...life can be translucent

Menu

Who will be President of the United States?

solivini

Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
This is a fascinating thread, especially since in November we will be able to come back and revisit it. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.
 

Sixth Relative

Senior member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
340
Reaction score
1
Trojina's comments are Quite interesting. I'm gonna repeat myself: when it comes to the use of Yijing in electoral issues, my experience is that 'getting more votes', 'winning the election' and 'taking office' are 3 different animals. It is the best practice to Keep that difference in mind when tossing the coins.
 
M

mirian

Guest
Just to add: I did a reading that accurately predicted the new mayor of London. I did the casting in the final week (a couple of days before the Elections). I only considered the two main candidates (Labour and Conservatives), and posed two simple questions: What's the result for Sadiq Khan/Labour? What's the result for Zac Goldsmith/Conservatives?
My findings were posted on Exploring Divination :bows:
 
Last edited:

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
Trojina's comments are Quite interesting. I'm gonna repeat myself: when it comes to the use of Yijing in electoral issues, my experience is that 'getting more votes', 'winning the election' and 'taking office' are 3 different animals. It is the best practice to Keep that difference in mind when tossing the coins.
But that's not completely what she was saying was it? Unless I'm mistaken. That's assuming that such a muddying of the waters took place. Perhaps it did. Perhaps it didn't. I'm still not seeing how that determines a confusion of answers within a thread if the original question was clearly stated in each case. The only confusion it seems to me, is on the part of the querent rather than any answer the Yi provides. Again, down to belief aligned to interpretation. The only "different answers" are down to interpretation. The above differences you mention are clearly stated as to who will win or how will it go? Etc.

But the genuinely interesting point which I thought was being made was this: does there need to be a consensus within a forum thread for there to be an accurate portrayal of reality? e.g. "who will win the Presidency?" Provided people think very carefully about precisely what question they are asking - I don't think so, since the answers given are individual, yet tied to what IS in terms of probability. Once and IF we are aware of that fact and we are interpreting beyond our bias and desire, then an accurate picture can be found. That maybe easier on one's own for sure, but it does not preclude accuracy in a group. Adaptation to one's awareness maybe, but the Yi delivers an answer that will be as close as it can be to objective reality at that precise moment in time.

Just thinking this through....However, the issue is one of rigging and democracy. If a person does not believe that the elections are structured in such a way as to make them rigged then there will be (as fas as I'm concerned) belief blinders inherent in the question an therefore the answers will be perceived in such a way as to conform to that bias. But this is the reason I introduced the subject to offer the counterpoint and therefore the potential - as I see it - to release that bias. In doing so, the answers within the thread for me, appear to remain valid just seen through a different, perhaps more objective lens. Maybe that is after all, what the shared experience can be all about, at least, at its best.

(Don't mind me, I'm somewhat thinking aloud...:D)
 
Last edited:

Sixth Relative

Senior member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
340
Reaction score
1
But that's not completely what she was saying was it?
Of course not. It is what I am saying :D

And what I'm saying contradicts what Trojina said and agrees with you:
She said "In you saying there is no election, well it renders the original question null and void" and she made the assumption that if one responded to the original question it is because one believes there is a [fair] election not a rigged one.

But since "taking offfice" is a different animal than getting more votes or winning the election (or if there is a fair election or a rigged one), then whether you believe the election is fair or rigged -and whether the election is actually fair or actually rigged- the questions "who will be President (take office)?" and "will X be our next President (take office)?" are perfectly valid. Because that original question is about who is gonna take office, regardless on the fairness of the way he or she came to be President. The last two Presidents had a lot of problems in term of fairness in their electoral processes, and nevertheless a ceremony to take office was held.

