"My question: If Trump did drop out, would he be replaced on the ballot by J.D. Vance or by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?"
I keep having a feeling about Kennedy, although I have no idea how it can possibly manifest. I just watched a video this morning that has some interesting info related to RFK vs the others. The entire video is interesting, but I skipped over most to get right to the point:
Interesting. I started watching where you started the excerpt, and it was interesting that the speaker indicated that the divine feminine could potentially be embodied by a candidate who isn't a woman (Kennedy). I think it would be good for the United States to have a woman president, whether that is Kamala Harris or someone else — on the grounds that, after the initial novelty passed, we'd eventually come to recognize that she was a person with good and bad just like anyone else. Yes, we all have good and bad, and we all have masculine and feminine too.
Be careful, Eva, I got into SERIOUS trouble online with women in 2016 when I wrote that I earnestly believed Bernie Sanders would be better for women than Hillary Clinton! LOL—I can laugh now, but at the time, as Pluto was going over my Sun, Moon and Jupiter, it was VERY painful for the first time in my life having women call me a misogynist!
But I like your reasoning as it aligns with what I was saying, which was something like, using baseball as an example and Jackie Robinson, a man of not only great talent but excellent character, “Women don’t want the first president female president to be such an unlikeable, bloodthirsty hawk like Hillary Clinton. If someone like her breaks the glass ceiling, they’re gonna construct the next ceiling out of reinforced steel!”
I would also then say how I believed Sanders’ policies would be better for women, which is really ultimately what counts.
Last, as for RFK Jr and astrological support for him being an important player in this election, I just keep returning to how the US is going through a Chiron Return (it’s basically a direct hit the week of the election), and how he, as a recovering addict, is a personification of the Wounded Healer. I’d picked up as early as a year ago that HEALTH was a real area of strength for him so seeing them take MAGA and make it MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) leads me to thinking he is DEFINITELY a player in this election in one way or another.
Ha, yeah, I can see how a man saying something like that would be received differently than a woman saying something like that. Even if I say something like that, though, I sometimes run into generational differences with older women. For many women who lived in an era when women couldn't even have credit cards (pre-1970s), having a woman president would heal certain wounds, no matter who the woman president is or what she does.
I grew up under very different circumstances. I attended an Honors College that was very disproportionately female, and it was taken for granted that we could work in whatever profession we wanted. It was the "Girls Rule, Boys Drool" era, and I can understand how that happened as a reaction against truly unjust discrimination in older generations, but I don't think it was always good for us girls and the women we became. I think the next freedom we women need to claim is the freedom to be fallible.
"The freedom to be fallible," I like that. It seems like a very worthy cause. And from the perspective of men, allowing women to be fallible, NOT expecting that women who rise up in their respective fields, be it politics or whatever, must be of some higher character than men who do the same.
On that end, I could drop that expectation. Having said that, I wonder if I actually have it, or if I'm just observing that history suggests people DO have it for those who break the many glass ceilings of our social realities.
Last, "The freedom to be fallible" sounds like a really great mantra for the upcoming north node transit through Pisces! Bring a bit of what one learned from its transit through Aries (hopefully some courage to be yourself!) and apply it to recognizing we all have our fallibilities and to not be so hard on ourselves (and others) about that. Thanks for prompting that reflection, Eva!
I’ll take the risk of making a non-astrologically-based observation about a possible Trump dropout and who might replace him, putting on my political scientist’s spectacles (as well as my admitedly anarchist political bias) for this one.
And that is, after watching Vance at the VP debate this week and thinking how he could probably defeat Harris reasonably easily, I’d bet the Republicans would want to elevate him just as the Dems did with Harris into Biden’s place. Now, I don’t know how the logistics of all that would work so close to the election (since some secretaries of state were claiming weeks ago they couldn’t take RFK Jr off the ballots since they’d already been printed), but I have to think that if a presidential candidate suddenly was ill or died in the weeks leading up to the election, there has to be some way to replace them.
Regardless, that plot twist would certainly be an appropriate grand finale in a year full of them!
