I was looking at this graph of the Republican primary polls from the beginning of this year until now when a realization struck me:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/

Trump's numbers go up at almost precisely the same points in time that DeSantis' numbers go down, and by almost the same percentages. Has DeSantis' self-immolating campaign actually made Trump's popularity increase?

In President Trump's "Meet the Press" interview with Kristen Welker, he seemed to be in favor of some sort of abortion compromise that he thinks would please both sides. He seemed to think that an ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy would be a solution that would bring everyone together.

The media has especially been running with his quote "I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake." (which was a reference to DeSantis' 6-week abortion ban). This media emphasis likely an attempt to make conservative members of his supporter base see him as pro-abortion and abandon support of him.

I've already seen a friend of mine start to see him as pro-abortion now, causing him to have second thoughts about supporting him.

What are your thoughts on what he said? Do you think there's a good counterargument to win back conservatives and pro-life people alienated by the quote?

Here's a link to a page with both a full video and full transcript of the "Meet the Press" interview:

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/transcripts/full-transcript-read-meet-the-press-kristen-welker-interview-trump-rcna104778

And here's the section of the transcript regarding abortion (which starts at about 24 minutes in the video):

KRISTEN WELKER:

We are going to get to the war in Ukraine, but first, I do want to talk about the issue of abortion which is —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– important to a lot of voters all across the country. Just this week, women in Idaho and Tennessee, I don’t know if you saw this, filed suit against their states saying their lives were put at risk after they were denied abortion services, because of their states’ restrictive laws put in place after Roe was overturned. So my question for you, Mr. President, is: How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Ready? Little bit of a long answer. I hope you have time.

KRISTEN WELKER:

I hope you have time. I’m here for as long as you have.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So you have Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people including Democrats wanted it to go back to states so the states could make the right. Roe v. Wade — I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all, because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say, after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that. I just have to, Democrats are not saying that.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Of course they do —

KRISTEN WELKER:

That’s not true.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

You have a Virginia governor, previous governor, who said, “After the baby is born, you will make a determination, and if you want, you will kill that baby.” The baby is now born.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, Democrats writ large are not talking about that. Only 1% of late-term abortions happen, and always in the state of —

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Okay. They are the —

KRISTEN WELKER:

– crisis.

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– radical people —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Okay.

FMR PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– because nobody wants to see —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But does —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– abortion after five months and six months and seven months. And, now it’s going to — it gave people the belief — and pro-life, look, just so you understand, it’s pretty much 50/50. It’s a 50/50 issue, amazing. If you look at the charts, it’s been 49/51. It’s been like that for many years, goes both ways — 51 — both ways. Ready? I was able to do something which gave at least pro-life people a voice. Now it’s going to work out. Now, the number of months will be determined.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Can you answer this question?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And you’re going to have something where everybody comes together.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Does it bother you though that women say their lives are being put at risk? Do you feel you bear any responsibility, because as you say, you are responsible for having Roe v. Wade overturned.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What’s going to happen, this is an issue that’s been going on for a long time. And it’s a very polarizing issue. Because of what’s been done, and because of the fact we brought it back to the states, we’re going to have people come together on this issue. They’re going to determine the time, because nobody wants to see five, six, seven, eight, nine months. Nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb. I said, with Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I made a statement, “Rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, you’re allowed to do that, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

KRISTEN WELKER:

Again, no one is arguing for that —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Again, listen, look —

KRISTEN WELKER:

That’s not a part of anyone’s argument, Mr. President.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Look, the Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me talk to you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Nobody wants that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Democrats don’t want that either.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

So we’re going to come together —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But let’s — I want to — I want to know what you want. I want to know what you’re going to do if you’re —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We are going to come together —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you sign federal legislation that would ban abortion at 15 weeks?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. Let me just tell you what I’d do. I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable. Right now, to my way of thinking, the Democrats are the radicals, because after four and five and six months. But you have to say this, after birth. You have New York State and other places that passed legislation where you’re allowed to kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, I want to give voters who are going to be weighing in on this election —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Yeah.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– a very clear sense of where you stand on —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think they’ll — I think they’re all going to like me. I think both sides are going to like me.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But, let me, let me — but Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What’s going to have to happen is you’re going to have to —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, let me just ask this question, please--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, you’re asking me a question. What’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months. You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy. Because 92% of the Democrats don’t want to see abortion after a certain period of time.

