The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Joe Bauer]

By the way... is high tech leaving the Northern California , San Francisco South Bay Area?

Hewlitt Packard Enterprises just relocated their headquarters to Houston, Texas, Oracle to Austin Texas. Tesla to Austin.

Plantir Tech just moved to Denver.

HP expects many of their employees to continue working from home, even after the pandemic.

Our society is changing at lightening speed right before our eyes folks.

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Kirk,

Thanks for your comments... I found them to be enlightening and amusing.

One of my reasons for asking Dennis and Jim D. for their top 10 presidents is because it seemed to me that they'd be unable to pick that many whose presidencies they could stomach. If not, I don't know if that would indicate that their expectations are unreasonably high, or if the Democratic platform doesn't align well with their ideologies.

 

You found that amusing and enlightening Sandy? Kirk is being his usual xxxxx, which is why I have him on ignore, thanks for showing my why I keep him there.

The reason its difficult to do a top ten for  any list is because although there are many histories and biographies of the most popular presidents--Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, Clinton--it is not easy to find ones on presidents who were less popular, but were fairly good presidents e.g. Arthur.  And as I said earlier, the ones on people like Truman and Eisenhower, by McCullough  and Ambrose for example, have turned out not to be reliable.  Which you probably did not know. In addition to the information about McCullough which I posted, Steve Ambrose, the main biographer of Eisenhower, turned out to be not just a plagiarist, but a confabulator.  That is, he made up interviews he did not do with Eisenhower.  The other problem is the declassification process. Blanche Wiesen Cook's book on Eisenhower--which you probably never heard of--did not come out until 1984. That began a reevaluation of Ike.

With Kennedy, that problem does not exist so much because of the ARRB.  But, for example with your poster boy Obama, it does exist.  Obama tried to make a big deal out of his refusal to do HRC's bidding and invade Syria. The image was, well she suckered me on Libya, but yet I wised up after. He gave out a cover story to, I think, Atlantic on this. 

Well, it turned out that as he was doing that, he OK'd Timber Sycamore, a rather large CIA covert operation against Syria.  I believe, and many others do also, that this was one of the stupidest, most pointless covert ops in recent memory.  As with W and Iraq, it has unleashed ethnic and tribal rivalries and hatreds that should have been foreseen. But as was par for the course, they were not. And the last thing they expected was for Putin to intervene. Which I think he was correct to do. Because, Putin anticipated another Libya happening. In fact, that is what would have happened if you examine what the Nusra Front really was. And we end up with things like Aleppo, where a city is destroyed in order to save it.

The way you guys coddle DLC types like Obama and Clinton makes me wonder if you are already warming up to embrace Obama part 2, Joe Biden.  Let us see how long it takes Joe to get us out of Syria and to denounce what MBS is doing in Yemen, let alone for the murder of Khassoggi.

Edited December 16, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

Why two votes here for Chester Arthur (Berube and DiEugenio), and none for, say, Teddy Roosevelt?

I'm aware of all of Teddy's bad points (jingoist, colonialist, animal killer, denier of Native American rights, supposed "tool" of the banking interests).  But TR had his good points, also: he stuck up for labor (in the coal miners' strike, e.g.); invited Booker T. Washington to the White House; generally refused to let the bankers run roughshod over the economy and the Executive office; opposed American entry into WW I and hated Wilson for it.

Chester Arthur, on the other hand, carried into the White House taints of mediocrity and corruption from the Conkling machine and the New York Customs House.  His civil rights records consists of expressing disapproval when Congress voted down rights measures, and he didn't prevent Indian reservations from being encroached by settlers.  Allegedly, a popular reaction among politicians to Arthur's ascendancy was, "Great God!  Chet Arthur as president!"  What am I missing in the Arthur story?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/11/when-a-new-york-baron-became-president

Edited December 16, 2020 by David Andrews

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Why two votes here for Chester Arthur (Berube and DiEugenio), and none for, say, Teddy Roosevelt?

