POTUS Election 2016

My gut reaction to the 2016 US Presidential campaign so far
can be summed up as, "I can't believe this is really happening."

It looks to me like both of the major political parties are
completely out of the control of their natural leadership,
and are in the process of nominating weak candidates when
they both have a number of strong ones who are being overlooked.

The Republicans have half a dozen potential candidates who deserve
to be called political heirs of the Reagan and Bush Administrations,
and could get the support of the moderate fiscal and social
conservatives who put them in power. I'm talking about Jeb Bush
and John Kasich, who are both still running, but are back in the pack
and no one seems to believe they stand a chance, and a few others
who should have been put on the map by the GOP leadership but
weren't. Who's in front? Donald Trump and Ted Cruz:
a wanna-be populist and an arch-conservative, neither of whom
deserve to be taken seriously in the general election. Right now,
Marco Rubio, who does have sufficient appeal to the GOP mainstream
to stand a chance of getting elected, is right behind them, but
he's not getting the kind of support from his Party he needs to
stay in the funning much longer.

And the Democrats are running a proven loser (Hillary Clinton)
and the poster boy for the Party's extreme left wing (Bernie
Sanders) instead of building up a Senator or State
Governor into a viable candidate, as was done with Barack
Obama in 2008. At the very least, the Party leadership should
have pressured Joe Biden into becoming a candidate the GOP
would find it difficult to attack, who could step down "for
personal reasons" late in the race and turn his delegates
over to someone who represented the Democratic main stream
and didn't have any serious baggage.

So I'm starting this thread with the idea of posting in it
regularly from now to the end of November, and inviting anyone
else who's interested in this election to do the same.

This is a card drawin for the POTUS election.
Material resources will be a leading power, sharing is crucial, but the US and Israel and France and Germany will lead the world honestly, but with capitalism. The life task is stability and responsibility - the US will stay alone with some issues. I predict a continuity of the present policy anyway, from a DE or a Rep that is an old-time conservative based on Protestant bourgeois ethics. There is much of magic and manipulation and technological magic growing. We aren't heading back to the Middle Ages, we'll have a vision of the future but it will be tough and full of restraint.
The US will have to do bona fide magic and computer discoveries and methods that effectively sway the world and make the US richer nation again. I see no significant war with this one, only minor conflicts. If the die-off starts, and cyber warfare, the US will have much to gain from it. Restraint will be necessary to curb fossil fuels and take care of minimum climate protocols - otherwise the virus gets the upper hand. Freedom is growing for the average people.

That is what the cards say for me, and in all likelikhood it points to a very open-minded, compromise-ready, educated Presidet who culd have had leading positions in her past life.

Sorry this reading is so optimistic - it has its own rules.
Trump doesn't have a chance with his Jyestha Moon and Saturn being over it at the time of elections - unless he makes a 180° turn about the US being the "Land of Quality". Which he won't...

reg, #1, re: "This is a card drawin for the POTUS election."

Wow, this is a lot more detailed than anything I expected to get right away. I'll make another quick read-through and give whatever comments pop into my head as I go along, and I expect I'll think of more over the next few days, hopefully after I've seen input on this from other readers...

re: "Material resources will be a leading power, sharing is crucial, but the US and Israel and France and Germany will lead the world honestly, but with capitalism. The life task is stability and responsibility - the US will stay alone with some issues. I predict a continuity of the present policy anyway, from a DE or a Rep that is an old-time conservative based on Protestant bourgeois ethics. There is much of magic and manipulation and technological magic growing. We aren't heading back to the Middle Ages, we'll have a vision of the future but it will be tough and full of restraint."

Yes! Your initial reaction seems to parallel a lot of my own current thinking on these matters. The real reason neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem serious about choosing a candidate who stands the best chance of being elected is because nobody has the slightest inkling about what kind of person that might be. Capitalist economics will indeed be the driving force over the months between now and the election, and the concept that "we'll have a vision of the future but it will be tough and full of restraint." may indeed be the most important driving force. The reality is that the future will be tough if the USA and the EU hold back on the production of useful goods and services, but very easy and pleasant if the capitalists are forced to stop exporting production to other countries. And my personal belief right now is the former course will be chosen, even though people like Bernie Sanders are openly describing how we can achieve the latter.

re: "The US will have to do bona fide magic and computer discoveries and methods that effectively sway the world and make the US richer nation again. I see no significant war with this one, only minor conflicts. If the die-off starts, and cyber warfare, the US will have much to gain from it. Restraint will be necessary to curb fossil fuels and take care of minimum climate protocols - otherwise the virus gets the upper hand. Freedom is growing for the average people."

