Margot the Marakkech Mystic Predicts Democrats' chances against McCain

[bijou]

PinkTiger  (1000+ posts)       Mon Mar-31-08 11:51 PM
Original message
Margot the Marakkech Mystic Predicts Democratic Candidates' chances against McCain
http://margotmystic.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/tarot-prediction-for-2008-presidential-race-mccain-against-hillary-clinton-or-obama/

snip:

According to my Tarot readings, it looks like the Democrats have a slight lead over the Republicans at present, and that Hillary would have a slightly better chance of defeating McCain in November, than would Obama.

end snip
 

Hope2006  (1000+ posts)       Tue Apr-01-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Weighing in
 Edited on Tue Apr-01-08 11:10 AM by Hope2006
I love this group because it has traditionally been a safe haven from the frequent snarkiness/aggression that is commonplace elsewhere on DU.

I have opted to hide the GD-P forum because I dislike the bashing of candidates and fellow DU members that occurs in that forum. As an aside, I was glad to see that, in an admin effort to stem the negativity in that forum, posters are now limited to a three-post limit during a 24-hour period.

On the one hand, I don't particularly care who gets the Dem nomination as neither candidate is one I would have chosen; on the other hand, however, I have been asking that the upcoming election result in a president that will be for the highest good of the US (and, the world). I don't know who that candidate is, and, I don't know whether the current crop of candidates will, in fact, yield that person. I do hope that we will have a Democratic president if that is for the highest good.

There were five threads started yesterday (beginning late yesterday afternoon) on the subject of "Hillary as predicted nominee". As a result of these threads, I am seeing increased dissension being introduced into this group. I actually thought last night about leaving the group for a while as this is no longer feeling like the safe place it has traditionally been for me.

After sleeping on it, I made a decision today not to leave, but, instead, have opted to voice my concerns. I think that five posts in an eight-hour period on the same subject from the same poster is spamming, regardless of where they are posted. It is interesting to note that this would not have been permitted in GD-P.

I respect astrology. However, because there is a great deal of subjective interpretation involved in performing a reading, it is by no means an exact science. I actually searched for predictions last night, and found a number of predictions favoring Obama. I don't take this as an affront to the accuracy of astrology; instead, I see it as a function of the human element that is always introduced into a reading. And, with a subject as important as this one, I think it is that much more likely that emotions may play a factor in the results of a reading.

I am urging that this group be maintained as a place of comfort, love, and mutual sharing. It seems to me that this might mean avoiding posting political threads during this very contentious primary, or, at least those threads that favor one Dem candidate over the other.

edited to be more specific about the types of political threads I see as inviting dissension. For instance, looking at Bush's chart would not likely result in controversy.

 

It starts off with some infighting and then they turn to the limited accuracy of previous predictions.

kineta  (1000+ posts)      Tue Apr-01-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I'm a big proponent of Vedic Astrology 
 But sadly every Vedic astrologer I read in 2004 predicted a Kerry win.

I don't mean to single out Vedic astrology, which I've always found to be remarkably accurate for predictions - but perhaps political astrology might be a bit trickier than other types of prediction. On the other hand, maybe I was only paying attention to the astrologers who were saying what I wanted to hear. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=245&topic_id=67180&mesg_id=67180

Then there is another thread

itsjustme  (1000+ posts)      Tue Apr-01-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Has the future already happened?
 Is it happening now?

There is a pretty big distinction between the remote viewers that say they can see the here and now and those that see events in the future. Is the future a probability set, or is it determined?

I am not a remote viewer and don't have an informed opinion on this.

Still, I was talking about remote viewers with my husband, and of course he kept claiming that if they actually could do that they would all be at the casinos winning money. My response was that a lot of them DO go to the casinos and many of them are quite wealthy.

But the way I understand it, they don't win every time. They expect to lose a whole lot of the time, but as long as they can beat the odds, they can win money overall. So, yes, remote viewing is successful in figuring out the spin of the wheel, etc., but it just beats the averages enough to make someone overall win money. On the individual bets they lose a lot of the time.