I'm aware of all of Teddy's bad points (jingoist, colonialist, animal killer, denier of Native American rights, supposed "tool" of the banking interests).  But TR had his good points, also: he stuck up for labor (in the coal miners' strike, e.g.); invited Booker T. Washington to the White House; generally refused to let the bankers run roughshod over the economy and the Executive office; opposed American entry into WW I and hated Wilson for it.

Chester Arthur, on the other hand, carried into the White House taints of mediocrity and corruption from the Conkling machine and the New York Customs House.  His civil rights records consists of expressing disapproval when Congress voted down rights measures, and he didn't prevent Indian reservations from being encroached by settlers.  Allegedly, a popular reaction among politicians to Arthur's ascendancy was, "Great God!  Chet Arthur as president!"  What am I missing in the Arthur story?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/11/when-a-new-york-baron-became-president

I read George Frederick Howe's biography of Chester Arthur last year.

He has been praised mainly because everyone initially assumed that he was hopelessly corrupt, and he turned out to be quite reasonable.  Arthur was a skilled administrator who rose to prominence as a Civil War quarter master (and eventual major general) in New York City.

But, certainly, the jingoistic, (imperialistic racist, etc.) Teddy Roosevelt, accomplished far more during his tenure in the White House.  So did Grover Cleveland.

As for Obama, my main criticism of his presidency-- then and now-- has to do with his willingness to cooperate with the Neocon "War on Terror" in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.  He retained Robert Gates in the Pentagon and declined to say, "No," to the CIA and military establishment.  I was surprised and disappointed by this.

But I also think that it's somewhat myopic to judge Obama's otherwise highly successful presidency on the basis of his reluctance to take on the Neocons and the military-industrial complex in the Middle East.

Netanyahu hated Obama, and the Saudi royal family was none too fond of him.  And Obama, certainly, deserves credit for backing the Iranian nuclear disarmament deal, and negotiating nuclear arms reductions with Putin.

Trump killed more civilians in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq ("collateral damage") in his first eight months as POTUS than Obama killed in eight years!

[James DiEugenio]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Sandy, although I think JFK was a pretty good president.  I think RFK would have been a great one.

IMO, that is why there were both murdered by high level conspiracies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Here goes, in chronological order:

1. Washington

2. Jefferson

3. Madison

4. Monroe

5. John Q. Adams

6. Lincoln

7. Arthur

8. Cleveland

9. FDR

10 Kennedy

Recall, this discards the slavery issue.

Edited December 16, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Steve Thomas]

Would anything stop Ted Cruz from pulling this dirty trick to prevent Biden from being sworn in?

By Mark Frauenfelder Dec 16, 2020

https://boingboing.net/2020/12/16/would-anything-stop-ted-cruz-from-pulling-this-dirty-trick-to-prevent-biden-from-being-sworn-in.html

“On January 6, 2021, the U.S. House and Senate will get together to accept the electoral votes. If one House representative and one Senator decide to challenge the results, they are allowed to debate the votes for two hours, according to the Electoral Count Act. But the law isn't clear on whether or not the entire debate is limited to two hours, or if they can debate for two hours per electoral vote (all 528 of them). If Ted Cruz decides to debate every electoral vote it can create a delay that will set off a cascade of events that would prevent Biden from ever becoming President, according to Jeremy D. Mayer, an associate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.

From his essay in The Hill:”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/530306-no-biden-hasnt-won-yet-one-more-nightmare-scenario

“The Congress over which the old vice president will be presiding will be the new one, sworn in Jan. 3. The new House, narrowly Democratic, will vote down any challenge. But the Senate? Something very different could occur.

Let’s suppose that the balance is 52-48 Republican. But Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have said that Biden won, so Biden wins in a close vote, right? And even if the Senate votes to uphold the challenges, the ECA has a tiebreaking provision — any slate of electors that is certified by their state’s governor will be accepted if the House and Senate disagree. Biden, again, would win. Thus, The New York Times assumes that Republican challenges to the electoral votes would be futile.

But what if the Senate never finishes voting? The ECA limits each challenge to no more than two hours of debate. Four states were questioned in the lawsuit (Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania), making four challenges and eight hours of delay. Even in the Senate, eight hours of debate can’t last more than a couple days, can it?