It looks to me like both the liberal and conservative politicians in both the USA and the EU already know that the dieoff is coming, because there's been ample evidence to predict this in the scientific archives for a number of years now. And active cyber warfare has been going on for a number of years, and even gets reported in the world press, but until some major politico-economic entity gets seriously damaged by it, nobody in power is going be willing to talk openly about it. And IMO, the most important thing you received from the reading is "Freedom is growing for the average people." This is the freedom I'm always talking about that's spontaneously created by the Information Revolution itself, but I've always had the impression that nobody in a position of power (in the academic world as well as in the politico-economic world) has yet recognized it. It's almost impossible to look from the top down and see that the real progress is coming from the bottom up.

re: "That is what the cards say for me, and in all likelikhood it points to a very open-minded, compromise-ready, educated Presidet who culd have had leading positions in her past life."

Well, Hillary Clinton would be such a President, but I haven't the slightest idea if she stands a chance of getting elected. There's just too much really weird stuff going on, and I'm not willing to speculate on how it will evolve over the next few months.

re: "Sorry this reading is so optimistic - it has its own rules."

I don't see it as being over-optimistic, because if what you're predicting comes to pass, the present climate of fear and terrorism is going to continue unabated. For example, if the POTUS who gets elected in November isn't acceptable to the country's colored population, the USA will be under martial law through most of the next four years.

re: "Trump doesn't have a chance with his Jyestha Moon and Saturn being over it at the time of elections - unless he makes a 180° turn about the US being the 'Land of Quality'. Which he won't."

I've always had a gut-level feeling that Trump won't be elected, but he's already done enough damage to the political machinery that runs election campaigns to alter the course of history.

Here's a wonderful pict I just put up to be the RR Front Page logo for a while. Here's what I posted up in the "logo picts" threads in the "Welcomes & Introductions" Forum:

"I decided to put this up on the 8th of February, after watching a bunch of the political debates marking the beginning of the US 2016 Presidential Election campaign. My choice was inspired mostly by the mud-slinging between the Republican candidates, especially Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, but the reality is that just about all American politicians deserve to be tarred with this same brush"

I hate politics, almost as much as I do football.

Don't trust any of them. Just vote on the one I think will do less harm, and REMEMBER their promises made on the campaign trail.

BTW my good friend is having knee problems with terrible pain. She cannot get in to see the Dr. For 3 wks. Thank you Obamacare:no:

When I had knee problems, I went to the emergency room and was seen the same day. Was given a few tests over two wks, then had surgery.

Skytiger wrote:

I hate politics, almost as much as I do football.

Don't trust any of them. Just vote on the one I think will do less harm, and REMEMBER their promises made on the campaign trail.

BTW my good friend is having knee problems with terrible pain. She cannot get in to see the Dr. For 3 wks.  Thank you Obamacare:no:

When I had knee problems, I went to the emergency room and was seen the same day. Was given a few tests over two wks, then had surgery.

I've always been a great fan of American style football, but I'm now beginning to think there need to be radical changes in the rules because so many of the players seem to acquire permanent brain injuries over the course of their careers.

And I find politics as it's practiced in the USA right now to me more pf a reality show game than anything else. My actual opinions on all of the major issues are virtually the same as those of Bernie Sanders, but I don't think the majority of Americans are mature enough or responsible enough to make proper use of such laws if they were passed. However, when I get my ballot in the mail this November, I'll do what I always do: vote for all the candidates and propositions endorsed by the Democratic Party without giving the matter a second thought. And I'd like to see Obamacare scrapped and all Americans being made eligible for Medicare. Similar systems work in Canada, Australia, Britain and many other countries and the total cost per person is much less than it is here. This is a simple fact that can easily be proved with a little Google searching, if you want to make the effort.