KRISTEN WELKER:

If a federal ban landed on your desk if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15 weeks —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Are you talking about a complete ban?

KRISTEN WELKER:

A ban at 15 weeks.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, people, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you sign that?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years. I’m not going to say I would or I wouldn’t. I mean, DeSanctus is willing to sign a five-week and six-week ban.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Would you support that? You think that goes too far?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we’ll come up with a number, but at the same time, Democrats won’t be able to go out at six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. And Kristen, you have to look at this, because you said “no.” You have some states that are allowed to kill the child after birth, and you can’t allow that.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, again, no one is calling for a child to be killed after birth. No one is calling for that to be allowed —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

But you have legislation —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But let me just ask you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Kristen, you have legislation in certain states where it’s allowed.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The governor of Virginia, previous governor, who was a whack job —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Previous governor.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I call him the Michael Jackson governor.

KRISTEN WELKER:

No one’s talking about that as part of their platform —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That governor —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I want to know what you want —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Excuse me, that governor said you can kill the baby after birth.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But Mr. President, this is about what you would do if you were reelected. As you know, you upset some anti —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We will agree to a number of weeks, which will be where both sides will be happy. We have to bring the country together on this issue.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Mr. President, when you talk about negotiating, I think a lot of people think to themselves, this is an issue that they care about deeply in their hearts —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I care about it too. Oh, I care about it too.

KRISTEN WELKER:

And they know where they stand, and they want to know where you stand. As you know, some anti-abortion groups are really looking for some clarity from you. So let me just ask you to put a fine point on this. Should the federal government impose any abortion restrictions, or should it be completely left up to the states?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

No, I don’t think you should have — I don’t think you should be allowed to have abortions well into a pregnancy.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But what about the question I just asked you —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We’re going to agree — no — we’re going to agree to a number of weeks or months or however you want to define it. And both sides are going to come together and both sides — both sides, and this is a big statement, both sides will come together. And for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.

KRISTEN WELKER:

At the federal level?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It could be state or it could be federal. I don’t frankly care.

KRISTEN WELKER:

So you’re not committed to a ban at the federal level.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I will say this. Everybody, including the great legal scholars, love the idea of Roe v. Wade terminated so it can be brought back to the states.

KRISTEN WELKER:

It sounds like that’s what you think too, that it should remain a state issue —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I, I would, I would say this: From a pure standpoint, from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better, but I can live with it either way. It’s much more important, the number of weeks is much more important. But something will happen with the number of weeks, the amount of time, after which you can’t do it. And you know what? The most — the most powerful people that are anti-abortion are okay with that now. And you know what? They weren’t okay with that even a year ago.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Your former vice president, Mike Pence, believes that a fetus should have constitutional rights. Do you believe that, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, Mike Pence said something about 15 weeks too, which was a big change for Mike Pence, because Mike Pence had no exceptions. I have exceptions, by the way. I think people should have exceptions. I think if it’s rape or incest or the life of the mother, I think you have to have exceptions. It’s very important.

KRISTEN WELKER:

Does a fetus have constitutional rights, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

And a lot of people, when they don’t have exceptions — now, I will tell you that I think most people, most Republicans are willing. You go: life of the mother, rape, incest. I think most of them are there.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But should a fetus —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

That’s a big statement.