The law envisions the ability to challenge electoral votes collectively or individually. Surely a crafty legal mind like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) would challenge, not each state, but each electoral vote separately. And as a delaying tactic, why wouldn’t the Trumpers challenge every Biden state, even Delaware?

The goal is not to win, the goal is to delay, to prevent the “tiebreaking” provision of the ECA from happening.

Remember, the presiding officer under the ECA is Mike Pence. He can be expected to interpret the rules in a way highly favorable to the Republicans. He can help the GOP delay any resolution until about Jan. 18.

Now comes the endgame maneuver. The Constitution specifies that if there is no Electoral College winner, the Senate chooses the vice president and the House picks the president. The Senate, claiming that there is no Electoral College result, picks Pence.”

- more -

 

Steve Thomas

[James DiEugenio]

I like Monroe because he really got into it with Hamilton.  Miranda's play is, I think, really kind of a snow job, since he relies on two guys, Chernow and McDonald, who were out to make Hamilton the hero against Jefferson. I think that distorts things. Hamilton was incredibly influential as an Anglophile, but in some ways I prefer Gallatin.

Madison had such a distinguished career overall, that I do not think he can be left out.  

John Q. Adams was crippled at the start by the dispute with Jackson.  So he did not get to do all the things he wanted to. But this guy really was about as good as his movie rendition by Tony Hopkins in Amistad.

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy, need little or no explication. 

William did a nice job on Arthur.

Cleveland was victimized by the Panic of 1893.  But his stand on lowering the tariff and reforming the spoils system were positives.  With Arthur and Cleveland, slow but steady, beats the horrendous mixture in Truman and Ike. In those cases the negatives outweigh the positives.

David does not see the problem with TR inviting Booker T to the White House. TR was instrumental in getting us into the Spanish American War and thus beginning the American Age of Imperialism. The Panama Canal story is pretty sorry.

Edited December 16, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Andrew Prutsok]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You found that amusing and enlightening Sandy? Kirk is being his usual xxxxx, which is why I have him on ignore, thanks for showing my why I keep him there.

The reason its difficult to do a top ten for  any list is because although there are many histories and biographies of the most popular presidents--Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, Clinton--it is not easy to find ones on presidents who were less popular, but were fairly good presidents e.g. Arthur.  And as I said earlier, the ones on people like Truman and Eisenhower, by McCullough  and Ambrose for example, have turned out not to be reliable.  Which you probably did not know. In addition to the information about McCullough which I posted, Steve Ambrose, the main biographer of Eisenhower, turned out to be not just a plagiarist, but a confabulator.  That is, he made up interviews he did not do with Eisenhower.  The other problem is the declassification process. Blanche Wiesen Cook's book on Eisenhower--which you probably never heard of--did not come out until 1984. That began a reevaluation of Ike.

With Kennedy, that problem does not exist so much because of the ARRB.  But, for example with your poster boy Obama, it does exist.  Obama tried to make a big deal out of his refusal to do HRC's bidding and invade Syria. The image was, well she suckered me on Libya, but yet I wised up after. He gave out a cover story to, I think, Atlantic on this. 

Well, it turned out that as he was doing that, he OK'd Timber Sycamore, a rather large CIA covert operation against Syria.  I believe, and many others do also, that this was one of the stupidest, most pointless covert ops in recent memory.  As with W and Iraq, it has unleashed ethnic and tribal rivalries and hatreds that should have been foreseen. But as was par for the course, they were not. And the last thing they expected was for Putin to intervene. Which I think he was correct to do. Because, Putin anticipated another Libya happening. In fact, that is what would have happened if you examine what the Nusra Front really was. And we end up with things like Aleppo, where a city is destroyed in order to save it.

The way you guys coddle DLC types like Obama and Clinton makes me wonder if you are already warming up to embrace Obama part 2, Joe Biden.  Let us see how long it takes Joe to get us out of Syria and to denounce what MBS is doing in Yemen, let alone for the murder of Khassoggi.