My hatred of football started in 1988, when we lived in the Nebraska Sandhills. A boy in school was paralyzed from the neck down, playing football. His mother took care of him and the community helped with expenses. After his accident the school did away with football.
They did have a rodeo team. Granted rodeos are dangerous. However this was in the middle of ranching country. Kids started riding horses and helping out with chores, which included cattle, before the 1st grade. I didn't know of anyone being hurt in the rodeos as bad as the boy who played football.

Because of this, and others being paralyzed or brain damaged by football, I hate the sport.
It's the same as the Roman Gladiators performing for crowds. The only difference, one killed on purpose, the other plays regardless of probable life-time injuries.

We will cancel each other's vote RR, as I will vote Republican.

Skytiger wrote:

We will cancel each other's vote RR, as I will vote Republican.

A long time ago, someone coined the term "Yellow Dog Democrat" to describe
people like me, who always vote for every candidate endorsed by that Party
who runs for office. As in, "He'd vote for a yellow dog if ran on the Democratic ticket."
And I assume there just as many "Yellow Dog Republican" like you seem to be.

Now, it seems customary in this country to regard such straight-ticket voters
as too lazy or brainwashed to find out the qualifications of the candidates, but
my father often said, "Voting for the man not the party doesn't really mean
much. Nobody whose opinions are in serious disagreement with his party's
platform is going to get their endorsement as a candidate, nor is anyone with
really bad character or poor qualification to do the ob he's running for is
likely to get it. And if you vote for a Republican because you like him
slightly better than the Democrat he's running against, he'll still end up voting'
for a lot of bills you don't like and against those you do, simply because the
other Republicans will get mad at him is he doesn't."

It's simple. I don't like any part of Hillary or Bernie.
I do not think anyone should be given something without earning it. What one makes should not be taken from them to give to another. We have taxes, which get higher and higher every year due to entitlements. Ridiculous.

Frankly there is not much difference between Hillary and Trump, both are liberal. Sanders is a socialists which I hate.

Less government the better IMO. People should take care of themselves and their families without depending on the government.

There are those who cannot, for many reasons, take care of themselves. They should be helped to learn a trade, with the knowledge they will be responsible for paying their teachers or the tradesman that teach them a skill that will help them support themselves.
Some people are not able to take care of themselves, and should indeed be helped.
Free college is ridiculous, teaching students they need not work to pay their expenses as the government will pay for it. This IMO makes lazy people.

I would vote for one that will shrink the government, not grow it.
Hopefully such a person will become President.

Skytiger wrote:

It's simple. I don't like any part of Hillary or Bernie.
I do not think anyone should be given something without earning it. What one makes should not be taken from them to give to another. We have taxes, which get higher and higher every year due to entitlements. Ridiculous.

Frankly there is not much difference between Hillary and Trump, both are liberal. Sanders is a socialists which I hate.

Less government the better IMO. People should take care of themselves and their families without depending on the government.

There are those who cannot, for many reasons, take care of themselves. They should be helped to learn a trade, with the knowledge they will be responsible for paying their teachers or the tradesman that teach them a skill that will help them support themselves.
Some people are not able to take care of themselves, and should indeed be helped.
Free college is ridiculous, teaching students they need not work to pay their expenses as the government will pay for it. This IMO makes lazy people.

I would vote for one that will shrink the government, not grow it.
Hopefully such a person will become President.

Don't you realize that everything you mentioned is part of a set of games
that people play without knowing who created them or what they are
actually designed to accomplish? There is actually no moral difference
between the government saying,' "obey the law or we will punish you"
and gangsters saying, "Do what we tell you or else." And if someone
steals something from you and you are sure that they are able and willing
to kill you if you try to take it back, that's the same as admitting that
they now own it legitimately.

So if we don't give things to those that will not work for it, they have the right to steal it and they have the right to kill us if we take it back?
That is what it sounds like in your last sentence.

That's BS. We do not have the right to steal from each other, nor should we kill each other. If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me or my family, then I have the right to defend myself and if necessary to save our life, kill the intruder.

Its time people quit playing games and grow up. When they do there will be no more gangsters in society or the government. They will also realize their purpose is to take care of the planet and all the animals on land and the sea, as well as each other.

IMO the best thing we can do for each other, is first take care of ourselves instead of depending on the government to do it for us.

