As in, "Make America safe again," right?

Oh, wait...

What about the human cost?

This is Slashdot. You just went over most posters' heads. At best, you'll just get blank stares.

You'd think the slobbering morons who append "-gate" after everything, like some sort of misguided hipster buzzword, would eventually get tired of it and stop. Apparently not.

That's right. Sanders is Ron Paul all over again . . . except where he isn't! Brilliant Slashdot logic!

Wow, you sure pay a lot of attention to these groups.

On the other hand, what if he had been wearing a turban, instead of a stormtrooper costume?

The entire school would have been closed down for a week, Congress would be scrambling for new laws to "protect our children from turra!!!" and Fox News would still, even now, be on site with 24/7 coverage.

Mod parent way way up! It's absolutely false in this context, so, in the proud Slashdot tradition, it deserves to be modded +5, Informative so that all the nerds can proudly trumpet yet more misinformation to the world!

No, not a Democrat, just a troll who knows that there are overly sensitive people on Slashdot. He knows what to say to yank their chains. It obviously worked on you.

Wow, you're a sad, bitter asshole, aren't you? Either that, or you just turned thirteen, you are out for some of teh lulz, and you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box.

When someone calls themselves a rock star, that's a pretty darn reliable indicator that they aren't very good. Certainly nowhere near as good as they think they are. It's also a pretty good indicator that they are arrogant and don't get along with people very well.

On Fox News, that probably earned the reporter a nice promotion.

Some of the things people said about him were nuttier than that. This guy called him "a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program." So that is supposed to have some sort of effect on his analysis?

All he did was take polls that already existed--lots of them--and do statistical analysis on them. Just ran the numbers, and didn't speculate. Contrast that with sites like this one, which, although quite pompous, was stuck in its own alternate reality and ended up being quite wrong.

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

I was making the point that it is appropriate to use the word "many" whether it's 100,000 requests, 640,000, or whatever.

I also said, "It may be way way too few, but that's beside the point." You seemed to ignore that entirely in your last sentence. I wasn't arguing what should or should not be the case, but how to use the word "many."

Or maybe you were replying to another post--the sibling post above yours, for example? If that's true, then I apologize.

Most means more than 50%.

You could have 660,000 requests of the 1.3 million not backed by court orders, and that would be just over 50%, so it would be "most."

The rest, 640,000 or so, would still certainly qualify as "many." Even if there were only 100,000 requests backed by court orders, that would still be "many." It may be way way too few, but that's beside the point.

I don't know what the real numbers are in this case, but technically, you are incorrect.