Nate Silver shows how Bush will haunt the GOP for decades to come

[War on Want]

Right so unless you're saying the Dems are going to win in 2010, you're stupid. The only "doomsday" predictions are to be directed at the GOP. That's all.

Then there's the gem that the doomsday predictions are "out of the mainstream." Oh...like...the predictions in late 2004 that the Dems would win back Congress in 2006. Out of the mainstream predictions never come true!

Are you drunk?
Because I'll be damned if I can make a lick of sense out of that post.

What doesn't make sense there? Emo boy is arguing that John Ford's analysis is wrong because it will "probably" be proven wrong. He's saying that "doomsday predictions" (for the Dems) are silly but the doomsday predictions for the GOP (by Dems in late 2004) were just fine even though they were laughed off at that time.

I am saying it is wrong because I have never seen the factual basis on how the economy will stay this bad. I have never seen an analysis that goes deep into how Obama's economic plan is terrible and I have never seen a good rationale for how there will be no job creation until 2012. Until I see one I will think that the economy will recover by the middle of next year.

The doomsday predictions in late 2004 were different though. Bush was already showing how incompetent he was, we were in an unpopular war that was mishandled severly and the economy was shaky. At the same time we had a huge deficit. None of these things looked like they were going to be handled by Bush. With Obama we have a deep recession that is not looking to be solved very well but at the same time our country's optimism is reaching new highs and things are slowly looking up. It might not be the most competent leadership but it certainly looks better than Bush's performance.

Also I never claimed the Democrats were going to pick up a net gain in seats in 2010. I think they could easily hold steady or lose a few seats but it more likely won't be a rout if the economy is looking up and on top of that the GOP continues on its current course.

[War on Want]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95779.msg1991812#msg1991812

That's all I really have to say.

The problem with your argument is that in a fucntioning democracy, all political parties lose power eventually.  No matter what, you've set yourself up to have this stuff thrown back in your face when you eventually lose an election.

Republicans are learning that being in the minority is a lot more palatable if you didn't spend your whole time in the majority acting like a dickhead.  In 2012 when Iran has the bomb and we're in our third year of double digit unemployment and the country is about to elect that blithering idiot Mike Huckabee, you'll wish you had heeded my advice to be a little more humble.

I know a lot of Republicans who wish they had been more humble in 2004.  It's been my experience that you'll never regret being humble, but you'll often regret being arrogant.

This is pretty ironic because I have never seen you once say that the Democrats are going to hold steady on their wins in 2008 and you always have these DOOMSDAY!!1 predictions that are probably never going to come true and are out of the mainstream.

Right so unless you're saying the Dems are going to win in 2010, you're stupid. The only "doomsday" predictions are to be directed at the GOP. That's all.

Then there's the gem that the doomsday predictions are "out of the mainstream." Oh...like...the predictions in late 2004 that the Dems would win back Congress in 2006. Out of the mainstream predictions never come true!

Most of these predictions are pretty unfounded so far. We'll see who is right though.

If you think the prediction that Iran will get the bomb and that unemployment will keep rising are unfounded then you are not in touch with reality.  You are simply believing what is convenient for your ideology and not what the evidence suggests.

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

[The Duke]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

[War on Want]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

Links, evidence etc. These aren't exactly well known facts. I want to see these before I explain how all of your reasoning is wrong.

[The Duke]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

Links, evidence etc. These aren't exactly well known facts. I want to see these before I explain how all of your reasoning is wrong.

These facts are actually well known to those of us who read the newspaper.

[War on Want]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

Links, evidence etc. These aren't exactly well known facts. I want to see these before I explain how all of your reasoning is wrong.

These facts are actually well known to those of us who read the newspaper.

...
What about the Director of the National Intelligence Agency testifying that Iran does not have enriched unranium for bomb making or the capability to produce any and that Iran's missle program is not related to their nuclear program? Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

Also in December, 2007 our National Intelligence Estimate judged with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 with moderate confidence that the program is still frozen.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The hubris coming from the Democrats is about as bad as the Republicans this time four years ago.

Oh, but don't you realize, Duke? Their bragging is justified. Just ask them and they'll tell you that!

Oh, definitely. Nate Silver and other journalists have all written about the death of the Republican Party, so it must be true! The GOP only had 55 seats in 2004, not 59 like the Democrats have right now!

Right so unless you're saying the Dems are going to win in 2010, you're stupid. The only "doomsday" predictions are to be directed at the GOP. That's all.

Then there's the gem that the doomsday predictions are "out of the mainstream." Oh...like...the predictions in late 2004 that the Dems would win back Congress in 2006. Out of the mainstream predictions never come true!

Are you drunk?
Because I'll be damned if I can make a lick of sense out of that post.

What doesn't make sense there? Emo boy is arguing that John Ford's analysis is wrong because it will "probably" be proven wrong. He's saying that "doomsday predictions" (for the Dems) are silly but the doomsday predictions for the GOP (by Dems in late 2004) were just fine even though they were laughed off at that time.

I am saying it is wrong because I have never seen the factual basis on how the economy will stay this bad. I have never seen an analysis that goes deep into how Obama's economic plan is terrible and I have never seen a good rationale for how there will be no job creation until 2012. Until I see one I will think that the economy will recover by the middle of next year.

The doomsday predictions in late 2004 were different though. Bush was already showing how incompetent he was, we were in an unpopular war that was mishandled severly and the economy was shaky. At the same time we had a huge deficit. None of these things looked like they were going to be handled by Bush. With Obama we have a deep recession that is not looking to be solved very well but at the same time our country's optimism is reaching new highs and things are slowly looking up. It might not be the most competent leadership but it certainly looks better than Bush's performance.

