(12-14-2016, 11:22 AM)Anthony Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 01:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 02:26 PM)Anthony Wrote: The "perihelion/oppositions" of Mars and the Sun are never absolutely exact; but twice every 32 years they are as near as makes no difference to being exact, causing Mars to shine at a brightness exceeding -2.0 magnitude.  

But do you have any source to verify this perihelion Mars? How did you learn about it? Who says?

I'm quite sure Daniel Patrick Moynihan would never have thought the Tea Party were not laissez faireists. Do you know what the TEA stands for in their name? They are the most outspoken and militant laissez faireists that we have. I don't understand how you could get that confused.

I trust that this link will satisfy your criteria:

The 2020-21 Perihelic Appartion Of Mars

As for your second issue, having the government intentionally create labor shortages to drive up wages by cutting off immigration is not laissez-faire.  Government slapping prohibitive tariffs on foreign-made goods is not laissez faire, and is what the antebellum North favored and the antebellum South vehemently opposed.

The only difference between Donald Trump's approach and that of Bernie Sanders is that the former does not entail transfer payments.

(12-16-2016, 09:59 AM)Anthony Wrote: With Roy Cooper now certified as the winner of the governor's race in North Carolina, if I had my way it would come down to him vs. Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2020.

Maybe you can supply us with Cooper's score?

And if Trump fails to keep his promises to the "white middle class," he will be toast - quite possibly in the Republican primary.

(12-14-2016, 06:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A portion of my latest historic "who scored what" list. More at the website:
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Elections from 1932 to 2012:
1932: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Herbert Hoover 11-11*
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Alf Landon 10-16
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Wendell Wilkie 8-9
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1948: Harry Truman 14-0, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1952: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21
1856: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21*
1960: John F Kennedy 13-6, Richard Nixon 18-7
1964: Lyndon Johnson 8-6 J*, Barry Goldwater 20-11** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism")
1968: Richard Nixon 18-7*, Hubert Humphrey 9-5**, George Wallace 2-7 J (+ Mars rising)
1972: Richard Nixon 18-7*, George McGovern 9-10
1976: Jimmy Carter 12-4, Gerald Ford 12-8
1980: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Jimmy Carter 12-4*, John Anderson 14-8 J*
1984: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Walter Mondale 12-12 J/U*
1988: George H W Bush 14-6, Michael Dukakis 2-10*
1992: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, George H W Bush 14-6, Ross Perot 7-10 (his Jupiter rising is evident, but it was 10 degrees above his ascendant, so I didn't count it officially)
1996: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, Bob Dole 12-19
2000: George W Bush 17-2*, Al Gore 10-9 (Mars rising)
2004: George W Bush 17-2*, John Kerry 8-12 (his score was much weaker in the revised system)
2008: Barack Obama 19-2, John McCain 15-13
2012: Barack Obama 19-2, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN
2016: Donald Trump 9-4 (Mars rising), Hillary Rodham Clinton 9-11 J

J = Jupiter rising in birth chart (big advantage). U = Uranus rising in birth chart (small advantage). SN = Saturn at the Nadir in birth chart (disadvantage).
* Saturn Return ** Saturn Return before opponent. Big disadvantage. If it occurs in election year or first 3 years after election, loss all but certain. In 4th year (potential re-election year), loss possible; big disaster and/or destroyed presidency all but certain. Since 1932: FDR, Johnson, Nixon and Bush all had a Saturn Return in the 4th (re-election) year.

Highest Republican actual and potential candidate scores with no Saturn return due: Donald Trump 9-4, Ivanka Trump 16-2, Carly Fiorina 16-7, George Pataki 15-3. Our future "energy secretary" Rick Perry looks a little better at 11-8.

Democratic potential or actual candidates 2012-2016 (or later)
Hillary Clinton, 9-11 J
Martin O'Malley, 11-19
Joe Biden, 13-8
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Jim Webb, 11-7
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Michelle Obama, 6-6
Andrew Cuomo, 11-6*
Cory Booker, 6-7
Zephyr Teachout, 4-10
Joe Manchin, 6-10
Howard Dean, 6-8 U
Janet Napolitano, 11-5*
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6
Jason Carter, 10-4
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Terry McAuliffe, 11-2*
Gavin Newsom, 8-1 U
Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5
Lincoln Chafee, 15-9
Sherrod Brown, 19-8
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Tom Vilsack, 15-6
Jack Markell, 14-9
Chuck Schumer, 15-8
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Roy Cooper, 10-4
Mark Zuckerberg (party unknown), 12-9
George Clooney, 11-17
Oprah Winfrey, 10-3
Chelsea Clinton, 9-5 U

More candidate scores will be added. Other scores are available at my website: http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Best scores, with no Saturn Return: Bernie Sanders 14-7, Gavin Newsom 8-1, Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5, Tom Vilsack, 15-6, Oprah Winfrey, 10-3, Jason Carter 10-4, Roy Cooper, 10-4. Sherrod Brown has the highest positive number, and a good score: 19-8.

Other potential Democratic candidates with good scores, with no Saturn Return after 2020: Janet Napolitano 11-5, Terry McAuliffe 11-2. Tammy Baldwin (13-6) will have a Saturn Return for the election of 2020, and Gavin Newsom (8-1) for 2024. Late-night TV political comic Seth Meyers has indicated no interest in running, but if he did, he'd have a 20-3 score going for him. Another media personality with a good score is documentary producer Michael Moore, 16-6, and Oprah Winfrey has 10-3. Stephen Colbert has a high positive number and a score of 20-11. Maybe another celebrity can save us!