Sky, #12, re: "So if we don't give things to those
that will not work for it, they have the right to
steal it and they have the right to kill us if we
take it back? That is what it sounds like in your
last sentence. That's BS. We do not have the right
to steal from each other, nor should we kill each
other. If someone breaks into my house and tries
to kill me or my family, then I have the right to
defend myself and if necessary to save our life,
kill the intruder. Its time people quit playing
games and grow up. When they do there will be no
more gangsters in society or the government.
They will also realize their purpose is to take
care of the planet and all the animals on land
and the sea, as well as each other. IMO the best
thing we can do for each other, is first take
care of ourselves instead of depending on the
government to do it for us."

Let'stake some reality checks before we go any
further with this.

First of all, the whole concept of "rights" was
invented by leaders of theocratic religious
groups to make it easier for them to control
and exploit people. Notice that even the
founders of the USA referred to "illienable,
God-given rights." The reality is that "rights"
are nothing more than priveliges defined and
enforced by governments.

Second, the rules that govern property ownership
and business activity are also defined and
enforced by government. And in order for the
economy to function properly, these rules
need to deal fairly with both "haves" and "have
nots", with employers and employees, with
landlords and tenants, etc.

Third, what is called "the government" in most
on-line political discussions includes a large
and complex set of institutions not related to
the making and enforcement of laws, but to
the maintaining of the society's infrastructure.
These institutions should really be described as
"public services" and dealt with separately.

Fourth, there is no such thing as "big" or
"small" government. Government is a process
(making and enforcing laws), not a set of
institutions, and it either does its job
well or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it needs
to be changed until it does. And weirdly
enough, it looks to me like government at
all levels in the USA right now actually
functions reasonably well.

Fifth, the public services that maintain
this country's infrastructure obviously
need major reforms, and this can only be
done if the actual government passes the
right laws. And IMO, neither the "liberals"
nor the "conservatives" now serving in
the goverment at all levels in the USA
right now seem to have the slightest
idea how to go about this. The left
advocates a welfare state that gives
things to people who are defined as
needing them. The right wants to
privatize most of them, operating on
the assumption that businesses can
make a profit providing them. And it
looks to me like neither of these
policies work well enough to meet
the needs of the country's entire
population.

Sixth, the harsh reality seems to be
that giving things to the "needy" tends
to make them more, not less, dependent
on such aid, but that "training them
to learn job skills and enter the
labor force" doesn't work either,
because more and more of the actual
production becomes automated every
year. Can I suggest a solution to
this dilemma? I wish I could, but I
can't.

Sky- in an effort to not make pages & pages, l shorten this by deleting my reply above.

RR
Let'stake some reality checks before we go any
further with this.

First of all, the whole concept of "rights" was
invented by leaders of theocratic religious
groups to make it easier for them to control
and exploit people. Notice that even the
founders of the USA referred to "illienable,
God-given rights." The reality is that "rights"
are nothing more than priveliges defined and
enforced by governments.


Sky
IMO religions are based on false gods made in mans image, most are horrible and have a hellish place waiting for those who do not follow rules which were made by man.
Religions IMO have nothing to do with Creator.
The rights we have consist of being able to keep what we have IF WE PAY THE TAXES levied by the government.
Our government is corrupt and will be as long as we have lobbyists working in the halls of our government.
IMO if all representatives had to keep a job outside of DC, going there only to discuss what needs to be done at agreed times, instead of spending most of their time in DC, perhaps they would do what their state asked them to do. Hopefully they wouldn't start thinking only they know what's best for the people, instead realizing they work for the people.


RR
Second, the rules that govern property ownership
and business activity are also defined and
enforced by government. And in order for the
economy to function properly, these rules
need to deal fairly with both "haves" and "have
nots", with employers and employees, with
landlords and tenants, etc.


Sky

IMO the government can f*** up what they know nothing about. They should get people who work in, as well as owners of business, to advise them before they make laws for business.
One thing that bothers the hell out of me, and why we no longer farm, - government telling farmers to plow up so many acres of a good crop in order to keep prices at a certain level. This drives the cost up, but more than that what happens in a drought or when crops are hailed out. I have seen solos built by farmers to keep their own harvest in, rather than plow up good crops. Of course they don't get the money paid to plow up the crops - which insures the price will go up to consumers - but they will have grain to sell the next year.
While I'm on farming, do you realize that some big companies that sell seed sell sterile seed, thus assuring themselves of future sells. This is greed pure and simple in my opinion.

