Ema wrote:Hi RC, I beg your pardon but what Frawley's method do you mean? Your chart is a simple contest chart - and very simple indeed... As Deb has pointed out, "your" Republicans get the 1st house and BO the 7th. His MC is in Leo tightly conjucnt the Leo Moon - thereby making the Moon a 10th house planet. She applies to his ruler Mars by sextile which is a very direct and simple "perfection" - he attains his ambition. While McCain doesn't of course because his 10th house ruler Saturn is not connected to his ruler Venus. That's judging by very old and traditional rules which have nothing to do with JF. Even if the Moon weren't the 10th house planet but just applying to Mars by a harmonious aspect that would show that HE IS what's going to HAPPEN next - as always in horary charts, the Moon's application shows what's going to come next. It wasn't Frawley who's made this up. That's one of the core principles of horary and all traditional astrology.
As for why is Mars in detriment? Take a close look and you'll see that all the planets in the chart are "debilitated" - except Mercury. So, nearly any time you'd cast a chart those days, you just couldn't get a dignified planet to rule anybody. Planets can't jump from one sign into the other with every new chart we do. So... We have to take what's there for us and judge accordingly.

Emma,

May I suggest you read Frawley's chapter on political elections before you start an argument regarding his techniques?

RC

Hi RC, from the interpretive point of view which I'm discussing, your horary chart has nothing to do with political elections . As I said it's a simple "we against them" horary chart - try to understand this and you'll see why and where you went wrong. No need to read Frawley to know that

Ema wrote:Hi, I never posted anything concerning these elections, but looking at it in retrospect, a simple KISS principle worked: Obama's progessed Moon has just conjuncted his natal ascendant in 2 degrees (which is a very tight orb for a Moon/asc. connection), so what happened: People (the Moon) were with (conjunction) Obama (his ascendant - he himself). That's in very plain terms, but from a psychological point of view, Moon rules the masses, and it's logical that when the Moon (by progression which is the underlying force behind all transits) touches one's ascendant people tend to "gravitate" toward him. This explains the traditional meaning of the pr. Moon increasing one's popularity when she touches one of the chart's angles. On the inauguration date, the Moon will have just crossed his ascendant (and Jupiter will have entered his natal ascending sign) which to me is just a confirmation that his natal data is reliable.

Ema

shall we look at Obama's chart and see if there is impeachment?
After all, he is hiding his birth certificate..
something is def shady!

CD

After all, he is hiding his birth certificate..

I don't know if he's hiding it but there's a copy of it on the net. Madalyn DH posted this on another forum: This website even shows a newspaper clipping of a birth announcement from a Hawaiian newspaper.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html

I do wish people would quit banging on about a faked birth certificate. Don't you think it would have been found out long before now? Do you think he would have even made it to the SENATE if his certificate had been faked? It's not like he's everyone's golden boy.

And the fact of the matter is, Obama was elected fairly and squarely. Get used to the idea. Move on. Live your life. Stop hoping bad things happen to him and concentrate on sending him positive thoughts instead. He'll need all the positivity he can get to sort things out.

Jeez.
GH

It's hard to take seriously the utterances of a New Age aquarium dolphin.

GH

Why are there lawsuits against Obama still pending? if there was nothing to hide, judge could have put the end to this 1st time around. It is not that i nor anyone else is hoping something bad to happen, it is just i am up to my throat with lies. We have been lied with Clintons, Bush, now who - Obama?This reminds of the lies/promises Clinton told/gave to american people *grrrr*,, did you guys forget how many people supported Bill Clinton? Everywhere there was Bill Clinton just like now with Obama. Can we get at least more honest person in White House at least once? there was one article that said that something along the lines as long as the lawsuit goes on, people will talk and speculate. There are enough of reasons to impeach Bush yet Palosi said ohhh NO!... Clinton's impeachement went nowhere, just wasted taxpayers'money. If Obama can get a great majority of our boys/girls out of Iraq/Afganistan by end of 1st term, maybe i will change my mind. As of Nov 9th, things are going from bad to worse. Let's see what 2009-2011 bring...

