Good grief! I can't believe I'm reading this on a skeptical site. The idea of relating how good or bad a presidency is to the astrological sign of the person serving as president is ridiculous.
If you wanted to know how successful a corporation you were thinking of forming might be, would you look at the astrological signs of the people you were planning to put in charge of the corporation? Of course not! That would be stupid. Even schoolchildren should know that.
(And will, once Republicans get rid of the current science curriculum and replace it with something more in line with conservative values.)
I don't know your politics but I bet you lean left, don't you? This is the kind of nonsense liberals fall for. You wouldn't catch Ronald Reagan making a mistake like this. He understood how astrology works.
Look. There are two separate questions to consider: (1) how good or bad were
the people who have been elected president , and (2) how good or bad were
their presidencies?
If we were interested in the personalities of the people elected president, we'd look at those people's astrological signs. But if we're interested in how well or poorly the nation fared during their times in office, we need to look at the astrological sign for their presidency.
For most of these people, we really don't know that much about them personally. Plus, who really cares whether W. is someone you'd want to have a beer with, whether Jimmy Carter is someone you'd want to hang out with on weekends building houses for humanity, or whether Clinton is someone you'd want to have an affair with? So trying to do an astrological comparison based on the birth dates of these people is a foolish waste of time.
But most of us are interested in seeing the US thrive and prosper, economically and culturally. And we do have a fairly good historical record of various economic and social changes which occurred during different presidents' time in office. So instead of comparing astrological signs of
presidents, the sensible thing to do is compare the astrological signs of their
presidencies.
Most presidencies in US history were born on March 4. That's the date when presidents were normally inaugurated, up until the 20th century when (starting in 1937) the date was changed to January 20 (or January 21 if the 20th falls on a Sunday). (Elections are held in early November, but that's more comparable to conception than birth; the presidency isn't actually born until the newly-elected president takes the oath of office and is sworn in.)
So most presidencies, from Washington's through FDR's, were
Pisces, and most presidencies since FDR have been
Aquarians. The exceptions are:
John Tyler -- April 6, Aries
Millard Fillmore -- July 10, Cancer
Andrew Johnson -- April 15, Aries
Chester Arthur -- September 20, Virgo
Theodore Roosevelt -- September 14, Virgo
Calvin Coolidge -- August 2, Leo
Harry Truman -- April 12, Aries
Lyndon Johnson -- November 22, Sagittarius
Gerald Ford -- August 9, Leo
All right! With that established, we're now equipped to make an informed judgment of which astrological sign is linked to the worst presidencies.
And that's easy to see. It's not simply that the worst presidency of my lifetime was an
Aquarian -- virtually all of the bad presidencies during my lifetime have been
Aquarians!
If we want to elevate the presidency to the level achieved by Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, astrology tells us we need to move the inauguation back to early March.
XXXXXXXX. Me, too! Wanna play hide the kielbasa?"