KRISTEN WELKER:

– have constitutional rights, Mr. president?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I don’t know, I don’t know what he’s saying, because before, he wanted, you know, you couldn’t have abortions at all —

KRISTEN WELKER:

But what are you saying? What do you think —

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

Now all of a sudden — excuse me — now all of a sudden he’s saying 15 weeks. I said, “Wow, where did that come from? That’s a radical change.” Look, something is going to happen that’s going to be good for everybody. And that’s what I’m — I’m almost like a mediator in this case. They wanted Roe v. Wade terminated because it was inappropriate. We got it done. Something is going to happen. It’s going to be a number of weeks. Something is going to happen where the both sides are going to be able to come together. And then we’ll be able to go onto other things, like, the economy, our military —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Are you saying a federal ban with exceptions, is that what you’re saying?

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

What I say is very simple, because you can’t put words in my mouth like that —

KRISTEN WELKER:

I just want to understand.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– because you’ve been hearing me talk about this--

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– issue —

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yeah.

FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

– and I think talk about it very productively. It could be a state ban, it could be a federal ban, but Democrats want that too. Democrats don’t want to see abortion in the seventh month, okay. I speak to a lot of Democrats. They want a number. There is a number, and there’s a number that’s going to be agreed to, and Republicans should go out and say the following. They — cause, I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject. I watch some of them without the exceptions, et cetera, et cetera. I said, “Other than certain parts of the country, you can’t — you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks.” Because Democrats don’t want to be radical on the issue, most of them, some do. They don’t want to be radical on the issue. They don’t want to kill a baby in the seventh month or the ninth month or after birth. And they’re allowed to do that, and you can’t do that.

I have a friend who has been a staunch Trump supporter since 2016, but now seems to be on the verge of abandoning support of him. I suspect that Ron DeSantis' recent attack campaign painting Trump as a pro-LGBT activist is probably what spurred this on.

Here's an ad of said campaign:

https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1674899610379116546

And here's a Conservative Treehouse article about it:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/01/desantis-campaign-goes-full-westboro-baptist-church-in-raving-campaign-ad-against-gays/

In a nutshell, my friend is a devout Christian, staunch social conservative, and, more importantly, has obsessive-compulsive disorder. One of his symptoms is that he is obsessed with homosexuality. While he cares about other political issues to some degree or another, he sees homosexuality as the one most important issue that there is, and sees anything less than complete and strict opposition to homosexuality and homosexuals as being unconservative and un-Christian.

He even spends a lot of time and focus researching his favorite celebrities to find out if they have anti-gay views, and if they don't, he gets depressed about it. He more or less disowned Kevin Sorbo lately (and now thinks of Sorbo as not being a true Christian) because he found out that Sorbo said the following in an interview:

I mean, one time somebody said that I was homophobic, and I went, “What?” I’ve been in the business for 35 years, I’ve worked with a lot of gay people, and you won’t find one gay person saying I was a horrible, wretched guy to work with. You won’t, because I don’t have that in my body. I don’t care what someone’s sexual preference is. That doesn’t bother me in the least.

I’ve worked with a lot of gay people, and you won’t find one gay person saying I was a horrible, wretched guy to work with.

You said that you’re not homophobic, so does that mean that you believe in gay marriage and equal rights for the LGBT community?

Yeah sure, why not! As long as we’re all paying taxes, why not? Everyone can have the same benefits. And I think we’ve made leaps and bounds with that. You’re always going to have Christian groups speaking out against it, but you’ll also have Christian groups not speaking that way. So, let’s have an open dialogue and talk about it.

He recently sent me some emails in which he expressed concerns with President Trump that now make him uneasy about supporting him. Here are some relevant quotes to give you an idea of where he's coming from:

One of my concerns stems from Trump's lack of a consistent ideology. It appears that he lacks solid principles, which often leads him to change his stance and express different opinions whenever it suits him. This inconsistency raises questions about his sincerity in fighting for us and the values we hold dear.

For instance, following the tragic Parkland High School shooting in Florida, Trump claimed to be a firm supporter of the Second Amendment but then expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on comprehensive gun reform. This sudden shift in his position on an issue so important to conservatives raises doubts about his commitment to our values.

