Thanks for the kind words Eric. For the record, I wasn't really trashing astrology, I just said it didn't have as credible a leg to stand on as S&H Generational theory. I actually do find astrology to be very interesting, and while I don't believe in its predictive powers per se, I don't rule out that there may be something to the way we apply our understanding of the universe based on the historical significance of astrology and that astrology has had a powerful effect on the way we live our lives. But like a lot of models that try to predict the future (including S&H's), it relies heavily on vague language, past experiences, self fulling prophecies and an over saturation of guesses that covers a broad base so that it's less likely to be proven wrong. I'd still be interested in reading your book though because I do find it interesting that the planetary changes match up with the turning changes (even the ones I suggested). But I admit that a lot of the ideas I came up with were influenced by members of this forum both consciously and subconsciously so those civil dates may have indirectly been influenced by your ideas (I know you've redrawn the Civil War cycle as well, before I made my attempt in 2012).
I actually did predict that the Ryancare bill would fail. Not because of astrology or S&H theory though. Just because it seemed obvious based on the reaction it got. Everyone hated it, including most Republicans. Trump even tried to distance himself from it, branding it as Ryancare instead of Trumpcare, saying that it was open to negotiation, trashing Ryan underhandedly. It became especially clear when he tried to strong arm the freedom caucus pass it quickly. The freedom caucus are the most libertarian group of Republicans in congress, surely he and Bannon would have known that that strategy would have backfired. Unless they're total idiots, it's likely they were using reverse psychology. Trump has said in the past that he wants Universal Healthcare. I doubt now that he will outright say it since there's a Republican controlled congress and he's still trying to appease the Republican base, but I have a feeling he still prefers an expanded public option.
https://youtu.be/dMauSoC45e0
I would prefer something closer to what Rand Paul proposed to pass because it will put less of a burden on public spending and, long term, it would lead to lower costs and better quality healthcare. But people rarely think in the longterm, they only focus on their short term interests. That's why we're so far down the government spending rabbit-hole now and going back seems impossible. Everyone's just become too reliant on government. They just won't accept a move back in the other direction. Most of congress, especially Democrats, will reject Paul's plan even if it is tweaked (and will probably start to look more like Ryancare anyway). It's more likely a bill like John Conyers' Medicare for all will get more traction and support, especially with Bernie Sanders pushing it. But we already spend over a trillion dollars on medicare and it's the largest part of the federal budget so I'm not even sure how Trump's tax cuts are going to cover medicare as stands it now, much less if we expand it to cover everyone. And Trump's "spending cuts" don't add up to a hill of beans if he's increasing military spending by 5.3 billion. But I guess there's always borrowing and quantitative easing. I wonder how much longer we can get away with that.
I actually did predict that the Ryancare bill would fail. Not because of astrology or S&H theory though. Just because it seemed obvious based on the reaction it got. Everyone hated it, including most Republicans. Trump even tried to distance himself from it, branding it as Ryancare instead of Trumpcare, saying that it was open to negotiation, trashing Ryan underhandedly. It became especially clear when he tried to strong arm the freedom caucus pass it quickly. The freedom caucus are the most libertarian group of Republicans in congress, surely he and Bannon would have known that that strategy would have backfired. Unless they're total idiots, it's likely they were using reverse psychology. Trump has said in the past that he wants Universal Healthcare. I doubt now that he will outright say it since there's a Republican controlled congress and he's still trying to appease the Republican base, but I have a feeling he still prefers an expanded public option.
https://youtu.be/dMauSoC45e0
I would prefer something closer to what Rand Paul proposed to pass because it will put less of a burden on public spending and, long term, it would lead to lower costs and better quality healthcare. But people rarely think in the longterm, they only focus on their short term interests. That's why we're so far down the government spending rabbit-hole now and going back seems impossible. Everyone's just become too reliant on government. They just won't accept a move back in the other direction. Most of congress, especially Democrats, will reject Paul's plan even if it is tweaked (and will probably start to look more like Ryancare anyway). It's more likely a bill like John Conyers' Medicare for all will get more traction and support, especially with Bernie Sanders pushing it. But we already spend over a trillion dollars on medicare and it's the largest part of the federal budget so I'm not even sure how Trump's tax cuts are going to cover medicare as stands it now, much less if we expand it to cover everyone. And Trump's "spending cuts" don't add up to a hill of beans if he's increasing military spending by 5.3 billion. But I guess there's always borrowing and quantitative easing. I wonder how much longer we can get away with that.