I remember reading at the time that one of the drivers for Putin's action in Syria was to put the kibosh on a proposed gas line through there to Europe, not that there's anything wrong with that. It was my understanding that establishing this gas line so the US and it's dictator allies could provide Europe with an alternative to buying from Russia drove most of what Obama did in the Middle East.

[David Andrews]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David does not see the problem with TR inviting Booker T to the White House. TR was instrumental in getting us into the Spanish American War and thus beginning the American Age of Imperialism. The Panama Canal story is pretty sorry.

I grant you the very ugly and racist Spanish-American War, in the Philippines and Caribbean.  As imperialismo goes, however, I'm not sorry the remnants of the Spanish empire were eliminated.  In the face of an intense competition for trade access to China, and of an industrializing and militarizing colonialist Japan, if we hadn't seized the Philippines, another nation surely would have - Russia or Britain foremost.  I'm sure their views of Philippine independence would have been similarly oppressive. 

The Panama Canal treaty and the separation of the isthmus from Colombia were part and parcel of our competition for Pacific expansionism and couldn't have been left to another nation's gain, especially a nation outside our hemisphere.  John Hay, schooled at Lincoln's knee, felt the same. 

Where would Asia have been in World War II if we hadn't established an interest in the Philippines, and taken them back from the Japanese for martial advantage?  Or if we were without the canal, perhaps owned by Vichy France, perhaps a Western Hemisphere base for the Germans?

Theodore Roosevelt's annexation of the Philippines and acquisition of the canal isthmus stands in contrast to Chester Arthur's achievements, which in epitaph may be termed, "He was not as bad as made out to be."  What next?  "He farted noiselessly, and without undue shifting of his hams in his seat"?

Edited December 17, 2020 by David Andrews

[Kirk Gallaway]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You found that amusing and enlightening Sandy? Kirk is being his usual xxxxx, which is why I have him on ignore, thanks for showing my why I keep him there.

The reason its difficult to do a top ten for  any list is because although there are many histories and biographies of the most popular presidents--Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, Clinton--it is not easy to find ones on presidents who were less popular, but were fairly good presidents e.g. Arthur.  And as I said earlier, the ones on people like Truman and Eisenhower, by McCullough  and Ambrose for example, have turned out not to be reliable.  Which you probably did not know. In addition to the information about McCullough which I posted, Steve Ambrose, the main biographer of Eisenhower, turned out to be not just a plagiarist, but a confabulator.  That is, he made up interviews he did not do with Eisenhower.  The other problem is the declassification process. Blanche Wiesen Cook's book on Eisenhower--which you probably never heard of--did not come out until 1984. That began a reevaluation of Ike.

With Kennedy, that problem does not exist so much because of the ARRB.  But, for example with your poster boy Obama, it does exist.  Obama tried to make a big deal out of his refusal to do HRC's bidding and invade Syria. The image was, well she suckered me on Libya, but yet I wised up after. He gave out a cover story to, I think, Atlantic on this. 

Well, it turned out that as he was doing that, he OK'd Timber Sycamore, a rather large CIA covert operation against Syria.  I believe, and many others do also, that this was one of the stupidest, most pointless covert ops in recent memory.  As with W and Iraq, it has unleashed ethnic and tribal rivalries and hatreds that should have been foreseen. But as was par for the course, they were not. And the last thing they expected was for Putin to intervene. Which I think he was correct to do. Because, Putin anticipated another Libya happening. In fact, that is what would have happened if you examine what the Nusra Front really was. And we end up with things like Aleppo, where a city is destroyed in order to save it.

The way you guys coddle DLC types like Obama and Clinton makes me wonder if you are already warming up to embrace Obama part 2, Joe Biden.  Let us see how long it takes Joe to get us out of Syria and to denounce what MBS is doing in Yemen, let alone for the murder of Khassoggi.

 

If Jim actually has me on ignore, I didn't know that, and I think its unfortunate. I think he could learn from my post.

 

What kind of response is this?