Furthermore, Trump's ongoing criticism of Ron DeSantis, even after DeSantis proved himself by winning reelection as the governor of Florida, raises concerns about Trump's loyalty to fellow Republicans. Trump's attacks on DeSantis, whom conservative pundits had promised would be part of a strong Republican wave during the midterm elections, highlight his shifting allegiances and inconsistent support.

Additionally, Trump's praise of other Republican presidential challengers, including his compliments to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., raises questions about his political leanings and priorities. Such endorsements and acknowledgments can be puzzling when considering Trump's claim to be a champion for conservative causes.

Moreover, Trump's track record on social issues has left me uneasy. Despite his attempts to portray himself as socially conservative, his past associations with individuals such as George Takei and his efforts to court support from the Log Cabin Republicans demonstrate a more liberal stance on gay rights. His children, including Don Trump Jr., have also displayed socially liberal views, including support for transgender individuals. These actions and attitudes suggest that Trump may not align with our conservative values when it comes to social matters.

In light of these concerns, it is crucial for us to reflect on whether Donald Trump truly upholds the principles and values that we hold dear. As we move forward, it is important to carefully evaluate the impact of his actions and statements on our conservative ideals and the future of our nation.

(By the way, if any of that reads like it's written by ChatGPT, I'm pretty sure it is. I suspect that he recently started using it to reword his emails to me to be more eloquent, as he never used to write like that before. I think that he doesn't realize that I've noticed.)

He also sent me the following links, which he sees as evidence that Trump is pro-gay and therefore unconservative:

https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/11/log-cabin-republicans-claim-gays-love-melania-trump-in-painful-video/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/smoke-and-mirrors-grenell-claim-trump-helped-legalize-homosexuality-worldwide-is-fake-news-activists-say

https://twitter.com/NvrBackDown24/status/1674830831301410827?s=20

As well as this one, that portrays Trump as "unhinged" for his criticisms of Ron DeSantis:

https://yourvoicenews.com/yva-5-31-23-trumpunhinged-ianmilescheong/#yva-5-31-23-trumpunhinged-ianmilescheong

The impression that I get is that he seems to see Ron DeSantis as the "anti-gay hero we all need" and is starting to buy into DeSantis' characterization of Trump, as well as to dislike Trump for his attacks on DeSantis.

Does anyone have any advice on what I could write to him in order to convince him that Trump is still worth supporting?

Actress Evangeline Lilly, who spoke out against vaccine mandates and in defense of the Canadian trucker protesters a while back, recently wrote the following in an Instagram post:

Why are we only applauding masculinity in women and villainizing it in men? And why are we only applauding femininity in men and debasing it in women? Why can't we just allow for all of it? Why do we feel the need to vilify a man wearing shit-kicker boots, driving a pick-up truck who's not afraid to punch someone in the face, but if they were a woman, they would be the epitome of cool? Why is a man who loves make-up, cries easily and stays at home to tend to the domestic responsibilities valiant, but a woman who does the same is pathetic?

I think the truly revolutionary act is as old as time: "Do not judge." - Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc. Let each be who they are and let us teach grace and charity above all things.

These overarching ideas are far simpler and more effective than trying to juggle the minutia of judgement. They are ideas that protect us all from the excesses of each persons vices while still allowing the expression of their self. Grace and charity are cornerstones of a thriving society and should not be abandoned. We need them like we need democracy, justice and peace. And, without them, we can't have democracy, justice or peace.

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." -St. Augustine of Hippo

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr1NXwcS-ga/?hl=en

There has been much talk over the years of the "Black Eye Club". Various celebrities and politicians have been seen in public with a black or otherwise bruised eye. There have been various theories, including it being an initiation into the Illuminati (or one of its higher ranks) or being an injury caused by a vril lizard (a supposed alien or demonic parasite that burrows through the eye socket and attaches itself to a nerve or the brain, essentially taking over a person).