Last, as a person who fancies RFK Jr., I’d LOVE to see him elevated to either VP or president and either way, I WOULD change my mind and vote for Vance/Kennedy, Kennedy/Vance.
I just cannot vote for Trump (or Harris), but this is nothing new for this politically homeless fella, as I’ve only voted for a major party candidate twice for president in seven elections and third-parties/independents or protest votes in the other five.
The main thing that might make me balk is Vance and Kennedy’s ignorant, hawkish, inmoral Israel policy. The unwavering support for that rogue nation might be the death of us all, sadly.
I didn't finish watching the VP debate, but between Vance and Kennedy, Kennedy has more "there" there. Whether one likes Kennedy's platform or not, people have a clear idea of what he stands for. I don't know a whole lot about what Vance stands for, other than that he is more socially conservative than I would want the president to be. Yes, Vance is younger and more energetic than Trump, but Vance is TOO young. Harris, whatever one thinks of her views, is prime president age, and Kennedy is near the upper limit of a good age to be president.
The astrologer on Jean-Claude@BeyondMystic said as much shortly after RFK Jr.'s late August campaign suspension, that she thought Trump would win in 2024 and then RFK Jr. in 2028. That makes sense based on external political realities at the moment. On an energetic level, though, really? I don't see Trump having more to offer than the same old division, and to have Kennedy cooling his heels behind that for four years just seems like a huge waste. Kennedy is different in a way that isn't always comfortable, but at least he is not the same old crap.
Yeah, both the political scientist/reporter and astrologer in me feel Harris is likelier to be president come 2025. You'll note I do NOT say "will win." This is because, despite the grief I have received over this position for the past 24 years, I don't think the US Presidential Election system has enough integrity to use the term "win" for reasonably close races. Thus, 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020 are all races I don't use the word "win" for.
Ironically, holding such a position causes people who wish to FIRMLY BELIEVE in the integrity of the presidential election system to accuse me of "believing in conspiracy theories." It's ironic because I'm NOT believing in ANYTHING; instead, I'm expressing skepticism, but that skepticism threatens THEIR BELIEF. I certainly understand that because entertaining the idea that the country you live in and are compelled to vote in isn't being run fairly and squarely can burst a lot of lofty ideas about that country.
Fortunately, from my perspective, many more Americans HAVE entertained this idea over the past two election cycles---first with the Democrats claiming 2016 was stolen by Trump colluding with Russia (or, at the very least, Russian meddling in the election) and then in 2020 with the Stop the Steal campaign by the Republicans.
Anyway, to bring this back full circle, one of the reasons I have long respected RFK Jr. is he has, IMHO, the positive Capricorn qualities of INTEGRITY, which, IMHO, is the significant ingredient so lacking from the US political scene.
Thus, I could very well see the next four years as a period when more and more people begin to question the integrity of the American sociopolitical reality, especially about media since Pluto is moving into the communicative Air sign of Aquarius. If people simply bypassed media coverage OF RFK Jr and listened to/read him directly, they'd realize that a lot of stuff they've been told about him is a lie.
Last, it also seems like if Trump were to be president in 2025-28, Vance would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2028. In contrast, if Harris wins, Kennedy can keep his public profile up as a critic of the many failings of the modern Democrats, especially concerning HEALTH, and then possibly earn the nomination from the Republicans in 2028 (or start a new party altogether? I'd like that, but I'm just not sure it could be a path to victory so soon).
Well, the elections were close in both 2016 and 2020. My off-the-cuff recollection of 2008 and 2012 is that Obama won by a comfortable margin both times. If any side had a candidate who was popular enough to win by a decent margin, I think there would be fewer concerns about cheating. I'm not saying that cheating never happens, but I think there are limits to what cheating can accomplish.
Good point, though, that if Trump did become president in 2024, there would probably be an expectation for him to let Vance be the nominee in 2028. Yes, Vance would probably be a little older and wiser and less caught up in his childhood by then, but I'm still not enthusiastic about the prospect.
Where would the social conservatives go in a Harris vs. Kennedy race?
Fab as always. Thank you, Eva!
You're welcome!
"My question: If Trump did drop out, would he be replaced on the ballot by J.D. Vance or by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?"