Since I know little about business in towns, I won't comment.

Employees should be treated fairly, but by no means should they make decisions in the business. If they could make such decisions, they would have their own business unless they don't want one knowing all the headaches that come with them.



RR

Third, what is called "the government" in most
on-line political discussions includes a large
and complex set of institutions not related to
the making and enforcement of laws, but to
the maintaining of the society's infrastructure.
These institutions should really be described as
"public services" and dealt with separately.


Sky
Totally agree

RR

Fourth, there is no such thing as "big" or
"small" government. Government is a process
(making and enforcing laws), not a set of
institutions, and it either does its job
well or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it needs
to be changed until it does. And weirdly
enough, it looks to me like government at
all levels in the USA right now actually
functions reasonably well.

Sky
IMO there are way to many restrictions and rules


RR

Fifth, the public services that maintain
this country's infrastructure obviously
need major reforms, and this can only be
done if the actual government passes the
right laws. And IMO, neither the "liberals"
nor the "conservatives" now serving in
the goverment at all levels in the USA
right now seem to have the slightest
idea how to go about this. The left
advocates a welfare state that gives
things to people who are defined as
needing them. The right wants to
privatize most of them, operating on
the assumption that businesses can
make a profit providing them. And it
looks to me like neither of these
policies work well enough to meet
the needs of the country's entire
population.

Sky
Totally agree


RR
Sixth, the harsh reality seems to be
that giving things to the "needy" tends
to make them more, not less, dependent
on such aid, but that "training them
to learn job skills and enter the
labor force" doesn't work either,
because more and more of the actual
production becomes automated every
year. Can I suggest a solution to
this dilemma? I wish I could, but I
can't.
[/quote]

[color=#3366cc][/Sky

This is why I think people should have to work for what they get, including paying for college. If everything is free, people will not grow socially or spiritually. We all become worthless not fulfilling what we could be.color]

Well I tried to separate by colors. Seems I need to learn more about computers

Sky, #14, re: "IMO religions are based on false gods
made in mans image, most are horrible and have a
hellish place waiting for those who do not follow
rules which were made by man.Religions IMO have
nothing to do with Creator."

I agree with this, but after we agree that rights are
not handed down by God, we still have to define where
they should come from.

re: "The rights we have consist of being able to keep
what we have IF WE PAY THE TAXES levied by the
government."

Are you implying that the government doesn't have the
right to eliminate private property completely? Lots
of governments throughout history have done this
successfully: the majority of Native American tribes
being a good example.

re: "Our government is corrupt and will be as long as
we have lobbyists working in the halls of our government.
IMO if all representatives had to keep a job outside of
DC, going there only to discuss what needs to be done
at agreed times, instead of spending most of their time
in DC, perhaps they would do what their state asked them
to do. Hopefully they wouldn't start thinking only they
know what's best for the people, instead realizing they
work for the people."

My opinion is that government officials should be
professional politicians and nothing else, living only
on whatever salary they receive for holding appointed
or elected office. And after they left office, they would
have to retire and live on a government pension for the
rest of their lives. In other words, only people who truly
wanted good government would be allowed to wield political
power, and they would be requirted to pay a high price in
order to get it. Also, if I was writing a political
constitution, most of the people who now hold political
office would be lobbyists working from outside the
government but trying to influence it by appealing
directly to the voters through the media. They would
be free to ask for public donations and spend them any
way they wanted to, including enriching themselves, but
they would have no direct power over any decisions made
by government officials.

re: "IMO the government can f*** up what they know
nothing about. They should get people who work in, as
well as owners of business, to advise them before they
make laws for business. One thing that bothers the hell
out of me, and why we no longer farm: government telling
farmers to plow up so many acres of a good crop in order
to keep prices at a certain level. This drives the cost up,
but more than that what happens in a drought or when crops
are hailed out. I have seen solos built by farmers to keep
their own harvest in, rather than plow up good crops. Of
course they don't get the money paid to plow up the crops:
which insures the price will go up to consumers, but they
will have grain to sell the next year. While I'm on
farming, do you realize that some big companies that sell
seed sell sterile seed, thus assuring themselves of future
sells. This is greed pure and simple in my opinion. Since
I know little about business in towns, I won't comment."

