Who will be President of the United States?

[canislulu]

I asked, "What if Bernie Sander's runs as a Third Party Candidate?" and received Hexagram 34 unchanging which goes nicely with the 33 uc casting mholden received.

I am thinking that Bernie will need to retreat from running on the Democratic ticket and run as a third party candidate. It is time for the U.S. to have a third party.

I asked, "What is Mrs. Clinton's best course of action for the greater good at this time?" and received:
H 21.1 > 35

"Shoes locked in stocks so that feet disappear, no mistake."

Maybe she will be put in prison for her crimes.

 

[canislulu]

I am thinking Sanders will not have to run as a third party candidate. Here is something from May 10th www.inquisitor.com:

"Bernie Sanders could still win the Democratic nomination. While it is true that in the Republican primary, candidates faced a situation where there were not enough delegates for the other candidate to win and Donald Trump had nearly enough, that is not the case with the Democratic primaries. Democrats have about twice as many delegates, so a 300-delegate lead is not as significant as it is for Republicans. There are still 926 more assignable delegates and 712 superdelegates. Bernie still has a good chance at the nomination in light of recent developments.

Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates don’t count until the convention despite the insistence of news broadcasters to treat them like they are already committed. Those commitments are completely intangible. Clinton knows that fact better than anyone. She had the support of many superdelegates early in the 2008 race, but they switched to Obama when the time came. Superdelegates don’t get to vote until the first vote of the convention. They can change their mind at any time before then. They can’t really be committed despite any agreement they may have previously avowed."

 

[canislulu]

I asked, "Will Bernie Sanders get the Democratic nomination?" and cast 15.3.6 > 23
I asked, "Will Bernie Sanders become the next president of the United States?" and cast 32.2 > 62

I take those as favorable readings. Bernie supporters are growing every day as people are learning more about him. The commitment is there.

 

[Sixth Relative]

"Will Bernie Sanders get the Democratic nomination?" and cast 15.3.6 > 23

This is quite interesting, from a Wen Wang Gua perspective:

a) Sanders is represented by line 5, which is Hai (water) with relative Offspring attached. Offspring can represent someone irresponsible, but also can represent good luck. Water in a month and day of fire is in a stage of rest, it is uneffective. The national democratic convention will be held in a Wei (earth) month, and earth destroys water. The first 2 days of the convention would be under Metal days, and metal produces water. In general, this doesn't look good for Sanders, but seems like he could have a tiny moment of luck if he manages to survive until the start of the convention

b) Both active lines are metal lines, with relative siblings (could be either supporters or competitors). Metal produces water and destroys wood; then, it seems like Sanders will be strengthened either by his supporters or by Clinton's mistakes. Both active lines become after change in wood lines, with Asset relative.

c) Unfortunatelly, the change to win the office is represented by relative Office, and in hex 15 Office is a fire element. Water destroys fire, so Sanders won't have a chance to take office as the Democratic candidate.

d) In hex 15, there is a hidden element. It is Asset (money), with element wood. Wood produces fire, so you need money to win the nomination; but Sanders lacks enough money. In 15zhi23, the hidden element won't be able to get out of hide: Sanders won't be able to collect enough money to win the nomination.

All in all, I'd say that regarless of an increase in popular support, Sanders won't win the nomination. And I'm very sad to say this; I hope to be wrong.

 

[canislulu]

Here is my perspective. Hexagram 23 is "Mountain over Earth" and my favorite aspect of it is that what is above gives to those below as the mountain gives from its heights to the earth below nourishing what is below it. That is a good "relating" figure for Sanders who is truly "noblesse oblige" in terms of his feeling responsible for giving opportunities for honest hardworking people who are "below" in terms of consideration by corrupt "powers that be." To me Yi is answering the question by saying "He has the Integrity to Strip Away the corruption in the Democratic Party."

Sixth Relative, can you give a Wen Weng Gua perspective on the readings in post 31 of this thread and also on the 32.2 > 62 reading.

My perspective on the 32.2 > 62 reading is that Yi is telling us that Sanders has the commitment to go across the small pass --- flying past predators and into the White House.