However, what if the real explanation is related to the traditional meaning of the phrase "black eye" when used in a metaphorical sense?

Oxford Languages:

Black eye: a mark or source of dishonor or shame. "the building's condition is a black eye for the entire state"

Dictionary.com:

Black Eye: A mark of shame, a humiliating setback, as in "That there are enough homeless folks to need another shelter is a black eye for the administration."

Collins Dictionary:

Give someone a black eye: to punish someone severely, but without causing them permanent harm, for something they have done

Idioms Online:

Give someone a black eye: To damage a person’s (or organization’s) reputation or to shame or humiliate them; can also refer to an organization or any other entity.

What if the "Black Eye Club" is made up of people who are being publicly shamed for doing something that the Illuminati/cabal considers shameful or disloyal? Maybe even making a deal with white hats, in some situations? Perhaps it could even be an excommunication of sorts.

I often see censorship presented as an act of desperation, evidence of a government or other entity desperate to hold on to power that it is losing.

But I read an article today that argues that this view is foolish, and that censorship is effective and a sign that the people who wield it hold an effective and tyrannical level of power.

The article cited the fact that the Soviet Union lasted 68 years and was able to effectively wield censorship for most of that time (to the point that the word "gulag" wasn't known outside the Soviet Union until Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn escaped in the 1970s and wrote "The Gulag Archipelago"), and that Chinese censorship is so effective that almost no one in China knows that the Tiananmen Square Massacre happened.

In essence, the argument of the article was "censorship doesn't mean they're losing, it means that they won enough that they hold the power to shut you up".

What are your thoughts on this? Do you have any good arguments or examples to cite either for or against this view?

I sometimes read the tweets and blog of a self-published science fiction author who frequently posts about political and cultural matters. He's right-wing of a sort (he's very fond of Nick Fuentes), but definitely very different from Trump supporter/MAGA people. Sometimes, I suspect that he would like America to be a Catholic theocracy, but I'm not 100% certain of that.

After one discussion that I had with him on his blog (in which I argued in defense of President Trump), he called me out as being in a "spiritual crisis" in a blog post with "Qult" in the title (even though I never mentioned Q to him). (That's not the blog post of his that this post is about though.)

He thinks that President Trump is a failure who had his shot at fighting the Deep State and refused to take it, that voting on a national level is and always has been inherently a waste of time and a scam from its very inception (meant to justify the will of the Elites by passing it off as the people's will), and that the only way forward is to embrace suffering and persecution as the Christlike thing to do. Today, he posted this on Twitter:

Last night's results were the best outcome long-term. Millions have turned from worshiping the false idols of creature comforts, systems & easy answers. Pictured: the only way out of this👇

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhKhsJgX0Ac_lGc?format=png&name=orig

NormieCons chanting "Vote harder!" & wignats seeking technical paths to secular Boomer largesse both BTFO last night. And to clarify, I don't mean some vague "get religion" moment that treats God like a cosmic sugar Daddy. I mean taking Our Lord's words at face value when he commands each of us to take up his cross. There is no freedom from suffering, only freedom through it.

He's glad that the midterms were stolen, because he sees anyone who has hopes of solving the current political mess through political means as idolaters worshipping a false god of systems and worldly comfort, and wants everyone to blackpill on the idea of ever voting in a national election again.

I'm especially interested in seeing what you think of his latest blog post on the subject, which I have quoted in full below:

In the Before-fore Times, this post would open with “The results are in …” But this is the now-now in Clown World. So we won’t have the exact vote count from last night’s midterms for weeks – if ever.

People hate prognosticators who make rosy predictions that turn out wrong. The only thing they dislike more are people who make grim predictions that come true.

It is in the latter place that I find myself tonight, after having reminded everyone that elections don’t matter, and voting in national races is a waste of time.

But amid the crowds of Steven Crowder clones, zombified Zoomers, and oblivious BoomerCons chanting “Vote harder!” someone has to tell it like it is.

