down or converted to renewable diesel facilities because that aligns better with California’s incentives and climate policies. The result is fewer refineries operating in the state, which can increase gasoline price volatility because California has limited backup supply when something goes offline. If you want, I can also explain how this affects gas prices specifically, or why refinery exits tend to cause sharp price spikes in California but not in other states.

Several factors are driving companies to leave California, and it’s usually a mix rather than one single reason. The most commonly cited ones are: High costs California has some of the highest business costs in the U.S. That includes commercial rent, utilities, workers’ compensation, and especially housing, which affects wages and employee retention. Taxes The state has high corporate taxes and the highest top marginal personal income tax rate in the country. For owners and executives, that can make a big difference compared to states with no income tax. Regulatory burden Environmental rules, labor laws, and compliance requirements are stricter than in most states. Many companies say the rules are complex, slow to navigate, and expensive to comply with, especially for manufacturing, logistics, and energy-intensive operations. Labor laws and liability Rules around overtime, independent contractors, scheduling, and employee classification are tougher than elsewhere. Businesses also point to higher exposure to lawsuits and penalties. Remote work changed the math Once companies proved they could operate with remote or distributed teams, the advantage of being physically located in California became less compelling. That made relocation easier. Incentives elsewhere States like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, and North Carolina actively recruit companies with tax incentives, faster permitting, and lower ongoing costs. Quality-of-life concerns (for some regions) Issues like traffic, homelessness, crime in certain cities, and long commute times can affect both employees and executives, influencing relocation decisions. One important nuance: California still creates a lot of new businesses and remains a major hub for tech, entertainment, agriculture, and biotech. Many companies don’t leave entirely. They keep a presence in California while expanding or relocating headquarters, manufacturing, or distribution to lower-cost states. If you want, I can break this down by industry (tech, manufacturing, logistics, finance) or compare California directly to a specific state companies are moving to.