 

[Sixth Relative]

I asked, "What if Bernie Sander's runs as a Third Party Candidate?" and received Hexagram 34 unchanging

Another bad sign for Sanders, from a WWG perspective:
a) In 34, the host line (the one representing Sanders) is Wu (fire) with Parent relative attached. Wu in a month of Si (fire) and day of Wu (fire) is in stage of Association. That is a good sign for Sanders; he would be stronger as a Third Party Candidate than as a Democratic Party Candidate.
b) But in the current 10-days period, Wu is one of the 2 Void branches; meaning it is uneffective. This is a bad sign for Sanders
c) Furthermore, the earthly branch of the day is Wu which clashes with the eartly branch of line 1 Zi (water), making Zi to act as an active line. Water destroys fire, so this is another bad sign for Sanders
d) Hex 34 is a total conflict or total clash hexagram. This is another bad sign for Sanders: nothing happen / nothing is achieved.

All in all, I'd read this answer as either a) Sanders won't run as Third Party Candidate or b) Sanders won't achieve anything by running as a Third Party Candidate.

 

[canislulu]

And I believe the Democratic Party won't achieve anything by crowning Mrs. Clinton. Don't you think it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party to recognize that the people of the U.S. are asking for Sanders?

In 2008 the Super Delegates took their favor away from Clinton and gave it to Obama. If they know what is good for the Democratic Party (and for all of us, for that matter) they will do the same and support Sanders when the time comes for them to make their commitments.

Even my Republican relatives think he is the most authentic candidate.

 

[rosada]

I don't see 21.1 - 35 as meaning being put in prison is Mrs. Clinton's best course of action!
It's essential to stick to the question we asked when interpreting an answer to avoid reading our own personal bias into it. Sometimes we get insights from an answer that are off topic but that usually comes in addition to a straight answer to the question. Of course, it could be the I Ching is warning us that the next four years are going to be so tumultuous for whoever is president that one might be better off locked up in jail rather than being incarcerated in the White House!
I think 21.1 -35 means she must stop running around, stop jumping at every opportunity, focus on essentials. Perhaps a call to focus her campaign on specific states or groups and maybe not to over react by responding to every invitation or accusation.

 

[Sixth Relative]

"What is Mrs. Clinton's best course of action for the greater good at this time?" and received:
H 21.1 > 35

Clinton can see Sander's supporters either as obstacles to be forcible removed (21) or as allies (35). She can try to appeal to them and convice them to support her (35) or just stick to legal and formalistics results (21). Which one is the best course of action? the line advises to cover her feet, avoid forced march, walk prudently. The setback she is facing is an opportunity to review her mistakes (21.1) She should keep in mind that If one meets with no confidence, one should remain calm (35.1)

Therefore, this attitude is a mistake
[video=youtube;Ksgj0rsKOt4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksgj0rsKOt4[/video]

 

[Tohpol]

I'd say 21.1>35 is a perfect answer for a pathological liar like Hillary Clinton. The best course of action at this time would indeed see her "confined in the stocks" to prevent her from causing any more harm (35). But the Yi is nothing if precise in its advice; this is the best course of action, but quite different to what may actually happen.

As F. D. Roosevelt famously said: "Presidents are selected, not elected..." It's all just theatre. Democrat and Republican ideology exists only in the minds of the public. In government, thanks to powerful lobbying and corruption, Democrats and Republicans are effectively one corporation. Trump or Clinton - the Establishment will have their resident puppet to direct their affairs, as always. Yet, folks persist in believing that there is still a democratic process at play, despite the same outcome over and over and over again.

 

[canislulu]

I am hoping that the truths that are coming out through social media will change the game.

 

[peter2610]

Democrats and Republicans are effectively one corporation. Trump or Clinton - the Establishment will have their resident puppet to direct their affairs, as always. Yet, folks persist in believing that there is still a democratic process at play, despite the same outcome over and over and over again.

Yes, but isn't the reason why the senior Republicans are so terrified of Trump due to the fact that he isn't an establishment player? He could prove to be impossible to predict or control.