I've never liked the idea of government either owning
businesses itself or micro-managing businesses run by
private individuals. My opinion is that the government
should define what rights individuals within the business
world should have and stop at that. In other words,
define property ownership and transfer, what constitutes
fraud and theft, what business practices menace the public
safety (environmental pollution, etc.), what practices
interfere with competition and the existence of a free
market, and few other bare essentials. However, I do
believe the government should have a public economic
sector that maintains the basic infrastructure. This
would include all military and police forces, emergency
services personnel, maintenace of roads and other
transportation facilities, a penal system, and a
bureaucracy that provided a certain amount of financing
for basic education, medical services, and possibly a
few other things for everyone. The services would be
provided by private businesses but paid for at set
rates by the government. However, there would be no
publically owned hospitals or schools, and the actual
number of government employees would always be much
smaller than it is now.

re: "Employees should be treated fairly, but by no means
should they make decisions in the business. If they
could make such decisions, they would have their own
business unless they don't want one knowing all the
headaches that come with them."

What I would like to see is a great increase in the
number of private companies that are more like labor
unions than they are like most corporations. Their
business is to "rent" their employees to other
businesses on a contract basis. People with skills
in a certain field can sign a contract to work for the
company, which also allows them to vote periodically
for its directors. I spent a lot of my adult life
working for such companies and also helped create a
number of them, so I know this is a good idea. Most
such businesses call themselves "temporary
employment agencies" or "contract work services"
and I'm hoping they'll eventually become a major
force in the economic system.

re: "This is why I think people should have to work
for what they get, including paying for college. If
everything is free, people will not grow socially
or spiritually. We all become worthless not
fulfilling what we could be."

I'm in basic agreement with what you just said, but
it looks to me like the Information Revolution is
going to completely reorganize education at all
levels in the near future, and people will be able
to learn practically anything they want to know on
line, either free or at minimal cost. The only
brick and mortar schools will specialize in teaching
physical skills, and the majority of them will be
small businesses like the ones that now train
people to become auto mechanics or beauticians.

I expect to see another "false flag" major incident take place lets say between September and February of next year, also Obama signing a executive order (before leaving office) granting immunity from prosecution for everyone during and connected within the terms of his Presidency..

BigK, #17, re: "Skytiger for President 2016!
I'm with you on all of what you said..."

At this point, I don't think there's much use in
trying to predict what's going to happen politically
and economically in this country as the 2016 election
draws closer, because spectacular events between now
and then are going to change everybody's perspective
on everything. It's almost certain at this point that
massive amounts of "secret" information from both
governments and private businesses all over the world
is going to be leaked to the public and will provide
powerful evidence that "nobody in a position of power
can be trusted or has any respect for individual
rights of any kind". It's also likely that the USA
will be involved in the initial stages of a shooting
war similar to the Vietam War, with Russia, China,
and the Islamic world on one side and everybody else
on the other. And it's even more probable that there
will be major outbreaks of racial violence in this
country comparable to those in the late Sixties. I
haven't the slightest idea how either the Republicans
or the Democrats running for political office this
fall are going to react when events like this start
happening, so for the time being, I'm simply waiting
to see what is going to happen next on the world stage.

BigK, #18, re: "I expect to see another 'false flag' major incident
take place lets say between September and February of next year, also
Obama signing a executive order (before leaving office) granting
immunity from prosecution for everyone during and connected within
the terms of his Presidency..."

I agree that both of these are extremely probable, and the first was
one of the things I was referring to in my last message, both the
provocative incident itself and the leakage of information about its
real causes. And most Americans are unaware of this, but almost every
merican President has granted lots of pardons and immunity from
prosecution before leaving office, especially ones that protect his
friends and supporters.

Astrologically, Clinton has a lot going for her. There are some severe challenges in her life over the summer - could be political or health or family problems. Nevertheless, false advice will haunt her just like the presently corrupt system when she is in the Oval Office. As far as providing real jobs and protecting the economy, that part looks actually good if I just look at her cards.
Trump will never win, he's in his Sade Sati period. This is not what the world needs now. But he will lose a lot of his riches around the election and right after. If I were Republican I would still like to get another nominee. But astrologically most of the others are fallen cases.