*Saturn return due between 2016 and 2020

(12-09-2016, 06:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I predicted Hillary would win based on a couple of items regarding her horoscope, based on a questionable birth time. But I used it partly because it favored her to win. I was hoping I still think the birth chart I chose to use is correct, based on the preponderance of evidence as described here:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Clinton,_Hillary

But now with my additional checking and tallying, as well as switching Trump's and Clinton's aspects between winner and loser, I come up with an actual negative score for Hillary, and no candidate has ever won with a negative score unless the opponent had an equal or more negative score. So, it's partly in hindsight because I factored a Hillary win into how I scored the aspects in their charts within my database, which I should not have done.

Yes, Eric makes mistakes. But ironically, the systems I discovered did not. So, they will be useful going forward.

The only three candidates to win with a negative score were John Adams (6-7), Theodore Roosevelt (12-15) and James Garfield (8-9).

James Garfield beat Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880. Garfield had a horoscope score of 8-9 and Hancock 9-8 in my latest count. It was the closest election in history by popular vote.

Calvin Coolidge beat John W. Davis in 1924. Coolidge scored 10-9, while Davis scored 8-16. Also running was Robert LaFollette who scored 6-14. Not even close. Neither was the election.

Herbert Hoover beat Al Smith in 1928. Hoover scored 11-11, while Smith scored 4-16. Again, not close. It was a landslide. Hoover went on to lose to FDR in 1932, who had a 21-4 score. Another landslide.

So, in my new count, Donald Trump has 9-4 and Hillary 9-11. She lost. In my previous version this year, it was Trump 8-4, Hillary 12-9. Last year, using my 2004 system, I had it as Trump 15-4 vs. Hillary 9-8.

My revised article is up.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

(12-27-2016, 04:52 PM)Marypoza Wrote: What about Tulsi? What's her score?

(12-28-2016, 07:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You can also see the new wrinkle. I have noticed before that Uranus at the Nadir indicates in the New Moon chart that the party in power is toppled. That has worked 4 out of 5 times in history. But this time, Uranus was square the Ascendant, near the Nadir (IC) but not AT the Nadir. So I kind of glossed over this. Uranus square the Ascendant, but not at the Nadir or in the 4th house, has never been significant before, and in fact has never happened before (in a New Moon before Election chart). But some astrologers say that a square to the Ascendant below the horizon is like the Nadir. They use the "equal house" system. So Uranus there may have indicated the party in power toppled; just not so clear-cut. And the wrinkle is this; for just the second time ever, this will happen again in 2020! So, the party in power could be toppled again, if this pattern holds, even though again the party in power's ruler will be higher. I'll probably post the 2020 chart too, if it's possible (see below). I don't know if this will happen, but at least the indication that the party in power will win in 2020 is now in doubt.

Whereas the rebel against the party in power in 2016 had a Mars quality, because Mars was rising and square to Uranus. In 2020, if a topple happens, it will have a Mercurial quality, and Mercury may be rising in the chart of the challenger, just as it was in Hillary's chart. Or something like this could happen. That's because Mercury opposes Uranus in the 2020 chart. And Uranus is itself also the ruler of the rising sign, Aquarius, the challenger's ruling sign.

(01-01-2017, 12:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was very unusual to see a new moon before the election that so starkly resembled the charts of the nominees. I don't know if that's a new trend; if so it might bode well for Terry McAuliffe, whose chart most resembles the 2020 new moon before election. Sometimes I can see some slight resemblances in past elections to candidates, like Mars in Virgo rising for 2000 (Dubya had that sign position of Mars). Click on the link in my previous post to see Trump's chart and how similar it is to this new moon chart, or see below the new moon charts.

Let's see if I can retrieve that New Moon Oct 30 2016 chart:







Note Pluto in Leo above Mars; different symbol above (circle above crescent above cross) from the new moon chart's use of the PL glyph for Pluto.

(01-03-2017, 12:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is interesting to keep in mind which sign Neptune is in, when understanding whether we are 4T or not, when it began, etc. Neptune is the planet that carries with it our collective soul as it travels through the zodiac; it signifies the zeitgeist. In Pisces, as it was from 1848 to 1861, and now since 2011-2012, Neptune represents a world soul adrift; not well tethered and very muddled. It corresponds to a 4T in which things are dissolving and falling apart. That's what Pisces is about. Action follows in Aries. So dissolution is followed by action. A 4T in Pisces might not seem as much of a 4T yet, because things happen in a more hidden and inchoate way under Pisces. As is well-known too, in late Pisces things are beginning to boil over.

And not only will the beginning of this 4T be controversial because of this, so will the ending of it. Just as some say that the civil war 4T ended in 1865, but some say in 1868 or even later; so will the end of this 4T be, because Neptune will continue in Aries, and things will still be in an uproar even as the 1T begins that's supposed to bring consensus. Things will be established for a new saeculum, but it might not seem like it, because the fires of activity will still be burning, and the controversies of the 4T will be continuing, even though the worst of it will be over. Look for 1865 to 1886, not 1946 to 1964.