BTW. I do believe the American electoral system is highly rigged, as Sanders campaign is proving, and yet I responded to one question about Sanders quite similar to the original question ("Will Sanders become president? and cast 8.4.5.6 < 35")
 

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
Well, I'm glad someone understands my thought processes, regardless of whether they are correct. :D
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,618
Reaction score
32
This is where I need clarification. But have nice sleep and come back to me if you feel like it.
There's a number of underlying assumptions we don't share about questions that are impersonal, ie about politics, philosophy, sport etc. I've shared my thoughts on these often before here so as I said when I get around to it I might write a blog post in CC if only to clarify things to myself more. Very briefly put I don't actually believe in the impersonal question nor the 'objective' answer although I do take your point that if there is one reality in a situation one could think Yi would address that. If the original poster began with the idea that his vote mattered then for me that does colour how the answer might be taken to some extent.

Sixth Relative nicely illustrates the point I was trying to express

And what I'm saying contradicts what Trojina said and agrees with you:
She said "In you saying there is no election, well it renders the original question null and void" and she made the assumption that if one responded to the original question it is because one believes there is a [fair] election not a rigged one.
I didn't read any of your posts about the election I was mainly referring to the original poster and a few others who were chatting about who would be likely to win. My sense was, (and no it was not an 'assumption' but a observation) that early in the thread people were speaking as if this was an election worth voting in. If it's not an election worth voting in and the original poster accepts that I'd imagine other questions are needed. In fact I think there have been other questions. I haven't read the thread all through in detail but I don't think the original poster has returned.

Ah and here is how you illustrate the point I was finding so hard to express to Topal. Not an exact illustration of course but sort of along the lines of .

People who post readings here mostly have cast the I Ching with the intention of understanding via the text, the trigrams, the patterns....all of that and more. If someone casts a reading with the intention of using this way of understanding their answer then how can a weng wang gua approach be applied ? I notice you ask those who aren't using weng wang gua, who are just posting their reading, what time they asked their question. This makes no sense to me because in the way they are using the I Ching the time of casting has absolutely no relevance. For me for example weng wang gua is along such mechanical lines it retains no element of speaking with an oracle at all. It is comprised of calculations but no connection to the oracle IMO. Fair enough if you like to use it and others like to get the weng wang gua perspective but does it make sense to offer weng wang gua perspective to someone who never cast intending to use that method ? I don't think so. If when they cast they intended to use weng wang gua to interpret then sure a weng wang interpretation would be fitting but if they didn't it has no relevance to their situation IMO. If I cast intending to use my method of interpretation, posted my reading and you asked me what time I cast it that would have no relevance because when I consulted I did not consult with any inclusion of weng wang gua beliefs/methods etc. I am talking to an oracle not a machine so what time I cast has no relevance in my frame of reference. Do you see what I mean ? If however someone cast their answer with the idea they were going to use weng wang gua to interpret then weng wang gua would be the right method to interpret for them and the text based way would not.

Another way to see it is this : When doing a Tarot spread a person decides beforehand what kind of spread/layout they will do. The cards will then fall to that layout. If they do a simple 3 card past/present/future then with that in mind they know they can take the cards that come as past/present/future. If however they decide to do a 3 card spread, they are thinking of doing that, but someone takes the cards off them and does a Celtic cross with 10 cards or more, well then the answer they get isn't their answer anymore.

Topal mentioned there being one reality Yi would give as answer to a political question/question outside us. I don't agree exactly but I see his point. But here you give two totally different answers from the same oracle


http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?22623-Will-I-be-able-to-raise-funds-for-the-degree-program-by-end-of-2017-Hex-1-7


Reminds me very much of 40.3. Someone trying to straddle two conditions at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
There's a number of underlying assumptions we don't share about questions that are impersonal, ie about politics, philosophy, sport etc. I've shared my thoughts on these often before here so as I said when I get around to it I might write a blog post in CC if only to clarify things to myself more. Very briefly put I don't actually believe in the impersonal question nor the 'objective' answer although I do take your point that if there is one reality in a situation one could think Yi would address that. If the original poster began with the idea that his vote mattered then for me that does colour how the answer might be taken to some extent.
Well, this is why I mentioned that the "disagreement" was more nuanced...