Having said that I strongly agree with your overall point regarding the demise of democracy. It has always struck me as odd to have a process where, from the outset, candidates are obliged to seek backing from wealthy individuals or organisations. This places them in the pockets of people who have no real interest in creating a society that is open, equitable or truly democratic. At a simplistic, root, level democracy promised a great deal - government for the people, by the people. Sadly, this has gradually transformed into "Government for the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful."

 

[Tohpol]

Yes, but isn't the reason why the senior Republicans are so terrified of Trump due to the fact that he isn't an establishment player? He could prove to be impossible to predict or control.

Hi Peter,

Perhaps that is precisely the role of Trump - to act as the maverick, the "independent" and come out with all kinds of caricatured statements which strike horror into the hearts of most, yet appeal to the groundswell of massive dissatisfaction in America. This way, you capitalise and funnel the intense distrust from the public still tempted by electoral reform into a "straight-talking" guy who promises to act on the public's concerns, never mind that he is as much an Establishment figure as Clinton and effectively part of the same tag team. He simply wouldn't have got where he was without it. Indeed, many GOP members are already stating that they would vote for Hilary rather than see Trump gain power. She probably can't get a majority otherwise and it's always better to do it by the "democratic" book if at all possible.

You have to also ask yourself why Trump has had such enormous air-time on mainstream media outlets all of which are owned by five major corporations. That simply wouldn't happen if Trump was persona non grata for the Establishment. They want him larger than life. Now why would that be? I think Trump is going to go just far enough to give Hilary the support she needs. And if he actually looks like he'll get the cherry on the cake there's always the manipulation of electronic voting systems should it prove necessary, as it did with Bush-Gore election.

So, in the end, the tussle is between Establishment preferences regarding their chosen candidates and has nothing at all to do with the American electorate's wishes. That's the tragic reality.

Edit: btw, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade or be cynical. (I'm actually a great optimist - I just have no faith in the current system as it stands but I do have considerable faith in ordinary people

 

[canislulu]

This is an unbearable tragedy for all involved. Ultimately it is not in the best interest of corrupt forces to succeed in their manipulations. i have a lot of faith in the ordinary people who are standing up and saying "Enough is enough."

 

[Tohpol]

I agree jumpingmouse. Such forces inevitably fall into their own entropic footprint in the end. But they tend to bring a lot of people with them. You know what they say: Countries get the Presidents they deserve...

But it's good to say "no, enough is enough". I think we need those voices and there is certainly a huge groundswell of resistance out there. I guess I just think there are better ways to resist than voting, which to me, just perpetuates the whole game.

To keep this Yi-related I want to include a question I asked about voting as I pondered this conundrum some years before:

As a general rule, is it worth voting anymore or is it a waste of time?

38.4.6>19

38: Opposition / Estranged

Line 4: Sincerity and trust is everything when seeking a wo/man of conscience. Then aspirations become real. Despite the disunion and opposition which exists there will come a time when a genuine alliance will be possible. The cycle will turn and the isolation of the ordinary man and woman will cease. The light of that potential exists.

Line 6: Even though we are so used to seeing such a system as wholly corrupt and hijacked, there will come a time when we can put aside our suspicions and distrust and "...release, the realisation of promise, good fortune."

or more simply:

Line 4: There will be someone worth voting for eventually.

Line 6: There will come a time when the system will work.

Background hexagram 19 Approach. With a gradual approach such a system can be made to work but it cannot be expected to work prematurely. This is gradual development with deference to cyclic change.

It's possible that this reading might have come through as a more personal one at the time but it's interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, back to work...

 

[peter2610]

Thanks Jonathan,

Trump is such an unpredictable wild card that it wouldn't surprise me to find an establishment connection somewhere - but he is presented time and again as a lone figure fighting widespread opposition, even within his own party. Somehow, either by design or by chance, he creates a very sharp impression of a straight-talking, non-establishment figure that raises huge support amongst those fed up with the relentless indifference of the ruling elite. His success so far has been created more by people's frustration with previous governments than by his own proposals. As for a possible term of office, I think the only thing we can say with any certainty is that it would be an extremely interesting period.