I keep having a feeling about Kennedy, although I have no idea how it can possibly manifest. I just watched a video this morning that has some interesting info related to RFK vs the others. The entire video is interesting, but I skipped over most to get right to the point:
https://youtu.be/GgDds_OaFos?feature=shared&t=2222
Interesting. I started watching where you started the excerpt, and it was interesting that the speaker indicated that the divine feminine could potentially be embodied by a candidate who isn't a woman (Kennedy). I think it would be good for the United States to have a woman president, whether that is Kamala Harris or someone else — on the grounds that, after the initial novelty passed, we'd eventually come to recognize that she was a person with good and bad just like anyone else. Yes, we all have good and bad, and we all have masculine and feminine too.
Be careful, Eva, I got into SERIOUS trouble online with women in 2016 when I wrote that I earnestly believed Bernie Sanders would be better for women than Hillary Clinton! LOL—I can laugh now, but at the time, as Pluto was going over my Sun, Moon and Jupiter, it was VERY painful for the first time in my life having women call me a misogynist!
But I like your reasoning as it aligns with what I was saying, which was something like, using baseball as an example and Jackie Robinson, a man of not only great talent but excellent character, “Women don’t want the first president female president to be such an unlikeable, bloodthirsty hawk like Hillary Clinton. If someone like her breaks the glass ceiling, they’re gonna construct the next ceiling out of reinforced steel!”
I would also then say how I believed Sanders’ policies would be better for women, which is really ultimately what counts.
Last, as for RFK Jr and astrological support for him being an important player in this election, I just keep returning to how the US is going through a Chiron Return (it’s basically a direct hit the week of the election), and how he, as a recovering addict, is a personification of the Wounded Healer. I’d picked up as early as a year ago that HEALTH was a real area of strength for him so seeing them take MAGA and make it MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) leads me to thinking he is DEFINITELY a player in this election in one way or another.
Ha, yeah, I can see how a man saying something like that would be received differently than a woman saying something like that. Even if I say something like that, though, I sometimes run into generational differences with older women. For many women who lived in an era when women couldn't even have credit cards (pre-1970s), having a woman president would heal certain wounds, no matter who the woman president is or what she does.
I grew up under very different circumstances. I attended an Honors College that was very disproportionately female, and it was taken for granted that we could work in whatever profession we wanted. It was the "Girls Rule, Boys Drool" era, and I can understand how that happened as a reaction against truly unjust discrimination in older generations, but I don't think it was always good for us girls and the women we became. I think the next freedom we women need to claim is the freedom to be fallible.
"The freedom to be fallible," I like that. It seems like a very worthy cause. And from the perspective of men, allowing women to be fallible, NOT expecting that women who rise up in their respective fields, be it politics or whatever, must be of some higher character than men who do the same.
On that end, I could drop that expectation. Having said that, I wonder if I actually have it, or if I'm just observing that history suggests people DO have it for those who break the many glass ceilings of our social realities.
Last, "The freedom to be fallible" sounds like a really great mantra for the upcoming north node transit through Pisces! Bring a bit of what one learned from its transit through Aries (hopefully some courage to be yourself!) and apply it to recognizing we all have our fallibilities and to not be so hard on ourselves (and others) about that. Thanks for prompting that reflection, Eva!
You may find this part interesting as well, in relation to the "divine masculine"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&t=749&v=GgDds_OaFos
I’ll take the risk of making a non-astrologically-based observation about a possible Trump dropout and who might replace him, putting on my political scientist’s spectacles (as well as my admitedly anarchist political bias) for this one.
And that is, after watching Vance at the VP debate this week and thinking how he could probably defeat Harris reasonably easily, I’d bet the Republicans would want to elevate him just as the Dems did with Harris into Biden’s place. Now, I don’t know how the logistics of all that would work so close to the election (since some secretaries of state were claiming weeks ago they couldn’t take RFK Jr off the ballots since they’d already been printed), but I have to think that if a presidential candidate suddenly was ill or died in the weeks leading up to the election, there has to be some way to replace them.
Regardless, that plot twist would certainly be an appropriate grand finale in a year full of them!