And one disguised blessing of this election, unlike 2020, is all I have to say is John Fetterman.

Comparing the declines of America and Rome is a popular pastime on the dissident right. Now that meme has fresh fodder, since Pennsylvania’s election of a brain-damaged senator mirrors the ancient attempt to make Caligula’s horse a consul.

As with the MAGA paradox, Fetterman’s win presents inveterate vooters with an irreconcilable contradiction. Because only two explanations for his election exist:

1. The vote was rigged.

2. A man with brain damage accurately represents the voters.

Either explanation is a definitive argument against voting in national elections. The latter offers the bonus of putting paid to the whole concept of democracy.

Contra the MAGApedes cope-posting online, this midterm result was the best that anyone interested in saving the nation could have hoped for. Even holdouts who convinced themselves that 2020 was somehow an aberration were red pilled on the folly of democracy last night.

Once more for the latecomers, America’s federal election system now only serves to insulate our unaccountable rulers from the consequences of their disastrous actions. As with the catastrophic fallout from the Hart-Celler Act, the Global War on Terror, and the COVID response, elections allow the regime to point at the people and say, “You asked for this!”

But that deflection relies on most people showing up to the polls again and again like slot machine-addicted gamblers. If national turnout fell a significant margin below 50 percent, the regime’s claims of a mandate would sound absurd to even the slowest citizen.

And it looks like our corrupt rulers’ abuses are indeed waking normies up. Last night’s turnout was 30 percent below 2020 levels. Midterms always draw smaller crowds than presidential elections, but that steep drop off suggests that millions of people have wised up to the rigged game. Removing the regime’s fig leaf isn’t the only – or even the main – reason we should want this trend to continue. Another detrimental effect of voting is it provides a release valve to vent the public’s frustrations.

We live in a materialistic age. We’re taught that all problems can be addressed with technical solutions provided by systems. But the defeat of several pro-life measures last night should disabuse us of the notion that we face technical problems. The disease that’s driven America mad and is now making her waste away is spiritual in origin.

Yes, crime is spiking. Inflation is robbing people blind. The worst abominations are infesting our schools and even our legislatures.

And as the last two elections proved, we’re not voting our way out of this mess.

Our insane regime’s motives are pride and hatred for God. They do not admit of material explanations. Instead, they arise from spiritual evil.

You cannot defeat spiritual evil by voting. The only material means of combating Satan are the sacraments, because God empowers their natural matter to achieve supernatural ends.

When the enemy has seized the moral high ground, you fight him with superior morals. When his motivation is spiritual evil, you conquer him with spiritual goods.

And as much as Late Modern Americans recoil from this reality, the only spiritual good that can confront the evil threatening to destroy us is suffering embraced as penance for sin.

People are suffering now. We are going to suffer more. The choice before us is to try making an end run around our discomfort, which will only lead us into deeper suffering, or take up our crosses for God’s sake.

That’s why the Conservatives – including Christians, who should know better – that continue clinging to Trump do everyone a disservice.

Look, it’s understandable that generations raised by TV, the internet, and smartphones would pin their hopes on a secular savior from the mass media. I admit to indulging in cautious optimism back in the day.

One unambiguous message sent last night is that the final curtain has fallen on the Trump movement. Winning the states he needs in 2024 is now a mathematical impossibility.

But some Zoomers are getting their first real taste of nostalgia, and their rose-colored remembrance of 2016 is luring them into a trap.

This member of Generation Y understands the nostalgia trap all too well. The best year is always the one gone by, and pining for it can be as addictive as any opiate.

But this is crucial: You have to let go.

You will never be able to live a full live if you don’t put the past in its proper context. Letting your past overshadow your future condemns you to the same fate as the forty-year-old loser still reliving his high school quarterback glory days.

Yet there’s nothing new under the sun, and the cure for our spiritual ills remains the same:

Put your trust in Jesus Christ; trust not in princes.