What is your take on this? We frown upon guys dropping a link without any thoughts because then we become a news aggregation site.
I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.
This is interesting. How did you arrive at this figure? I only ask because turnout in 2008 was really high and I'm not sure that the final vote tallies are in for this election yet.So I just did the math. Voter turnout was higher than in 2008 by 5,424,968 based upon available numbers.
This is interesting. How did you arrive at this figure? I only ask because turnout in 2008 was really high and I'm not sure that the final vote tallies are in for this election yet.
Gotcha. It looks like third party voting made up a lot of the extra voting this year. Although, it should be noted that even though this year saw a higher number of total votes, the (preliminary) turnout rate was about 4% lower than 2008. Of course we won't know the exact totals and turnout rate until the vote is certified, but I doubt that it will exceed 2008's rate.The 2008 figures come from here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
The 2016 figures come from David Leip: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
I imagine that the population estimates changed between 2008 and 2016 because of the 2010 census.Did our voting age population increase that much in 8 years for 5 million+ votes not to at least tick up the turnout rate?
I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.
Hey BO I see your a "student". I bet you don't say much in class. Maybe read more and learn a lot might give you an idea about the audience here. I for one think fake news are rumors...
I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.
I didn't see a thing I would call evidence. I may have missed it, bit just them saying, "CIA," doesn't indicate evidence to me.Well they did provide some evidence against the CIA...
I didn't see a thing I would call evidence. I may have missed it, bit just them saying, "CIA," doesn't indicate evidence to me.
Dude, stow the backseat moderation. FF already addressed the issue and @benroliver is contributing just fine.Hey BO I see your a "student". I bet you don't say much in class. Maybe read more and learn a lot might give you an idea about the audience here. I for one think fake news are rumors...
Do we have 17 Intelligence AGENCIES?
I can think of three off the top of my head: DIA,NSA,CIA.