And from what I hear, the further the prediction is into the future, the less likely it is to be correct. Since the remote viewers at the craps table are satisfied to just barely beat the odds, that seems to say quite a bit about the predictions that are months or years away.

So, when I was reading up on that psychic of the year winner, who was quite successful in finding a live person buried under the ground, it turns out that she was correct in only two of five predictions on Senate races in 2006.

Was it because she is not psychic? Is it because the future is a probability set? Did she just make a mistake?

There is a little bit of a danger in putting too much faith in a psychic prediction. Probably the worst effect is to make people a little defeatist, as in "well, if this is already determined, why should I even try to make things better, etc.?"

Then, there is the whole Sylvia Brown thing, where she just seems to lose her gift or something strange happened to her.

And, finally, are we even meant to know the future?

I don't have the answers. I am just posing these questions. I actually think it is fun and interesting to post psychic visions/astrology about candidates. I just wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in it. There are just way too many variables. A numerology prediction might clash with a psychic prediction which might clash with the astrology, etc. I think we can get a lot of insight from exercises like this, but I am not sure that picking a winner will turn out to be correct more than a certain percentage of the time.
 

and another

PinkTiger  (1000+ posts)       Sat Jul-21-07 07:20 PM
Original message
Predictions of the 2009 Inaugural
 Advertisements [?]OK, here goes:

I try to watch a future event as though watching it on TV, in my head. I have to concentrate, and if I do it right, it is very clear. It doesn’t always work, but it does work sometimes, especially with events that will be televised.

So I have been working on the 2009 inauguration.

Try as I might, I am unable to conjure up any vision of GWB leaving the White House in 2009, turning over the reins to a newly elected president. I’ve tried, but the picture won’t come up. That is not to say it won’t happen, but I don’t see him at the inauguration. I don’t see his mother and father, either. It is possible that he is ill, or unable to attend for some reason, but it is also possible that he is not there because he is not president. I feel his absence is a matter of embarrassment; people in his inner circle aren’t talking about it.
I do see Cheney. He is there, at the inauguration, but he is not the president. I see Laura. But not George Bush.
I can see a woman holding a book and giving the oath. (The Chief Justice will not be giving the oath.) The oath will be given with the President Elect’s hand on an archival copy of a book that has never been used before. The commentators are talking about it, because it is significant and it illustrates what President Clinton will do during her term.
The ceremony is followed by a 45 minute address by the new president. A choir sings – it is a black religious choir from the D.C. area. And a reading is given by a female poet, but it isn’t Maya Angelou.

I see President Clinton, again walking partway in the inaugural parade (as they did in 1993) to the White House. She is wearing a hat. I see a lot of blue, white and gold colors around this inauguration. Bill is there, behind her. Chelsea is there, but I don’t see her walking in the parade. I feel that I may be seeing a flashback. But it is different than 1993. The hat is smaller, more offset, and showing a lot of blonde hair.

I have tried to see the vice president coming into office in 2007. I see a black man, surrounded by his family. I think it is Obama.

That is all I’m getting, that and a feeling of relief and a fantastic feeling of celebration. Everybody is so happy, so glad. The mood in Washington and in the U.S. and in the world is one of “Thank God.”


 

Better burn some sage to damp down the turmoil.

[Chris_]

2. Has the future already happened?

Is it happening now?

Whoa man, that's like, deep.  

[bijou]

2. Has the future already happened?

Is it happening now?

Whoa man, that's like, deep.  

Don't bogart the joint man.

[Chris_]

[Chris_]

I am not a remote viewer and don't have an informed opinion on this.

Just drink organic pineapple juice and you'll be remote viewing in no time.

[bijou]

I am not a remote viewer and don't have an informed opinion on this.

Just drink organic pineapple juice and you'll be remote viewing in no time.

I'd forgotten that. Hi 5 for bringing that to mind. 

[BlueStateSaint]

I am not a remote viewer and don't have an informed opinion on this.

Just drink organic pineapple juice and you'll be remote viewing in no time.

I though it was that one had to eat organic baked beans . . .  

And, High five for the point, as well . . .

[DixieBelle]

Whoa dudes. That's some heavy stuff. And they say they are against big pharma. Pffffpt!!!