 

[thisismybody]

You have to also ask yourself why Trump has had such enormous air-time on mainstream media outlets all of which are owned by five major corporations. That simply wouldn't happen if Trump was persona non grata for the Establishment. They want him larger than life. Now why would that be? I think Trump is going to go just far enough to give Hilary the support she needs. And if he actually looks like he'll get the cherry on the cake there's always the manipulation of electronic voting systems should it prove necessary, as it did with Bush-Gore election.

Should be repeated because this is their Modus Operandi.

 

[canislulu]

I guess I just think there are better ways to resist than voting, which to me, just perpetuates the whole game.

O.K. So if the voting system is going to be rigged anyway, then Topal is correct. What are the better ways to resist than voting?

 

[Tim K]

It has always struck me as odd to have a process where, from the outset, candidates are obliged to seek backing from wealthy individuals or organisations. This places them in the pockets of people who have no real interest in creating a society that is open, equitable or truly democratic.

This exact idea was explored in 'The Distinguished Gentleman' (1992) with Eddie Murphy.
At least there the truth came out.

 

[Trojina]

O.K. So if the voting system is going to be rigged anyway, then Topal is correct. What are the better ways to resist than voting?

Well it's someone opinion that the voting is going to be rigged. It's not an actual fact is it ? I know zilch about American politics BTW but I do get suspicious of conspiracy theories of all kinds.

 

[Tohpol]

O.K. So if the voting system is going to be rigged anyway, then Topal is correct. What are the better ways to resist than voting?

I'd be interested to hear what possibilities you think there could be before I make some suggestions. It may mean changing our perceptions regarding on the nature of change for example.

 

[Tohpol]

Well it's someone opinion that the voting is going to be rigged. It's not an actual fact is it ? I know zilch about American politics BTW but I do get suspicious of conspiracy theories of all kinds.

Suffice to say that no, it isn't just "someone's opinion" and I suspect that there might just be a considerable difference between an informed opinion and an opinion based on "zilch".

While we're at it, the conspiracy soubriquet is often used as a means to limit reasoned discourse about the subject since it is designed to conjure up feelings that even thinking in these terms is irrational. What IS truly irrational is to think that at the level of politics and corporatism it is not conspiratorial by nature. Being paranoid and seeing patterns where none exist is to be avoided, but equally dangerous is ignoring reality through wilful blindness which I suggest is the main operational factor at play today. Most things aren't a Hollywood version of conspiracy in the sense of plotting in smoke-filled rooms. It doesn't need to be - it's all out in the open, if you learn the language. Corruption is systemic and built into the very fabric of our societies the manifestation of which is easily verifiable by even a cursory look over social science and history. Pretty rudimentary.

So, is it fact that this coming election is rigged? Well, again, that's like saying: Is it a fact that the sun will rise again in the morning just because we had evidence that it happened in the past? Given what we (should) know about the quality of presidents over the past decade and their obvious ties to banking, corporations and lobbyists; the mountains of evidence of electronic voting fraud and super delegate bribes as well as the huge influence of media bias, it's extreme folly to think that somehow this will be miraculously different, aside from believing we have any democratic accountability which actually caters to ordinary people. The sun will rise.

On the off chance that anyone's interested (I know Trojina's probably snoozing at this point) the following is a suitable intro. which is very informative, although only one very small relationship to the whole picture:

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections

Programmer admits under oath that computers rig elections

And I highly recommend reading this article on the subject by clinical psychologist Diane Perlman:

The Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud

There is a wealth of evidence but folks have to do some digging.

Ex-President Jimmy Carter had an interesting view to offer when he was asked about the 2010 "Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision" determined by five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These so called democratic laws meant that a limitless supply of secret funding from anywhere - even abroad - could flow into the American political system as well as US legislation and judiciary. This is what he said:

It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell."