Nevertheless, the Great War is looming and then Clinton will have to fight it. Unless the die-off starts earlier in great numbers... but deep down Clinton has an aggressive streak. It remains to be seen whether the hatchet is buried. And how much she listens to intelligence. Bush didn't.

I must add a strong qualifier to my last post: this is an experimental opinion based on the experiences (far from definitive) of Hindu astrology traditions. All that has been worked out to focus on individual karmic patterns of common people without much regard of collective happenings and without counting on intervention from advanced powers (though in some cases in some more open schools closer to Western occultism, a window of opportunity is seen in certain periods and in certain individual charts towards "divine intervention"). Collective events are much harder to see though their theme is certainly there. The reaction of hundreds of millions of people simply cannot be foreseen on one side.
The minimum factors of an individual's fate (whether they are POTUS or not) can be seen with a probability way of thinking, e.g. you could say something bad could happen to Kennedy when he was assassinated but it was far from 100%, and it was realistic that Nixon would fall due to a scandal. It could also be predicted that Bill Clinton would face an issue based on sexual temptations
and that initially he reacted in a wrong way - however there were both choices and interventions which finally allowed him to complete his term and go down in history as a generally more positive president. You could also easily tell that Bush II used to be an alcoholic, he would work great destruction at home and abroad and that his father was a secret agent when he was a child.

It is much easier to see whether an average person who comes to see a jyotishi could have a likely job change or if they could place a lot of trust in a given relationship or possibly have a child than whether the energies lead to an election or not - and as we have discussed on these boards recently, intervention from sources also happens in these cases. The themes of radical religions and radical nationalism are there.

Individually, you can see however that the precise way Trump is negative is through his destructive use of language which borders upon having a magical power. This is his chief weakness too, one he cannot resist now. Indian sources associate this with the last lunar part of Scorpio, Jyeshtha - mythology says this is the energy of the elder sister who cursed other mythological actors because the Moon God, Soma was favoring Rohini, another wife personalizing the 27 lunar stations. Another version says she was cheated upon.

It remains to be seen if we are entering into such dark times that such an energy is actually favored by millions of voters in November. I would be surprised. Hillary Clinton is far more neutral in this respect but if you look at her Indian astrology, she would also have some business with destruction and war if in public office contrary to the peaceful and intelligent surface. One is reminded that she voted for the Iraq war back then - it is still unclear to me why.

reg, #21, re: "Astrologically, Clinton has a lot going for her.
There are some severe challenges in her life over the summer -
could be political or health or family problems. Nevertheless,
false advice will haunt her just like the presently corrupt
system when she is in the Oval Office. As far as providing real
jobs and protecting the economy, that part looks actually good
if I just look at her cards."

Yeah, at this point, I definitely see Hillary Clinton as the
next POTUS, after what amounts to a rubber-stamp election with
one war-time President handing the reins of power over to
another. I won't even venture a guess as to who will be fighting
whom, where, or over what. Obama will just keep encountering
situations where he has to take military action, and since US
forces almost always win battles (even though they often don't
win the war itself), the Republicans won't dare mount serious
poltical opposition to what he's doing.

re: "Trump will never win, he's in his Sade Sati period. This
is not what the world needs now. But he will lose a lot of his
riches around the election and right after. If I were
Republican I would still like to get another nominee. But
astrologically most of the others are fallen cases."

My instincts and my Guides immediate reactions are that what
you just said is right on the mark, and I'm actually quite
pleased to see this stated in so many words. I have a suspicion
that Trump is going to say and do a bunch of foolish things
this coming fall, trying to prove that he can make better
strategic and tactical military decisions better than the
professionals who are already handling. Hillary, of course
qualifies as such a professional, even though her Republican
opponents keep criticizing her tenure as Secretary as State,
which was actually quite successful.

re: "Nevertheless, the Great War is looming and then Clinton
will have to fight it. Unless the die-off starts earlier in
great numbers... but deep down Clinton has an aggressive
streak. It remains to be seen whether the hatchet is buried.
And how much she listens to intelligence. Bush didn't."