 

Sandy, outside of the one joke you highlighted. I think my compendium and observations of  Jim statements over the years was pretty fair. He's never balanced! Even in this supposed response., Jim still doesn't rate any Presidents, because he hasn't had time to read the "right" authors"?, and then he predictably proceeds  in a very unbalanced manner to ridicule those who would defend Obama and continue bashing  Obama on foreign policy in Syria where he pulls out his #5 hero on my "Jim's heroes" list, Putin and talks of how Putin bailed out Obama by getting involved in Syria. Again nothing new, an assertion he's made  before. Certainly it was regrettable, Obama mentioning the "red line" that Assad better not do with chemical weapons, and then forcing himself in a corner when another chemical outbreak occurs.. But OK, the worst didn't happen.

 

W. said:As for Obama, my main criticism of his presidency-- then and now-- has to do with his willingness to cooperate with the Neocon "War on Terror" in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.  He retained Robert Gates in the Pentagon and declined to say, "No," to the CIA and military establishment.  I was surprised and disappointed by this. ****

 

Yes, W.  We were all hoping for more. Hiring a Bushy Gates was very disappointing for me as well.

But Syria became ruined as result of GW's War on Iraq. But who would cite Syria as a major low light of the Obama administration besides Jim.? As W. says, it is rather myopic. But who else would suffer from such myopia? Once again, hate to say it, but Vladimir Putin!

 W. Honestly I'm sure I never heard Jim ever complementing Obama for his enemies, Netanyahu and  the Saudis, as he should have, nor did he castigate Trump for having Netanyahu and the Saudis as his friends, as he should.

 

***

Ok, So I see now in subsequent posts, Jim started actually responding and rating the Presidents.

Hmmmm Sort of an idealized past "oldies" guy!

Madison was quite a scholar but the Brits did blockade the U.S. and did burn down the  White House and the Capitol under his watch! Just to give some balance!

But Dolly was a prize!

Edited December 17, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Would anything stop Ted Cruz from pulling this dirty trick to prevent Biden from being sworn in?

By Mark Frauenfelder Dec 16, 2020

https://boingboing.net/2020/12/16/would-anything-stop-ted-cruz-from-pulling-this-dirty-trick-to-prevent-biden-from-being-sworn-in.html

“On January 6, 2021, the U.S. House and Senate will get together to accept the electoral votes. If one House representative and one Senator decide to challenge the results, they are allowed to debate the votes for two hours, according to the Electoral Count Act. But the law isn't clear on whether or not the entire debate is limited to two hours, or if they can debate for two hours per electoral vote (all 528 of them). If Ted Cruz decides to debate every electoral vote it can create a delay that will set off a cascade of events that would prevent Biden from ever becoming President, according to Jeremy D. Mayer, an associate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.

From his essay in The Hill:”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/530306-no-biden-hasnt-won-yet-one-more-nightmare-scenario

“The Congress over which the old vice president will be presiding will be the new one, sworn in Jan. 3. The new House, narrowly Democratic, will vote down any challenge. But the Senate? Something very different could occur.

Let’s suppose that the balance is 52-48 Republican. But Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have said that Biden won, so Biden wins in a close vote, right? And even if the Senate votes to uphold the challenges, the ECA has a tiebreaking provision — any slate of electors that is certified by their state’s governor will be accepted if the House and Senate disagree. Biden, again, would win. Thus, The New York Times assumes that Republican challenges to the electoral votes would be futile.

But what if the Senate never finishes voting? The ECA limits each challenge to no more than two hours of debate. Four states were questioned in the lawsuit (Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania), making four challenges and eight hours of delay. Even in the Senate, eight hours of debate can’t last more than a couple days, can it?

The law envisions the ability to challenge electoral votes collectively or individually. Surely a crafty legal mind like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) would challenge, not each state, but each electoral vote separately. And as a delaying tactic, why wouldn’t the Trumpers challenge every Biden state, even Delaware?

The goal is not to win, the goal is to delay, to prevent the “tiebreaking” provision of the ECA from happening.

Remember, the presiding officer under the ECA is Mike Pence. He can be expected to interpret the rules in a way highly favorable to the Republicans. He can help the GOP delay any resolution until about Jan. 18.

Now comes the endgame maneuver. The Constitution specifies that if there is no Electoral College winner, the Senate chooses the vice president and the House picks the president. The Senate, claiming that there is no Electoral College result, picks Pence.”