And Oxford University historian Richard M. Dolan:

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, ‘interest groups,’ and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behaviour. ‘Conspiracy,’ in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe. -

Be suspicious by all means, but but just make sure it's actually focused on the right target.

 

[Trojina]

Suffice to say that no, it isn't just "someone's opinion" and I suspect that there might just be a considerable difference between an informed opinion and an opinion based on "zilch".

Be that as it may what I was thinking of was that the person who initially posted the question here, and those who first responded, were doing so with the idea that there was actually an election. In you saying there is no election, well it renders the original question null and void so I was just saying that I felt their original question based on the assumption there was an election is still valid to some degree because it is not an absolute and undeniable fact that the elections are all rigged beforehand. Surely if it were they wouldn't have asked.

I'm not arguing with your POV but clearly the person who asked thinks there is an election and so do some others, at least that's what it seems like to me. Unless everyone here has now decided it's all rigged in which case the initial question is for prediction I suppose based on how it's rigged not on who will be voted in. But that's a different kind of question to the one originally asked isn't it.

 

[Trojina]

O.K. So if the voting system is going to be rigged anyway, then Topal is correct. What are the better ways to resist than voting?

Topal
I'd be interested to hear what possibilities you think there could be before I make some suggestions. It may mean changing our perceptions regarding on the nature of change for example.

I'd be interested to hear too. I've been waiting to hear.....

 

[Tohpol]

Be that as it may what I was thinking of was that the person who initially posted the question here, and those who first responded, were doing so with the idea that there was actually an election. In you saying there is no election, well it renders the original question null and void so I was just saying that I felt their original question based on the assumption there was an election is still valid to some degree because it is not an absolute and undeniable fact that the elections are all rigged beforehand. Surely if it were they wouldn't have asked.

I see, thanks for clarification.

I don't think it renders the original question null and void since we all routinely ask questions riven with assumptions. The Yi answers nonetheless. One can ask a question without having all the relevant details to hand, after all. Happens all the time doesn't it? I mean, half the questions posed in shared readings aren't based anything but subjective appraisal for the most part, but the Yi comes through all the same. That's half the fun (and frustration) in trying to decipher what the Yi is attempting to tell us I guess.

I'm not arguing with your POV but clearly the person who asked thinks there is an election and so do some others, at least that's what it seems like to me. Unless everyone here has now decided it's all rigged in which case the initial question is for prediction I suppose based on how it's rigged not on who will be voted in. But that's a different kind of question to the one originally asked isn't it.

Sure. That may well be. And perhaps due to this development the original question can now be seen in a different light? But whether the person who asked the question believes in democratic elections or merely the appearance of an election seems irrelevant to me. The Yi will answer based on what is. i.e. who will be President - regardless of the process of how s/he got there. And I think how we interpret that answer, as with most things, will be based on whatever level of awareness we have on the matter.

 

[Trojina]

But whether the person who asked the question believes in democratic elections or merely the appearance of an election seems irrelevant to me. The Yi will answer based on what is. i.e. who will be President - regardless of the process of how s/he got there. And I think how we interpret that answer, as with most things, will be based on whatever level of awareness we have on the matter.

Oh IMO it makes all the difference in the world what the person who asked the question believes. It's their question and the answer will be to their consciousness. All we do is offer suggestions for their answer. If you want an answer to this question for you you'd need to ask yourself (IMO). And no I don't think the Yi will always just answer who will be president...I mean if it isn't yet known, not set in stone, then how can you be sure you have a prediction anyway And yes how we interpret is going to depend on many personal variables one of which might be opinion, another the information we have, another our ideas about how Yi answers and so on. Many factors.

 

[Tohpol]

Oh IMO it makes all the difference in the world what the person who asked the question believes. It's their question and the answer will be to their consciousness. All we do is offer suggestions for their answer. If you want an answer to this question for you you'd need to ask yourself (IMO). And no I don't think the Yi will always just answer who will be president...I mean if it isn't yet known, not set in stone, then how can you be sure you have a prediction anyway And yes how we interpret is going to depend on many personal variables one of which might be opinion, another the information we have, another our ideas about how Yi answers and so on. Many factors.