Sure, there is no such thing as an entirely impersonal question since it comes from us...full of very personal beliefs and their assumptions. But we can strive to be truly open to all possibilities. This is where the Yi replies to us based not on what we WANT to hear but what we NEED to hear. I think the Yi/Universe is uncompromising and will not pander to illusions. We must adapt not the other way around. That's surely the whole point to the Yi: it can only deliver the most objective approximation to truth from an infinite set of variables, plucking that zero-point probability from this fluid ocean and translating it through the codes of the hexagram, and maybe, to our most appropriate level of awareness.

So, yes, I agree there is always "colouring" that goes on. But that is from OUR perspective and I think has nothing to do with what the Yi actually delivers, despite the possibility for the Yi's adaptation skills! If the Yi has an uplink to our Higher Self (or is the HS) then it knows us inside out. It will deliver the truth regardless since it is the truth that stimulates growth.

IF the original poster began with the belief that the election was democratic then he would have a choice within the context of shared readings and a pooling of knowledge: a) to incorporate the new view and therefore view the previous and subsequent readings in a new light leading to an expansion in awareness b) cling to that belief and remain closed to alternative views. And yes that fixed belief will indeed colour his readings because it has a restricted flow. And that is where "shared readings" can be very useful - or any network of shared views around a principle which operates on civility and openness - because when awareness is strengthened it strengthens the whole - IF the feedback system is operating properly....But that's the challenge isn't it? Learning to discernment, discrimination and building knowledge - self-knowledge so that we don't dupe ourselves?

As far as the thread in question is concerned it's quite rich, civil and as far as I can tell, quite a lot of agreement overall. And the poster has also been back several times to comment and thank.

As to the Weng Wang Gua, well, that's another question and I'll leave that to you.

I do hope you'll write your blog post as I'm perfectly open to have my view changed.
 

loverofknowledge

Senior member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
For what it's worth, I think the question implies a fair process of election, and this discussion of a rigged process goes beyond what's pertinent to the reading. (Anyway, let's distinguish cheating, which does happen, from a process that is fundamentally corrupt. ) There are lots of other places for political discussions , so I don't really see the discussion about US democracy to be pertinent here.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,618
Reaction score
32
As far as the thread in question is concerned it's quite rich, civil and as far as I can tell, quite a lot of agreement overall.
:confused: eh ? Not sure where you are coming from since nowhere have I implied the thread is not civil nor have I even intended to say that. My original comment wasn't even aimed at you.

As to the Weng Wang Gua, well, that's another question and I'll leave that to you.
Topal did you even read my post ? The weng wang gua paragraph was meant as a way of making a parallel between the intent of the questioner in what we are talking about here and intent of which 'method' to be used when casting. I don't think you have understood me.

I do hope you'll write your blog post as I'm perfectly open to have my view changed
.

I didn't initially post my one small sentence to challenge you or to change your view but to say the idea that the election is totally rigged is not an indisputable fact. My comment wasn't even aimed at you but the original poster.

Anyway do go on, I have no objection to your discussion at all
 
Last edited:

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
:confused: eh ? Not sure where you are coming from since nowhere have I implied the thread is not civil nor have I even intended to say that. My original comment wasn't even aimed at you.
(Phew, this is a marathon).

Yes, I know. The only reason I mentioned the above was to show that there didn't appear to be disagreement in the thread which linked to the idea of there either being a consensus or not, and thus have a bearing on the "colouring" you mentioned. It wasn't meant to be anything other than a simple corollary.

Topal did you even read my post ? The weng wang gua paragraph was meant as a way of making a parallel between the intent of the questioner in what we are talking about here and intent of which 'method' to be used when casting. I don't think you have understood me.
I did read all the post and I actually thought this latter paragraph was far more for sixth relative than me, since you are talking to him directly. Like you, I have absolutely no interest in Weng Wang Gua at all so I tuned out somewhat. Yes, I know you wanted to use it as a way to explain further, but I don't think that worked - it just muddied the waters - too much juggling from trying to address both Sixth and my ideas. Moreover, as far as I know, sixth relative is the only one that really uses it exclusively so I don't think it really has too much of a bearing on the "President" thread itself and your initial comments regarding impersonal, objectivity etc. I was never referring to WWG just basic traditional readings - method and intent.