Also I never claimed the Democrats were going to pick up a net gain in seats in 2010. I think they could easily hold steady or lose a few seats but it more likely won't be a rout if the economy is looking up and on top of that the GOP continues on its current course.

Again, we might see a short-term "recovery," meaning the GDP will stop shrinking, but I highly doubt we will see any solid economic growth. Right now we are having the talking heads claim that we are beginning to turn the corner, yet the GDP dropped 6.1% last quarter and we lost 550,000+ jobs in April. On top of that, the stimulus will more than likely cause massive inflation, which will send the economy back into a tailspin and worsen the unemployment rate. These are not unfounded predictions. They are in the news. There are facts to back them up.

[The Duke]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

Links, evidence etc. These aren't exactly well known facts. I want to see these before I explain how all of your reasoning is wrong.

These facts are actually well known to those of us who read the newspaper.

...
What about the Director of the National Intelligence Agency testifying that Iran does not have enriched unranium for bomb making or the capability to produce any and that Iran's missle program is not related to their nuclear program? Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

Also in December, 2007 our National Intelligence Estimate judged with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 with moderate confidence that the program is still frozen.

Bush is my neo-con hero?  You really are clueless, aren't you?

And page 7 of the NIE you cite to admits that Iran continues to develop its uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and coninues to enrich uranium.  The NIE only concluded that Iran had halted their bomb design program (Most likely because they had achieved a working bomb design and did not need further deisgn activities), not all nuclear activity.

And if the Iranian program is for civilian nuclear power, as you suggest, please explain why the reactor at Arak is a heavy water reactor, which cannot be used for power generation, isntead of a light water reactor.  Please also explain why there are no transmission lines running to or from the Arak facility.

[War on Want]

lol I can understand the unemployment part somewhat but come on do you really think there is loads of evidence that Iran will develop nuclear weapons? Are you joking? Iran is already in a ridiculously tough economic situation with an unpopular president and you think all of their plans for nuclear weapons are just going to continue?

As Iran's economic problems deepen, their nuclear program accelerates.  Their economic problems are having no effect on their weapons development.

Iran's President has no power over their weapons program.  The weapons program is run by Ayatollah Khameini, the Guardians Council, and the Revolutionary Guard.  Elections have no effect on their security policies.

Links, evidence etc. These aren't exactly well known facts. I want to see these before I explain how all of your reasoning is wrong.

These facts are actually well known to those of us who read the newspaper.

...
What about the Director of the National Intelligence Agency testifying that Iran does not have enriched unranium for bomb making or the capability to produce any and that Iran's missle program is not related to their nuclear program? Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

Also in December, 2007 our National Intelligence Estimate judged with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 with moderate confidence that the program is still frozen.

Bush is my neo-con hero?  You really are clueless, aren't you?

And page 7 of the NIE you cite to admits that Iran continues to develop its uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and coninues to enrich uranium.  The NIE only concluded that Iran had halted their bomb design program (Most likely because they had achieved a working bomb design and did not need further deisgn activities), not all nuclear activity.

And if the Iranian program is for civilian nuclear power, as you suggest, please explain why the reactor at Arak is a heavy water reactor, which cannot be used for power generation, isntead of a light water reactor.  Please also explain why there are no transmission lines running to or from the Arak facility.

Enriching uranium can be used for civilian use. Nuclear activity does not have to mean for military use either. Are you positive it was only bomb design because the way I read it, they said it it seemed like they froze everything?

The CANDU reactor uses heavy water for civilian purposes and the building of the Arak facility has barely begun. The IAEA has reported that it found no indication for nuclear reprocessing either.

[Keystone Phil]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

[War on Want]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

I haven't been here long enough to know anything about him.

[Keystone Phil]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

I haven't been here long enough to know anything about him.

Then don't assume he's a fan of Bush. 

Anyway, John Ford is a legend. Forum members ought to be required to study our legendary figures.

[War on Want]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

I haven't been here long enough to know anything about him.

Then don't assume he's a fan of Bush. 

Anyway, John Ford is a legend. Forum members ought to be required to study our legendary figures.

But, but, but it was so convenient!

I really haven't heard anything about him in the two years I have been a member of the Atlas.

[The Duke]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

I haven't been here long enough to know anything about him.

Then don't assume he's a fan of Bush. 

Anyway, John Ford is a legend. Forum members ought to be required to study our legendary figures.

But, but, but it was so convenient!

I really haven't heard anything about him in the two years I have been a member of the Atlas.

Let's just put it this way, George Bush ain't exactly the first guy I'd invite to a barbeque.

[JSojourner]

I hope he's right, but people forget really fast. 

Democrats were campaigning "against" Herbert Hoover 27 years after he left office

George Bush =/= Herbert Hoover

True. At least Hoover didn't torture people, spy on American citizens, and invade a country for no reason.

True.  He didn't. Well, the Bonus Boys might beg to differ.  But they were essentially unfair in blaming Hoover.  It was MacArthur who let that mess get out of hand.

[TeePee4Prez]

Nate Silver became a real joke when he started commenting on the PA Senate race.

I thought it was pretty good.  Didn't like it?  I love the (R-D-Specter) thing. 

[War on Want]

Even your neo-con hero Bush said that Iran has the right to civilian nuclear technology.

LOL

Bush is a hero of John Ford? You really have no idea what you're talking about. None.

I haven't been here long enough to know anything about him.

Then don't assume he's a fan of Bush. 

Anyway, John Ford is a legend. Forum members ought to be required to study our legendary figures.

But, but, but it was so convenient!

I really haven't heard anything about him in the two years I have been a member of the Atlas.

Let's just put it this way, George Bush ain't exactly the first guy I'd invite to a barbeque.

Yeah I would like to have a 100 mile radius around my barbeque between me and Bush.