By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After successfully registering, the user should refresh the current page or navigate to a different page on the website to be automatically logged in. Alternatively, refreshing the browser itself will also log the user in. This process ensures a seamless transition into the user’s newly created account. This step is crucial for accessing the website’s features and content.
Read the original article here
Author Stephen King says people will deny they voted for Trump in the future, and honestly, it’s a pretty astute observation. We’re already seeing the seeds of this denial sprouting, and the parallels to past political eras are striking. It’s not exactly breaking news, but the way King frames it, it really hits home.
The core idea is simple: as time passes, and the consequences of a particular political decision become clearer, some voters will try to rewrite history. They’ll distance themselves from the choice they made, pretending they never supported the individual in question. It’s a human reaction, driven by a complex mix of shame, self-preservation, and a desire to fit in. It’s a way to avoid judgment and maintain a sense of self-respect.
Think about it: how many people today will readily admit they supported the Iraq War? Or that they voted for George W. Bush a second time, after the full scale of the war began to show itself? It’s not a common admission. The instinct is to downplay, to deflect, to say, “I didn’t really *support* it. I just… wanted change,” or “I was misled.”
This kind of historical revisionism isn’t new. People can’t seem to own up to their choices. In the future, the internet’s archive will play a huge role, since posts and pictures are forever. This makes denial all the more difficult, especially when those who voted for him end up running into personal issues due to his decisions.
One of the most infuriating aspects of this expected denial is the sheer audacity of those who will attempt to justify their past decisions. Their comments could include something along the lines of, “It would have been worse with the other person.” It’s a desperate attempt to validate their choice, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They’ll stumble, they’ll stammer, but they’ll rarely admit they were wrong.
It’s not hard to understand why this happens. Nobody wants to feel stupid, or like they were easily manipulated. Admitting you were wrong is tough, even for minor things. It’s harder to acknowledge you supported someone who went on to do things you now find reprehensible. It’s especially difficult when the political climate is so divisive, and admitting a mistake can open you up to scorn and ridicule.
The cycle is predictable. At first, there’s the fervent support, the yard signs, the bumper stickers, the constant declarations of loyalty. Then, as the negative consequences mount, the signs start disappearing. The hats get stashed away. The public displays of support fade. The silence becomes deafening.
The other point here is that this whole scenario is fueled by a lack of accountability. It’s easy to blame others, to point fingers, to say you were misled. Admitting you were wrong, and acknowledging the harm you helped cause, requires a level of self-reflection that some people simply aren’t capable of. This makes it very easy to vote for the same person again.
What’s even more frustrating is the hypocrisy of it all. People are so quick to forget their history. It’s easy to say you didn’t support someone *after* their actions become widely condemned.
Ultimately, what Stephen King is pointing out is a disturbing but sadly accurate reflection of human nature. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of blind loyalty, the importance of critical thinking, and the need for personal accountability. It also suggests, though, that maybe future generations may not be so easily fooled. The internet, the archives of social media, and the collective memory of the damage done will make it harder to rewrite history. Perhaps this time, the denial will be more difficult to pull off.