11-21-2016, 02:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2016, 02:48 PM by Eric the Green.)
Yes it might. The 2010s are part of a 30-year pattern of conservative policies, despite Obama's brief one-year reign.
I can't deny that I was wrong about this election, about who would win in November. And I can't deny that my bias might have contributed to my error. There's certainly no doubt that I am biased, and it's not always easy to put it aside.
Astrologers disagree about Hillary Clinton's birthtime, and they disagreed about who would win too. I chose the birthtime that was most advantageous for her to win, using the patterns that I saw that had some empirical basis and had mostly worked in the past, as opposed to other patterns that astrologers mention that I found not to be consistent over time.
I have to admit, even so, that the birthtime I chose, which is the most-accepted one, still seems to fit her life and personality better than the others. But we have no birth certificate, so it's all based on hearsay and conflicting testimony from Hillary herself.
If the birthtime I used was wrong, though, then it invalidated the patterns I used to predict her victory.
The parallel to 1908 was compelling, and I cannot explain how Taft was elected and Hillary was not, unless in fact Hillary does not have Jupiter rising in her chart. Without that, her horoscope score is definitely inferior to Donald Trump's. And now that the electoral college has become the way that Republicans win elections, and the new moon method's record is a much tighter indicator if it is seen ONLY as predicting the popular vote (as it did in 2000 and 2016, as well as 1888 and 1876), the main factor in Hillary's favor (the new moon before election) did not indicate victory in the electoral college, but only the prevailing sentiment and vote of the people of the USA.
So I was wrong, but critics like Galen put no attention on my many correct predictions over the years. Another poster here named Teddy challenged me by listing his pick of the most significant events of the last few decades. I had predicted half of them. That's likely more than any prophet of any kind. The big things, I got right, most of the time. Those like Galen who say that because I got this one wrong, I never get anything right, forget that I also predicted here Trump's nomination and Bernie's strong run long before anyone else did.
So where my presidential election method goes from here, is not clear at all. If the Democrats nominate a weak candidate like Tim Kaine, they will lose in 2020. If Bernie Sanders runs and is nominated, they have a shot if Trump screws up his term. I can't say that he will win.
Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions every 20 years are a factor in 2020. Since 1841 they have indicated a change in the party in power in the zero year, an assassination or death in office of the person elected then, or both.
But since the assassination/death pattern appears to be over, the relevant statistic is that 7 out of 11 times, and 8 out of 13 since 1800, it has indicated a change in the party in control of the White House. That is far from a reliable pattern, but it could be a factor. No doubt however, the momentum and direction of the Establishment and world events shifts radically upon this conjunction, every time.
I can't deny that I was wrong about this election, about who would win in November. And I can't deny that my bias might have contributed to my error. There's certainly no doubt that I am biased, and it's not always easy to put it aside.
Astrologers disagree about Hillary Clinton's birthtime, and they disagreed about who would win too. I chose the birthtime that was most advantageous for her to win, using the patterns that I saw that had some empirical basis and had mostly worked in the past, as opposed to other patterns that astrologers mention that I found not to be consistent over time.
I have to admit, even so, that the birthtime I chose, which is the most-accepted one, still seems to fit her life and personality better than the others. But we have no birth certificate, so it's all based on hearsay and conflicting testimony from Hillary herself.
If the birthtime I used was wrong, though, then it invalidated the patterns I used to predict her victory.
The parallel to 1908 was compelling, and I cannot explain how Taft was elected and Hillary was not, unless in fact Hillary does not have Jupiter rising in her chart. Without that, her horoscope score is definitely inferior to Donald Trump's. And now that the electoral college has become the way that Republicans win elections, and the new moon method's record is a much tighter indicator if it is seen ONLY as predicting the popular vote (as it did in 2000 and 2016, as well as 1888 and 1876), the main factor in Hillary's favor (the new moon before election) did not indicate victory in the electoral college, but only the prevailing sentiment and vote of the people of the USA.
So I was wrong, but critics like Galen put no attention on my many correct predictions over the years. Another poster here named Teddy challenged me by listing his pick of the most significant events of the last few decades. I had predicted half of them. That's likely more than any prophet of any kind. The big things, I got right, most of the time. Those like Galen who say that because I got this one wrong, I never get anything right, forget that I also predicted here Trump's nomination and Bernie's strong run long before anyone else did.
So where my presidential election method goes from here, is not clear at all. If the Democrats nominate a weak candidate like Tim Kaine, they will lose in 2020. If Bernie Sanders runs and is nominated, they have a shot if Trump screws up his term. I can't say that he will win.
Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions every 20 years are a factor in 2020. Since 1841 they have indicated a change in the party in power in the zero year, an assassination or death in office of the person elected then, or both.
But since the assassination/death pattern appears to be over, the relevant statistic is that 7 out of 11 times, and 8 out of 13 since 1800, it has indicated a change in the party in control of the White House. That is far from a reliable pattern, but it could be a factor. No doubt however, the momentum and direction of the Establishment and world events shifts radically upon this conjunction, every time.