- more -

 

Steve Thomas

I believe there are parlimentary maneuvers that can shut Cruz down. For instance McConnell can just refuse to recognize him. I doubt the Rs will be willing to cut their own throats on this issue because in the end it will be futile but be seen as them trying to invalidate the vote. They really have to worry about the 2022 mid terms which could flip the senate at this point. Trump is really driving away the moderates IMO.

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

I believe there are parlimentary maneuvers that can shut Cruz down. For instance McConnell can just refuse to recognize him. I doubt the Rs will be willing to cut their own throats on this issue because in the end it will be futile but be seen as them trying to invalidate the vote. They really have to worry about the 2022 mid terms which could flip the senate at this point. Trump is really driving away the moderates IMO.

Bob,

I'm not positive about this, but I think Pence presides over these proceedings, not McConnell.

I wonder how many Senators are up for re-election in 2022. That will be an interesting battle.

Edit: I looked it up. 34 out of the 100 seats will be contested in 2022.

Steve Thomas

Edited December 17, 2020 by Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

The City of Atlantic City, NJ is auctioning off the right to blow up the Trump Plaza Casino in that town. The building has been condemned and is a safety hazard. Proceeds from the auction will go to benefit the Boys and Girls Club of Atlantic City.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/atlantic-city-offers-chance-to-blow-up-shuttered-trump-plaza-casino/

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

Famed astrologer Ray Grasse whom I have known for many years wrote on Facebook yesterday:

 

In my blog post for Mountain Astrologer in June of 2019, I explored the psychological impact of this entire period for Trump, and listed a series of dates/periods that would be particularly stressful (and eventful) for him. The last of those dates I mentioned was this one happening right now, when Pluto would be opposing his natal Saturn —an energy associated with extreme frustration and depression, rejection, as well as deep-seated secrets coming to light. All in all, a kind of “dark night of the soul” energy.

Though it technically fires on December 20, its effects extend quite a while on either side. Just in the last 48 hours, we’ve not only seen the electoral college formally designating Biden as president, the resignation of Trump’s biggest enabler to date, Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell finally cutting Trump loose, and the attorney general of New York, Letitia James, announcing her determination to acquire Trump’s presidential records as part of her investigations.

It will be interesting to see how much of this manifests for him this coming week or two, internally — feeling abandoned and rejected, experiencing an emotional breakdown – and how much of it he chooses to act out externally, through some dangerous actions on the larger stage, as for instance attacking Iran, firing more cabinet members, rallying his violent supporters to action, or simply lashing out even more dramatically at opponents via tweets and such.

But what makes this energy somewhat exceptional is that it happens to be coinciding closely with several other celestial triggers of broader import, beyond just his horoscope – specifically: a) the epic Jupiter/Saturn conjunction that’s taking place on Dec. 20; b) the Winter solstice at the same time, and - last but definitely not least – c) Mars in Aries squaring the degree of the Saturn/Pluto conjunction from last January, which will be exact on Dec. 20th and 21st.

So what does all this mean? I think it’s foolish to try and distill this down to one single outcome, or as being either all negative or all positive, because it will certainly involve both. For one, while this involves Trump, it’s bigger than just him. There is some sort of shift in the political winds taking place, both stateside and abroad, and with Mars involved as a trigger, there’s definitely major turbulence or upheaval indicated.

But with Jupiter and Saturn in zero degrees of Aquarius in the mix, I also think this period could be inaugurating either new discoveries or breakthroughs of either a socio-political or scientific sort. (The rolling out of Covid vaccines is undoubtedly part of it; perhaps a financial relief package out of D.C. would be another; but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some sort of important scientific announcement between now and New Years.) In any event, I'd suggest paying very, very close attention to the events right around Dec. 19th to the 22nd – and remember, the effects of that period (and the latter half of December more generally) could reverberate quite far into the future, since conjunctions have that "New Moon" quality of opening up new phases.

 

 

MOUNTAINASTROLOGER.COM

Donald Trump and the Saturn-Pluto Conjunction - The Mountain Astrologer