I have seen the reports. I do not know if they are accurate or reliable. I am asked to present citations for this. Yet, I have repeatedly seen people claim that Big Oil supports AGW deniers but no one ever gives any citations to support that stance. It is just accepted as true.

Well here are some citations for what I said. I will repeat that I do not know if they are true, so don't respond by telling me they are biased sources:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...

Even that promoter of non-skeptical acceptance of global alarmism "Skeptical Science" admits that Big Oil now supports AGW alarmism:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

There are more. How about some citations supporting the allegation that Big Oil supports AGW skeptics?

Actually, I have seen several reports which indicate that Big Oil gives more money to scientists supporting AGW than they do to scientists opposing it. I do not know if those reports are accurate, but I have not seen ANY which actually quantify the money Big Oil gives to each side which disagree.

Do you have any citations which support your claim?

Springer reveals that they are not interested in fixing the problem revealed by SCIgen, they just want to prevent that software from demonstrating that they have not fixed it. They aren't going to change the review process to ensure that they no longer publish papers which are nonsense. No, they developed software to eliminate those papers which were generated by other software.

While you are correct, the question I have is how many pedophiles do they still have on staff that they are covering up for? If you are unaware, Jimmy Savile was a pedophile who hosted a popular children's TV show for the BBC for 40 years. Most of the major figures at BBC were aware that he was a pedophile who used his show to acquire victims.

I take it you have never heard of google?

OK, I see part of your problem. You think that the only way you can make a difference is in Presidential elections. You need to pay closer attention to other offices and vote for difference makers in those offices. Part of the problem in this country is that too many people want the President to be King.

NO, I am saying that if people who complain because they don't have good choices would get involved in the process before those they consider good were eliminated, things might turn out differently. Personally, I do not see any advantage to trying to get more people to vote. If people do not care enough to vote already, they certainly do not care enough to vote if you convince them to do so.

Apparently you did not hear about the case of the campaign operative who was PROUD of voting for Obama multiple times in the same election.
Generally, most people consider "voter fraud" and "election rigging" to be interchangeable terms.

I love how you connect the election fraud to Republicans when all of the cases I know of involve Democrats. I know that I am more likely to remember Democratic election fraud because they are the Party which insists that it is an insignificant problem. However, I also know that there have been more cases of election fraud involving Democrats than Republicans.

Well, I cannot speak for your country, but in the U.S. voter fraud is pretty significant. In the last Presidential election there were numerous voting precincts where more people voted than there were people living in the precinct. Of course, there is no way to know how much voter fraud actually happens, since the government rarely looks for it.

Or someone else's, how would they know?

If you use the honour system, how do you that the incidence rate of voter fraud is statistically insignificant?

In the U.S., you have plenty to choose from in the first round. However, most Americans who do vote don't bother to vote until the final round. At which point everyone knows that one of two people is going to win (although there are often many more on the ballot). They than complain about the fact that they only have two choices.
Of course, if they would bother to vote in the primaries, they would have more choices. In addition, because so few people actually vote in the primaries, they could easily tip the vote at that stage to someone different.

You are wrong, ecology theater has been around MUCH longer than security theater.

It is a long step from saying that people will promote "solutions" they think will make things worse because they cannot get people to agree to their preferred "solution" to saying that those people are running things.

I am saying that if the Senate can remove the entire contents of a bill (including the title) and replace them with completely different contents, on a completely different subject, and it still meets the "originated in the House" provision of the Constitution, the Constitution no longer means anything at all. Of course, considering many other things that have happened since 2012, I don't think the U.S. Constitution actually matters as far as what the U.S. government does any longer.