Again, I do get that you were using it as a way to further explain your position but having read through it a second time, I don't see anything that would want me to change my initial comments. But I'd much rather read your future blog post and without any reference to WWG.

I didn't initially post my one small sentence to challenge you or to change your view but to say the idea that the election is totally rigged is not an indisputable fact. My comment wasn't even aimed at you but the original poster.
Oh I know m'dear. But your implication was that you were suspicious about "conspiracy theories" and since I was the one highlighting such a "conspiracy" then it related directly to me also. And yes, I do understand you were just expressing your opinion and not throwing down a gauntlet! (Would you ever do such a thing? Ahem... :D) But you are right, the election is not "totally" rigged - it doesn't need to be. Your key word here is "indisputable". On that score the fact of rigging was, is and will be forever disputed since that is the nature of corruption and conspiracy. In that sense, you are certainly correct. :mischief:
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,618
Reaction score
32
(Phew, this is a marathon).
Yes....and so night falls once more on another busy day of posting explanations to one another :rofl: and between all this there's ordinary life to contend with, no wonder I'm tired.




But your implication was that you were suspicious about "conspiracy theories" and since I was the one highlighting such a "conspiracy" then it related directly to me also
Well when I wrote it I was thinking quite generally of conspiracy theories around which I have developed somewhat of an allergy admittedly.


Nighty Night
 

mholden1969

Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
It's been awhile since I've checked this post and I'm astounded with the number of replies I've received on it.
There are problems in every government and the US is not exempt from corruption.
However, as Trojina pointed out, that was not what provoked me to ask these questions to the iChing- I was simply curious as to who would be the next President.

I cast a very small number of readings mainly because I wanted to see how these singular readings played out over the course of the election, and so far I think the original readings have addressed this perfectly:
61.2.6: Cruz has connection that he shares with another, but his campaign is doomed to fail.
41.1.3-18: Bernie slowly loses influence over the Democratic Party and the election. There are three left after Cruz, and there cannot be 3 candidates, so one of them is "decreased".

Even if the voting system is in fact “rigged” as some of you were saying (which none of us can say for certainty, and there are all different degrees and perceptions of what ‘rigged elections’ constitute), I feel that these readings still have validity because ultimately the way the election has an effect on me would be the person that ends up becoming the President.

When we ask too many questions, things can get really muddy. The iChing, as some of you were saying, does favor the "Greater Truth" over our egos (which it actually insults rather often), but that doesn't mean that it won't ever address your ego either. Because of this, responses can really, really vary. Like I said, I think it gives anchored responses, but I think alot of it may be based on what certain factors and influences are appearing to be at that moment of time. These can actually change.
 

mholden1969

Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
jumpingmouse,

I also wanted to address your reading on Sanders. I have received 32.2-62 before and when you get it, you'd like it (or assume it) to say that this is true. However, I personally have not experienced it in that way (just check out my thread on 32.2-62 and see what ashteroid said about it).
There is no judgement on that line, and I think it may mean that "no matter what happens, there won't be regrets" (at least for the querent).
 

loverofknowledge

Senior member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
543
Reaction score
0
Elizabeth Warren, HC' s VP nominee?

Yes, I agree with mholden.

I asked about Hillary Clinton's vice presidential nominee, whether it will be Elizabeth Warren:

11.1. 4 to 32

11.1: This suggests that if she does get EW, there will be a whole constituency that comes along with her
the first (bottommost) line, undivided, suggests the idea of grass pulled up, and bringing with it other stalks with whose roots it is connected. Advance on the part of its subject will be fortunate.

11.4 This suggests that HC and EW will form a beneficial partnership -- but it does not say, for sure, that she'll be chosen for VP nominee
The fourth line, divided, shows its subject fluttering down - not relying on his own rich resources, but calling in his neighbours. They all come not as having received warning, but in the sincerity of their hearts.

32: a long continuing partnership (but not necessarily in the role of VP nominee
 

canislulu

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
I asked, "Will Hillary Clinton be indicted?" and I cast 11.1.3 > 7. Interesting to receive the same hexagram as the question about Warren.