I think both Obama and Hillary have been listening to
intelligence right along a lot better than Bush did, and
I suspect that this will continue and even escalate as
things become darker and darker outside.

reg, #22, re: "I must add a strong qualifier to my last
post: this is an experimental opinion based on the
experiences (far from definitive) of Hindu astrology
traditions. All that has been worked out to focus on
individual karmic patterns of common people without
much regard of collective happenings and without
counting on intervention from advanced powers (though
in some cases in some more open schools closer to
Western occultism, a window of opportunity is seen
in certain periods and in certain individual charts
towards 'divine intervention'). Collective events
are much harder to see though their theme is certainly
there. The reaction of hundreds of millions of people
simply cannot be foreseen on one side. The minimum
factors of an individual's fate (whether they are
POTUS or not) can be seen with a probability way of
thinking, e.g. you could say something bad could
happen to Kennedy when he was assassinated but it
was far from 100%, and it was realistic that Nixon
would fall due to a scandal. It could also be
predicted that Bill Clinton would face an issue
based on sexual temptations and that initially he
reacted in a wrong way - however there were both
choices and interventions which finally allowed him
to complete his term and go down in history as a
generally more positive president. You could also
easily tell that Bush II used to be an alcoholic,
he would work great destruction at home and abroad
and that his father was a secret agent when he was
a child. It is much easier to see whether an average
person who comes to see a jyotishi could have a
likely job change or if they could place a lot of
trust in a given relationship or possibly have a
child than whether the energies lead to an election
or not - and as we have discussed on these boards
recently, intervention from sources also happens
in these cases. The themes of radical religions
and radical nationalism are there.

This is as impressive an assessment of Eastern
Astroglogy as I've ever seen, and it greatly
amplifies my own very vague understanding of
this psychic tool ... which is probably consulted
by more people on a serious basis every day than
any other oracle I know of.

Individually, you can see however that the precise
way Trump is negative is through his destructive
use of language which borders upon having a magical
power. This is his chief weakness too, one he cannot
resist now. Indian sources associate this with the
last lunar part of Scorpio, Jyeshtha - mythology
says this is the energy of the elder sister who
cursed other mythological actors because the Moon
God, Soma was favoring Rohini, another wife
personalizing the 27 lunar stations. Another
version says she was cheated upon."

I've noticed that almost every psychic reading for
Donald Trump that I've seen since he announced his
candidacy, no matter what system of divination
was being employed, has said essentially the same
things you just said. Have you seen any of his
old reality shows, such as "The Apprentice"? I
haven't, but I've heard he projected a very similar
persona while hosting them, and I'm now suspecting
that he, like many creators of a fictional world,
ended up partially becoming the character he was
playing on stage.

re: "It remains to be seen if we are entering into such
dark times that such an energy is actually favored
by millions of voters in November. I would be
surprised. Hillary Clinton is far more neutral in
this respect but if you look at her Indian
astrology, she would also have some business with
destruction and war if in public office contrary
to the peaceful and intelligent surface. One is
reminded that she voted for the Iraq war back then
- it is still unclear to me why."

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have struck me as
typical, and very professional, mainstream
Democrats. By world political standards, they
are slightly to the right of dead center in
ideology, and extremely moderate in dealing
with the mechanics of governance. I assume
Hillary voted for the Iraq war expressly to
show the Republicans that she was willing to
compromise if it seemed politically expedient.

Ladies & Genklemen of zhe Unikyled Zcakez of America,

Whoever you honsider az your nekz POZUZ zhi year, fokuz your atkenchonm hon one detail

if she or he is ewankually remoke nano tech mind controled

- unnakural strange behaviour not corresponding her / his past personality ?
- emotional or apparent physical coldness despite her / his spirigh felling hot ?

Left or right wing doesn't matter :
the mind controlers will use the person to saboage
the country as much as possible. In any doubt \ fog
preventive measurez should be taken in emergency :
limit the next president and his (- mind control possibility -) team
by mounting a countrywide"check & balance" mechanizm : local & cyber .
People individually voting on any fukure gov measure (| referendum |) iz zuch
a mechanizm, informally relying honyour akual public servikorz and leaderz iz another

Curenk adminizkrahum ken cake zhak skrakeygic rezponze abilikeyz for superior inkerezk