In human history, only 50% of the population cares about politics at most. The Democratic Party requires everyone to vote just for election fraud, and it is nonsense to let criminal criminals vote

So I have no confidence in the future of the United States. I predicted these means of the Democratic Party in my book “the course of western civilization(essence version)”  “buy the book” four or five years ago, and they run step by step according to my prediction. Do you think I will have confidence in the United States? As for the future of the United States, I think it may finally be operated by the Puritan governance model in Massachusetts, which I advocate. This may be the last means to save the United States. Of course, the premise is that the United States can be divided into two countries, a red country and a blue country; that is, a conservative country and a radical country, a Christian country and an atheist, non -Christian country. Naturally, it is best not to split, But it seems difficult to be reborn without division. Therefore, the Puritan governance model can be fully implemented in the red country where most are Christians, and only church members have the right to vote; only those who are devout and moral have the right to vote. According to the proportion of Puritans’ practice in Massachusetts, about half of the country’s population has the right to vote. Suppose such strict regulations can’t be implemented in the current situation, at least set some thresholds for voting. For example, you must listen to the sermon for at least some hours, listen to the voice of God, and purify your heart before you vote. Only those who care about the country’s destiny and treat the votes in their hands with piety can vote. Only through this can the country have a future. In fact, this is also a very reasonable, practical design because, in recent decades, the voting rate in the U.S. general election has not been high, only about 50% or 60%, that is to say, basically, half of the population does not care about politics, only about their own private life and material enjoyment. They think politics has nothing to do with them or their ability is insufficient to discuss national affairs, etc. Therefore, setting some thresholds for voting, controlling the voting rate, and trying to vote among devout and moral people should be the most realistic and effective.

As for Democrats even wanting criminal crimes to have the right to vote, I think this is a highly absurd idea. If democratic elections are held in prison, criminals and correctional officers vote together, which can only get one result, killing correctional officers and freeing criminals. Similarly, it can be imagined that if democratic elections can be held in a place with a majority of bad people. The result must be to rob good people and do evil openly. I’m not just saying empty words. This is the reality in the United States. For example, the constituency of anti-American congresswoman Omar is mainly composed of Islamists. They chose her as a congresswoman for anti-American and anti-Christian; they let her cancel the police and let most people do evil. Therefore, Omar can only do anti-American things; otherwise, she may be replaced by others. Therefore, I think that the democratic election was conducted in  50% or 60% of the population who are church members or have morality and faith; let them manage the country. It is definitely better than the current way. It may and should be a way for the United States in the future.

Of course, I would like to emphasize once again that the above model is only suitable for the United States, not for other countries, such as Islamic countries in the Middle East, which operate the country in the way of their own Islamic teachings, the unity of politics and religion, church leaders are the highest leaders of the country, etc.