With everything to investigate about HiLiary they focus on this nonsense
That right there is why they will never understand why she lost... she was totally UN-qualified
I thought the astrological community was supposed to have PREDICTED her loss...not explain it away half a year after the fact.
Same applied to Obama. Except he was privileged to be black, with an amorphous background.
That makes as much sense as any other excuse I've seen. And let's face it, Hitlery does suck the life out of a room.
Just a little editing to clear things up.
About the only excuse Hillary hasn’t used for her loss was that Trump used a voodoo curse to win the election. I’m certain CNN could gin up some phony pictures of a Hillary doll stuck with pins
Too much listening to astrologers?
the astrological community is overwhelmingly Democratic,” explains Danny Larkin
Yes, I can believe it.
Worst candidate ever loses because of star positions.
Yeah right.
Trump's victory was only surprising to libs, most of whom did absolutely no vetting of Hillary Clinton.
If they had, they would be outraged that their party would even consider such a criminally unethical, unqualified person as their nominee.
Is that anything like canckle diameter?
Okay, then. If you don't believe what the Bible says about avoiding fortunetellers, believe what the vice president of the Association for Young Astrologers says.
One of the most embarrassing things about believing in Astrology (and there are many), is the fact that the Zodiac constellations, upon which it is all based, no longer line up properly with the date ranges that supposedly define them.
In around 600 BC, astronomers identified twelve easily distinguished star groupings (constellations) to demark 30° increments along the Sun’s path (the ecliptic). The starting point for this system of measurement was called the First Point of Aries, the Vernal Equinox, the point where the path of the Sun crosses the celestial equator, on March 22 of each year. At that point in the Suns traverse, the Sun entered into the constellation of Aries.
Astrologers adopted the twelve signs of the Zodiac for their “science”, along with the original date ranges.
Unfortunately, 2600 plus years later, due to the Earth’s 23.5° tilt and a 25,800 year wobble called “precession”, when the Sun crosses the Vernal Equinox on March 22, it is no longer anywhere close to entering Aries. In fact, it hasn’t even entered Pisces yet.
Astrologers have never gotten around to updating their horoscopes to account for this change in the position of the stars.
So, if you think you are an Aries, odds are you were born when the Sun was under the sign of Pisces. If you thought you were Aquarius, you were most likely born under Capricorn.
Warning: most people who take Astrology seriously HATE it when you bring this up, especially in front of other people.
Last time I brought it up, this normally kindly, scarf-wearing, aged hippie wanna-be gypsy-type female Horoscope-reading friend of mine (who knew my birthday was mid April) tried to dismiss my skepticism by snapping “typical Aries”.
“Typical Aries” in that context is meant to be a put-down along the lines of “grasshopper”. If you are an Aries (the first sign of the Zodiac), you are a young soul, full of life perhaps but impulsive, stubborn, skeptical, etc, - while a Picses, the twelfth sign, can claim to be an old soul, wise and all knowing.
I said: “Or..... am I a typical Picses?”
That shut her up....not