Yes! What the person believes IS important, I agree. But what the person is aware of is entirely different thing and how close it is to objective or singular reality - what is - at that moment in time. (Quantum collapse?) But not necessarily until the answer is received. That's what I was saying with my last point. The answer will be filtered through our belief - IF it exists. But if our awareness is sufficiently open to any possibility then the interpretation will be deepened and away from our subjective beliefs; we are open to a probable reality which may or may not have arrived at that moment in time.

Are we saying the same thing? Or are my eyelids getting heavy?

What we do is offer suggestions to their answer yes. Now, how that changes when you are asking a more global question, divorced from personal desires - assuming that's possible - is the question...Can it be done? Is a question on a more macro scale easier than one on a more micro, or individual scale which is often bound up in even more desires, assumptions and conceptualizations?

Regarding a question "Who will be President?" Of course, the Yi will answer based on probable outcomes and on that precise moment in time, it seems to me. So, it is in that sense that I think the belief / awareness is irrelevant until the point an answer is received and our assumptions and beliefs spring into interpretative action. If the connection with the Yi represents a tuning fork relationship to our consciousness and therefore, our level of awareness then surely it will deliver an answer based on the clearest possible evaluation of objective reality at that moment in time and not pander to our beliefs? That's where the irrelevance I was talking about comes in.

Whether or not we can decipher that is another matter. So, I think the Yi's answer is outside of our own personal beliefs. And there lies the challenge: to match the answer by stepping out of beliefs which can colour the reading and see it in its purer form. Depending on the subject of course. There's a limit to how far that can go if you asking whether or not to buy bananas or mangos for breakfast...

I think we are kind of saying the same thing ... But perhaps slightly out of phase...

 

[loverofknowledge]

There are differences of opinion, about this election, and more or less reliable sources of research and information. Some people are close to the US political scene and knowledgeable about the many facets of our democracy. Others are slinging around lies. (I refer to the public political debates, not to this forum). Is there a forum for exchanges that go beyond the iching reading precisely? Though I see that you are discussing issues about the intention behind the original question --and whether it's relevant whether or not the election is biased.

PS-- I asked, what may we know, at this point, about the US Election?
28.6 to 44

 

[Trojina]

Yes! What the person believes IS important, I agree. But what the person is aware of is entirely different thing and how close it is to objective or singular reality - what is - at that moment in time. (Quantum collapse?) But not necessarily until the answer is received. That's what I was saying with my last point. The answer will be filtered through our belief - IF it exists. But if our awareness is sufficiently open to any possibility then the interpretation will be deepened and away from our subjective beliefs; we are open to a probable reality which may or may not have arrived at that moment in time.

Are we saying the same thing? Or are my eyelids getting heavy?

Possibly, but my eyelids are heavy too. I don't disagree with any of that although as I don't think there are any answers that don't contain the questioner to some degree then I'm not sure if someone who is not the questioner is able to bring in wholly different dimensions the questioner has not accepted as a reality. Here the person asking believes/believed voting decided who became president. You more or less said that voting was irrelevant to the outcome. If that person doesn't agree with you, and I don't know if they do or if they don't at this point (maybe they now accept what you say), then you will be answering quite different questions IMO.

What we do is offer suggestions to their answer yes. Now, how that changes when you are asking a more global question, divorced from personal desires - assuming that's possible - is the question...Can it be done? Is a question on a more macro scale easier than one on a more micro, or individual scale which is often bound up in even more desires, assumptions and conceptualizations?

All questions are individual questions IMO. But I'd side track the thread if I said more plus I've said what I think about this so often it would put the forum to sleep if I said it again. I'll go post my musings in my blog one day or something.

I think we are kind of saying the same thing ... But perhaps slightly out of phase...

I don't think we are, but I'd probably need a night's sleep to be sure.

 

[Tohpol]

If that person doesn't agree with you, and I don't know if they do or if they don't at this point (maybe they now accept what you say), then you will be answering quite different questions IMO.

This is where I need clarification. But have nice sleep and come back to me if you feel like it.