Last, as a person who fancies RFK Jr., I’d LOVE to see him elevated to either VP or president and either way, I WOULD change my mind and vote for Vance/Kennedy, Kennedy/Vance.
I just cannot vote for Trump (or Harris), but this is nothing new for this politically homeless fella, as I’ve only voted for a major party candidate twice for president in seven elections and third-parties/independents or protest votes in the other five.
The main thing that might make me balk is Vance and Kennedy’s ignorant, hawkish, inmoral Israel policy. The unwavering support for that rogue nation might be the death of us all, sadly.
I didn't finish watching the VP debate, but between Vance and Kennedy, Kennedy has more "there" there. Whether one likes Kennedy's platform or not, people have a clear idea of what he stands for. I don't know a whole lot about what Vance stands for, other than that he is more socially conservative than I would want the president to be. Yes, Vance is younger and more energetic than Trump, but Vance is TOO young. Harris, whatever one thinks of her views, is prime president age, and Kennedy is near the upper limit of a good age to be president.
RFK in 2028 is also a possibility
The astrologer on Jean-Claude@BeyondMystic said as much shortly after RFK Jr.'s late August campaign suspension, that she thought Trump would win in 2024 and then RFK Jr. in 2028. That makes sense based on external political realities at the moment. On an energetic level, though, really? I don't see Trump having more to offer than the same old division, and to have Kennedy cooling his heels behind that for four years just seems like a huge waste. Kennedy is different in a way that isn't always comfortable, but at least he is not the same old crap.
Yeah, both the political scientist/reporter and astrologer in me feel Harris is likelier to be president come 2025. You'll note I do NOT say "will win." This is because, despite the grief I have received over this position for the past 24 years, I don't think the US Presidential Election system has enough integrity to use the term "win" for reasonably close races. Thus, 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020 are all races I don't use the word "win" for.
Ironically, holding such a position causes people who wish to FIRMLY BELIEVE in the integrity of the presidential election system to accuse me of "believing in conspiracy theories." It's ironic because I'm NOT believing in ANYTHING; instead, I'm expressing skepticism, but that skepticism threatens THEIR BELIEF. I certainly understand that because entertaining the idea that the country you live in and are compelled to vote in isn't being run fairly and squarely can burst a lot of lofty ideas about that country.
Fortunately, from my perspective, many more Americans HAVE entertained this idea over the past two election cycles---first with the Democrats claiming 2016 was stolen by Trump colluding with Russia (or, at the very least, Russian meddling in the election) and then in 2020 with the Stop the Steal campaign by the Republicans.
Anyway, to bring this back full circle, one of the reasons I have long respected RFK Jr. is he has, IMHO, the positive Capricorn qualities of INTEGRITY, which, IMHO, is the significant ingredient so lacking from the US political scene.
Thus, I could very well see the next four years as a period when more and more people begin to question the integrity of the American sociopolitical reality, especially about media since Pluto is moving into the communicative Air sign of Aquarius. If people simply bypassed media coverage OF RFK Jr and listened to/read him directly, they'd realize that a lot of stuff they've been told about him is a lie.
Last, it also seems like if Trump were to be president in 2025-28, Vance would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2028. In contrast, if Harris wins, Kennedy can keep his public profile up as a critic of the many failings of the modern Democrats, especially concerning HEALTH, and then possibly earn the nomination from the Republicans in 2028 (or start a new party altogether? I'd like that, but I'm just not sure it could be a path to victory so soon).
Well, the elections were close in both 2016 and 2020. My off-the-cuff recollection of 2008 and 2012 is that Obama won by a comfortable margin both times. If any side had a candidate who was popular enough to win by a decent margin, I think there would be fewer concerns about cheating. I'm not saying that cheating never happens, but I think there are limits to what cheating can accomplish.
Good point, though, that if Trump did become president in 2024, there would probably be an expectation for him to let Vance be the nominee in 2028. Yes, Vance would probably be a little older and wiser and less caught up in his childhood by then, but I'm still not enthusiastic about the prospect.
Where would the social conservatives go in a Harris vs. Kennedy race?