One of my favorite things about Trump beating Kamala is how much more money the left spent trying to help her win. Democrats FAR outspent Republicans in their campaigns. And once a dollar is spent on this election, it isn’t there to be spent on the next one. I was very skeptical about Trump’s ability to win this election. He was not my choice. But not only did he win, but he really hurt the secular left.

Here’s the story from Daily Caller:

Outside groups spent $442.7 million on independent expenditures designed either to support Vice President Kamala Harris or to oppose Trump between Oct. 5 and Nov. 5, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. On the other side of the equation, PACs only spent about $160.7 million supporting Trump and opposing Harris over the same period. Despite the massive financial advantage, Harris lost the Electoral College and is on track to lose the popular vote as well, according to the New York Times’ projections.

I thought this part below was interesting, because of another story I read recently about how a company that collects donations for Democrat campaigns was not verifying whether the donors were legally allowed to make those donations at all.

Harris’ allies largely relied on dark money — where the original donor is unknown — to fund their home-stretch spending spree, according to FEC records. Future Forward PAC, the primary super PAC that supported Harris, was responsible for about 70% of the pro-Harris and anti-Trump spending during the final month of the election.

Trump’s allies were considerably less reliant on dark money. Make America Great Again Inc., the primary super PAC behind the president-elect, took in about $286.2 million this election cycle, campaign finance records show. Of that sum, about $260 million came from named individuals.

Harris’ official campaign also had far more money than Trump’s, raking in nearly $1 billion in funds while the president-elect took in just $388 million, Forbes reported.

So, here is the article from The Center Square, which reported the latest on Democrat donation collection.

It says:

A nearly year-long investigation into ActBlue, a Democratic Party online donation platform, alleges a large number of suspicious donations have been made, resulting in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioning the Federal Election Commission to get involved.

[…]Since launching the investigation, Paxton said it’s been publicly reported that potentially fraudulent transactions have occurred on political committee online platforms.

“Certain platforms appear to facilitate straw donor transactions, where a contributor disguises his identity by attributing his contribution to another, unaware person,” the petition states.

Alleged straw donations are being made through the use of prepaid credit cards, which he says “are a favorite tool of fraudsters.”

Paxton’s office launched an investigation into ActBlue in December to determine if the platform’s operations were compliant with all applicable laws.

[…]The OAG’s investigation says it found a large number of suspicious donations that were made “through obscured identities and untraceable means,” necessitating FEC action.

Through the use of prepaid cards it “appears that straw donations are systematically being made using false identities, through untraceable payment methods,” Paxton said.

We are talking about a lot of money here:

ActBlue says it’s raised more than $15.8 billion online since 2004.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2024, it says “6.9 million unique donors gave over 31 million contributions to 18,396 campaigns and organizations, totaling over $1.5 billion.”

Could these donations be coming from donors who are not legally allowed to make these donations?

I know that China, for example, has a lot to lose if Trump imposes tariffs on their exports. So, if it were possible for them to get away with it, why wouldn’t China collude with Democrats in order to interfere with the election? I would not expect the corrupt Biden-Harris regime to do anything to stop them. They’re too busy faking Trump-Russia  collusion stories, conducting surveillance on the Trump campaigns, pre-dawn raiding the homes of Christian pro-lifers, and labeling American parents as “domestic terrorists”.

Normally, on this blog, every other post is some “new study” that I can use in discussing the controversial issues of the day. A lot of the best new studies get unpublished if they go against the worldview of the secular left, for example, the famous ROGD study. (That one was later re-published). Or they don’t get published at all. It’s fun to see what was allowed to get published pre-ban.

Here’s a study that’s on PubMed, one of my favorite web sites for studies.

Abstract:

This pilot study compared mothers of boys with gender identity disorder (GID) with mothers of normal boys to determine whether differences in psychopathology and child-rearing attitudes and practices could be identified. Results of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines and the Beck Depression Inventory revealed that mothers of boys with GID had more symptoms of depression and more often met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder than the controls. Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with GID compared with only 6% of controls met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines or had symptoms of depression on the Beck Depression Inventory. Results of the Summers and Walsh Symbiosis Scale suggested that mothers of probands had child-rearing attitudes and practices that encouraged symbiosis and discouraged the development of autonomy.

Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with gender identity disorder were diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder or had symptoms of depression.

Now, there are concerns I have about this study. First, it’s a small number of research subjects, which is understandable because back in 1991, there were not a lot of kids with gender identity disorder.

So what is Borderline Personality Disorder? Here is the description from the NIH:

People with borderline personality disorder may experience intense mood swings and feel uncertainty about how they see themselves. Their feelings for others can change quickly, and swing from extreme closeness to extreme dislike. These changing feelings can lead to unstable relationships and emotional pain.

People with borderline personality disorder also tend to view things in extremes, such as all good or all bad. Their interests and values can change quickly, and they may act impulsively or recklessly.

I don’t know much about mental illness, but I’ve been told never to date (much less marry) someone with BPD, because it is the most serious mental illness.

This finding from the study is interesting to me, because it suggests a reason why we are seeing this enormous surge in LGBT identification among young people. Sure, there is peer pressure, that’s what the study on ROGD was about. But now it suggests a chain between radical feminism, the Sexual Revolution, the decline of women’s happiness, and their transgender children.

We know for certain that women are experiencing far greater unhappiness after radical feminism became widespread, because they don’t like the goodies of radical feminism – promiscuity, abortion, careers, etc. – as much as they liked being married to a good man, and being a stay-at-home mother.

Daily Wire noted this in 2017:

According to a recent study from Yale University researchers, liberated, college educated women are freezing their eggs because they can’t find a man to marry and have children with before their natural childbearing years expire. In the U.K., for instance, one in five women is childless when their natural reproductive years expires, as opposed to one in ten women a mere generation prior.

So what’s to blame for this onslaught of college-educated yet terribly empty women?

The short answer is feminism.

The short answer is feminism, because although women claim that it’s men’s fault for not marrying them, no man with a brain would ever marry a feminist. It’s actually become too dangerous for men to even date feminists. I don’t even talk to them. The character traits that go with the feminist worldview are not just anti-marriage, they’re dangerous to men. Women who blame the bad results of their own choices on men are not safe to even speak to.

And as I’ve noted before, the decline of marriage is causing a massive spike in mental illness. Not in conservative women – just in progressive women.

Feminist web site Evie Magazine reported on the some 2020 findings by Pew Research (left-wing pollster):

A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point.

[T]he study, which is titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64, was dated March 2020 — over a year ago.

The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.”

[…]White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.

Here’s the part of the data I thought was most interesting:

It turns out that marriage accounts for a lot of women’s happiness. But by allying themselves with radical feminism, women have made themselves totally unattractive to marriage-minded men. I think that the explosion of kids with gender identity disorder is just one of the ways that feminism is working itself out.