Kirk

HUh? what are you talking about?

CD

Ema wrote:Hi RC, from the interpretive point of view which I'm discussing, your horary chart has nothing to do with political elections . As I said it's a simple "we against them" horary chart - try to understand this and you'll see why and where you went wrong. No need to read Frawley to know that

Emma:

First of all, I finally concluded that the horary (all of them) supported an Obama win, so how did I go wrong? McCain's natal looked better to me than BO's but as for the horary's, they all gave BO the win.

Second of all, my horary wasn't a "we against them". It was about BO's chance of winning the election over McCain.

I think I know what my own question was. I also think I'm in a better position to know what was in my mind at the time than you are don't you think?

Thirdly, where were you with all your judgments before the election?

RC

RC

i have to agree with you ... McCain's transits/solar arcs/progressions looked very good for him.

for horaries, I havent really run any of them on Obama/McCain. Eventhough a question did pop in my head "will people of the US pick McCain!?"

Cheers
CD

Emma,

May I suggest you read Frawley's chapter on political elections before you start an argument regarding his techniques?

RC

RC, Ema did not start an argument regarding John Frawley?s techniques, or say anything demeaning about JF, she merely corrected one of your comments (which, I agree, needed correcting). She also explained her reasoning - which is something you didn?t do when you reproduced her post with a suggestion that she reads his work. This seems very insulting to someone like Ema, who has a good knowledge of the sources that JF draws upon.

I also think you leave a very misleading impression where you say ?I finally concluded that the horary (all of them) supported an Obama win?.

The reality is that throughout the pre-election discussion of various charts, you insisted that they were all showing a win for McCain. Your first comment in the McCain thread was ?Using Frawley's formula, using the moon's aspect alone, McCain wins: Moon is conjoining with Mars in minutes? and you never stated a change of opinion until *after* the election, when you wrote ?All who said you can't use horary to answer this question credibly, I think you may want to rethink that. I asked several times, different ways and looked at Kali's chart "Will republicans win" and they all favored BO using Frawley's technique for elections.?

That?s an amazing turnaround for someone whose last two posts before the election were still proposing an unexpected win for McCain and expressing your "astrological" assessment that McCain could not lose! After being so self-righteous on the back of being wrong, I can only imagine how much more fuss you would have made about being right if you had actually been right!

Sorry, but there is a real insincerity coming across in your astrological comments that relate to this political issue. You have been using astrology to push your own political viewpoint, and have been quite prepared to twist the technique to make it fit. I don't think you even realise how much you have been doing this, because you are so closely wrapped up in your concern to have the astrology show what you want to see.

This whole thread has been giving me a lot of concern for some time. The use of horary technique is poor and much of the discussion is blighted by political bias which has stirred up annoyance. I?ve allowed it to continue to give people a chance to review the election judgements with the benefit of hindsight of what actually happened, but I?ve been quite shocked in the way that the post-election review of technique has been just as biased by personal opinion as the pre-election predictions. I think this thread needs to be allowed to die down now. The astrological assessment of the American presidency is probably more of a mundane matter than a horary one, and issues relating to Obama?s birth chart (or his birth certificate) are definitely out of place here.

After letting the thread live for so long, I don't now want to lock it, but if anyone feels that they must make one last comment can they now do that so that we can allow this uncomfortable ? and largely unhelpful - thread to fade out of focus.

Hi, Deb

I won?t get into the problem of who insult who, as some members have a very confrontational style, and its their choice, but I would like to correct what I see as a minor injustice and a major comunication problem.

This seems very insulting to someone like Ema, who has a good knowledge of the sources that JF draws upon.