One thing that Hillary and Warren have in common is that they both are former Republicans.

11.1 may mean pulling some constituency with her. I think it also means "birds of a feather stick together" in that perhaps both share similar primary motivations.

I know from my social media connections that there are many Sanders supporters who will not vote for Mrs. Clinton even if she chooses Elizabeth Warren as a VP. There are a lot of voters who are unhappy with Elizabeth Warren's recent actions.
 
Last edited:

canislulu

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
On May 19th Topal posted:

Originally Posted by jumpingmouse
"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.
I think I took a bit of a break from the computer after the primary election in my state in May and hence lost track of this question. I like the idea of "changing our perceptions regarding ...the nature of change".

I somewhat think that "answers" lie more in spiritual development of groups and individuals than in politics. And I am still meditating on what may be better ways of resisting than "voting."

Perhaps I was given a good answer to that in the form of an essay given to me by a friend years ago. The title of the essay was "Politics Over Substance: a Fatal Decision." Based on that essay I became less involved in the political health care reform movement and more involved in studying better ways of healing than our current system pushes. A part of me is frustrated that I have been pulled back into being "political" by the current U.S. election year and its seeming potential for a once in a lifetime opportunity for much needed change in the country and the world.
 

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
Ah, yes JM, I do know what you mean. I was passionate about politics and reform right from when I was a idealistic student and this continued into one aspect of my career. After repeated experiences where it was clear that generally, the notion of democracy was simply a veneer to enact the opposite, I was forced to come to the sobering conclusion that our present system of Western politics - indeed the global economics upon which it's based - is simply beyond reform for a number of complex yet profound reasons.

Folks often misconstrue that realisation as cynicism and pessimistic which it isn't - at least, not in my case. Yet, there is a danger that people become so disaffected with the political system that apathy and hopelessness and a loss of meaning replaces positive action. This is very much what we have now. Yet, I have absolute faith in ordinary people outside those who seek power for power's sake, and believe there is a very deep and natural need to cooperate and include - it's just been suppressed, oppressed and diverted into dead-ends, especially in modern times.

Maybe there is room for a pragmatic spirituality which includes a common sense politics though it will have to be radically different to what we have now. We may collectively be on the cusp of such a possibility but it's going to take a seismic shift in perceptions to allow the very sociopolitical structures we live under to change. My guess is that it won't come without considerable chaos to the point that such a shift will not be a voluntary one anymore but a product of necessity. Let's hope that such a shift can eventually occur and without too much suffering.

Btw, Looks like Boris Johnson has thrown in the towel (or was pressured to do so) so the readings appear to be spot on.
 
Last edited:

mholden1969

Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Wow, I just did a new reading:

Will Hilary win this election: 41 unchanging
Will Trump win this election: 15.5.6-53

Previous readings:
Will Trump: 41.1-4
Will Hilary: 10.1.4.5-4
 

iams girl

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
0
Whoever does a better job of adjusting their image...

41uc Hilary's challenge is to reign in promoting "a decrease in the prosperity of the people in favor of the government" and control her "anger" (W/B).

15.5.6>53 Trump's challenge is to reign in "boasting of wealth" and become "sincere in his modesty" (W/B).

I'd say Trump, because I think Hilary's image is more solidified.
 

canislulu

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
One challenge for me about this thread is that there are other candidates for the presidential election that are not being asked about. And so I am asking.

A day or so ago I asked if Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, would win the election. The answer I received was 28.1 > 43. I asked again moments ago and received 4.3 > 18.

I asked if Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate would win the election and received H 18.2 > 52 a few days ago. I asked again just now and received H 11 Unchanging.

None of those look like a clear "yes" to me. I worry the answers could be saying that the corruption in the current system will not allow for a third or fourth party candidate.

iams girl's take on the Hillary/Trump readings makes sense to me except that for many people it does not matter how either one adjusts their image. Many people have already fixed views of these candidates.
 

iams girl

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
0
iams girl's take on the Hillary/Trump readings makes sense to me except that for many people it does not matter how either one adjusts their image. Many people have already fixed views of these candidates.
True, which may also mean the candidates have just a narrow window of opportunity after the conventions at the end of the month to influence the undecided voters and those who don't pay attention to candidates until after the conventions.

Re the Libertarian and Green parties, rather than corruption, don't you think they are viewed by voters as either overly far right or left? For better or worse, it seems like majority tend to go for more centrist candidates.

p.s. glaring spelling error noted in my prior post - should be "rein in," not "reign in"; sheesh!
 

steve

Senior member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
1,688
Reaction score
0
Why doest Burnie Sanders run as independent or take Jill Stein up on her offer, i dont get it

He could probably win it.

LOL All he would have to do is say if you hate Clinton and Trump come vote for me, there would be enough people in that catergory I am not joking



Steve
 

canislulu

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
I think that Sanders may hopes the DNC will wake up in Philadelphia. Super Delegates who were for Hillary have been changing their minds and "the people" are still pressuring their Super Delegates to support Bernie. There are many Bernie supporters who are preparing for a shift to the Green Party in case that becomes possible. There are also Bernie supporters who are thinking of switching to supporting Trump's campaign. I know that seems bizarre, but I know one such person and there may be others. And I know many who think Clinton would be worse for the world than Trump.

Re:
Re the Libertarian and Green parties, rather than corruption, don't you think they are viewed by voters as either overly far right or left? For better or worse, it seems like majority tend to go for more centrist candidates.
I think the Millenials and the Occupy Wallstreet people are changing everything this year. I do not think the "majority" is centrist anymore. There are a lot of active young people who are giving me hope.
 
Last edited:

steve

Senior member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
1,688
Reaction score
0
Thats what I meant if Sanders moved say to the greens then that would maybe enough, I think they will go with Clinton the democrats that is.
 

canislulu

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
1
I agree. In a way I don't understand why he hasn't moved to the greens yet.
 

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
I wondered how long this was going to take. So, maleficent has got her way.

After Sanders waxes lyrical that "voting is rigged" and "Clinton is corrupt" - what does he suddenly do? Come out and officially endorse Clinton and wring his hands that it's not the right time for a more "socialist" purview. You couldn't make it up. I wonder what they did, threaten his grandson? Unless of course, he was a ghost runner all along. Then you'll see Bernie encouraging the faithful to come together to support neo-imperialism, corporatism and GMOs in order to prevent an incursion from the evil Trump Republicans...

Cognitive dissonance for most "progressives" right now....

Reason for Sanders caving in?

24.6>27

In over his head based on ego-desire. Now he's had a reality check.
 

diamanda

Senior member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
1
Reason for Sanders caving in?
24.6>27
A confused/missed return, a bad omen, calamity and error.
Using an army would end in major defeat, and 'country ruler terrible'.
Recovery won't be possible for 'ten years'.

He was either forced to believe he had to, so as to avert something horrible happening.
Or, he suddenly started believing that he has to retreat in order to avert something horrible happening.
Not sure if he got scared (option a) or if he suddenly got dementia (option b).

I just had a look at all previous casts about him:

Will Bernie be our next President: 41.1.3-18
41.1 → 4 for both of them (Trump and Bernie)
Will Sanders become president? and cast 8.4.5.6 < 35
What do I need to know about Bernie and this Presidential Election: 33 unchanging
"Will Bernie Sanders get the Democratic nomination?" and cast 15.3.6 > 23
"Will Bernie Sanders become the next president of the United States?" and cast 32.2 > 62
All of them seem to agree that no, he won't.
Resulting 18 and 23 are very interesting in the light of his new shock move.
And line 8.6 (he finds no head for holding together) makes me wonder about his sanity.
 

Tohpol

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,562
Reaction score
0
I suppose you could say he's as sane as the system in which he placed his faith. Perhaps he just found out what that really means. He certainly looked deeply uncomfortable when he gave his endorsement with H.C. looking on like some salivating vampire.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top