I don?t think that saying someone doesn?t know something is insulting per se. We can all try to work on our manners when discussing political problems, but the matter is that Ema said:

Hi RC, I beg your pardon but what Frawley's method do you mean?

The method is in the Horary Textbook, p. 213, "the moon is of extreme importance in horaries about elections. It is natural ruler of the people, and so signifies the electorate. If the moon goest to aspect the signicator of the candidates, that candidate will win."

So, Ema was asking about the method, and as far as I know, this method is not described in ancient sources. I may be wrong here, but I think it is Frawley?s creation.

We see then that Ema said:

Even if the Moon weren't the 10th house planet but just applying to Mars by a harmonious aspect that would show that HE IS what's going to HAPPEN next - as always in horary charts, the Moon's application shows what's going to come next. It wasn't Frawley who's made this up.

I would say Ema was trying to speak of Her own technique, and RC was trying to speak about Frawley?s technique. I think Ema assumed that both would be the same, and in the case, they aren?t. Again, I don?t see the insult, as the fact that ema may know the sources that JF draws upon don?t authomatically mean that she knows what JF says himself.


Again, I won?t be in the matter of who style was confrontational, etc. I had my quote of quarrying with members in the past, that I have very profound differences, but that I now respect their opinion in a great extent.

After being so self-righteous on the back of being wrong, I can only imagine how much more fuss you would have made about being right if you had actually been right!

Deb, I think it depends on point of view. I was reading this as RC?s perception that horary was right, even if she was wrong, and she was trying to work on this insight.

But RC, I agree with Deb that in many times during the thread you let "what you wanted" to mix with what you were reading. We should let the chart talks his own story.

Altough, I may confess that one of the only reasons that I interpreted this and other horaries with such confidence is because I was asured that Obama would win because of the mundane astrology (shame on me)

"the moon is of extreme importance in horaries about elections. It is natural ruler of the people, and so signifies the electorate. If the moon goest to aspect the signicator of the candidates, that candidate will win."

So, Ema was asking about the method, and as far as I know, this method is not described in ancient sources. I may be wrong here, but I think it is Frawley?s creation.

The principle that the Moon rules the electorate - and that the party to which the Moon applies is favoured by her application in matters that rely on public support - is everywhere. It?s a staple principle of tradition (within reason of course, it is only one of the considerations to be built into a judgement, and the application of an afflicted Moon does not guarantee success).

Moon signifies the common people ? Lilly, CA., p. 81
The Moon signifies jurors and her application signifies success for that party ? CA., p.403. (Same principle ? the Moon signifies the will of the people, and so shows where public support is given, and so who wins ? I myself have been teaching this for years and I have seen it in too many places to try to remember).

The general principle that the Moon?s application shows who gets the victory in a contest chart or a matter related to acquiring a kingdom is very ancient and very frequently repeated. There is, for example, a horary chart published in the work of Sahl, (Dykes p.75 ff., and repoduced by Bonatti, where the Moon?s application is taken to demonstrate the successful party; and later in the text the application of the Moon is stressed again in questions concerning who will attain the kingdom (p.147).

It seems fairly common sense to me. But what I don?t want to suggest is that here we have one simple little rule that has been proven to be completely reliable without even looking at anything else.

And don?t forget that RC?s comment in the first post of the McCain horary read:

?Using Frawley's formula, using the moon's aspect alone, McCain wins: Moon is conjoining with Mars in minutes.

BUT, Mars is in the 7th house, the opponent's side. That is a negative for McCain according to Frawley.?

It was only after the event, that RC proved the validity of her horary by claiming that her chart was always right even if her judgement was wrong. I somehow don?t think she would have been so eager to reject her previous approach to the judgement after the event, if McCain had won, but this misses the point ? we do not create horaries that are independent of our selves. That horary only existed because of RC?s personal judgement and inclination to ask. So if her judgement was wrong, then her chart was misconceived and unreliable ? it shouldn?t then be venerated as an example of how unassailable the horary system is.