RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Which is a problem. With a system so utterly indecipherable, no wonder there are both accusations of fraud and major issues such as the ones in NY and Nevada. It begs the question: why set it up this way, to which the only possible answer can be: to make it less transparent, so the party can have the final say.

I know it's just a comedy show, but Last Week Tonight did raise good points.

Last week tonight raised excellent points and it's an excellent programme - even if it has effectively killed The Bugle. I don't think either party has had the final say since they set up elections for candidates, so I think we can discount that as the purpose of the Byzantine (some might say Kafkaesque) rules. I can see why each state is given a certain amount of autonomy. I do think they should standardise how the delegates are distributed based on the votes (I'd prefer pro rata) and formalise or abolish (I'd prefer the latter) super-delegates. I see no reason to impose on each state who they should have as the electorate. I'd probably want them to abolish caucuses.

You see, I do. They should have a standardised system. It doesn't matter which, just a standardised one to stop any debate afterwards. If everyone has the same rules, there can be no arguments. It's because there are different rules for everyone that we get these arguments.

To (more-or-less) unitary countries like ours it seems weird but it's a federal country and a federal system. I'd allow them to do what they want within parameters as above.

It would make the process more transparent to have a national standard, although I do understand why this would probably be opposed in thevUS.

Sandydragon wrote:It would make the process more transparent to have a national standard, although I do understand why this would probably be opposed in thevUS.

I don't think simpler is necessarily more transparent.

The system is corrupt by design. Anyone who can't see that massive systemic fraud and corruption has occurred is trying not to see.

The dominant political Parties are anything but dominant in terms of representing the people they claim to represent. The largest category of eligible voters are those that don’t vote followed by political Independents. Data Sources: Gallup, Pew.

My favourite Australian : http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencin ... es-for-war

"Clinton, the "women's candidate", leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close."

rowan wrote:My favourite Australian : http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencin ... es-for-war

"Clinton, the "women's candidate", leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close."

Yeah, Ukraine is so swarming with Nazis that they have a Jewish Prime Minister.

rowan wrote:My favourite Australian : http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencin ... es-for-war

"Clinton, the "women's candidate", leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close."

Just logged on to post that article. Nice one.

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:My favourite Australian : http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencin ... es-for-war

"Clinton, the "women's candidate", leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close."

Yeah, Ukraine is so swarming with Nazis that they have a Jewish Prime Minister.

They appear to be as stupid or corrupt or hypocritical as you are.

UGagain wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:My favourite Australian : http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencin ... es-for-war

"Clinton, the "women's candidate", leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close."

Yeah, Ukraine is so swarming with Nazis that they have a Jewish Prime Minister.

They appear to be as stupid or corrupt or hypocritical as you are.

You know nothing about me, and you know nothing about Ukraine.

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland confirmed the US has supported the Neo Nazi Svoboda party during the coup. The transitional government included former members of the fascist UNA-UNSO, while Neo Nazis were given key positions in the armed forces, police, justice and security departments.

rowan wrote:Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland confirmed the US has supported the Neo Nazi Svoboda party during the coup. The transitional government included former members of the fascist UNA-UNSO, while Neo Nazis were given key positions in the armed forces, police, justice and security departments.

Svoboda is not in power. They have only 7/450 Verkhovna Rada seats.

Zhivago wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Yeah, Ukraine is so swarming with Nazis that they have a Jewish Prime Minister.

They appear to be as stupid or corrupt or hypocritical as you are.

You know nothing about me, and you know nothing about Ukraine.

I know that you are in denial mode when it comes to Ukraine aka 'the most blatant coup in history'.

Quite why, I don't know and don't care.

Are those figures the donations, or values of the arms deals? These are also meaningless without figures for countries that donated but did not get an arms deal, or that didn't donate but did get an arms deal. Without that, you don't even have a correlation, let alone causation.

I don't know what sort of oversight the US govt has of arms deals i.e. in practical terms how does a donation to HRC improve odds of closing your guns deal?

Lizard wrote:Are those figures the donations, or values of the arms deals? These are also meaningless without figures for countries that donated but did not get an arms deal, or that didn't donate but did get an arms deal. Without that, you don't even have a correlation, let alone causation.

I don't know what sort of oversight the US govt has of arms deals i.e. in practical terms how does a donation to HRC improve odds of closing your guns deal?

That's an excellent point.

Lizard wrote:Are those figures the donations, or values of the arms deals? These are also meaningless without figures for countries that donated but did not get an arms deal, or that didn't donate but did get an arms deal. Without that, you don't even have a correlation, let alone causation.

I don't know what sort of oversight the US govt has of arms deals i.e. in practical terms how does a donation to HRC improve odds of closing your guns deal?

Then you should do more reading and less scoffing.

You miss the point altogether when it comes to elite corruption.

Julia Gillard didn't have to give money to the Clinton Foundation for Australia to buy F-35s.

Julia Gillard has a cushy job selling charter schools for the Clinton Foundation which is also funded by the makers of F-35s.

Get it?

On a slight tangent related to election fraud - here's a map of police forces investigating the Tories for election fraud. Somehow stays low down on the news.

Because an investigation isn't an accusation, never mind a conviction.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Because an investigation isn't an accusation, never mind a conviction.

Nonsense. If it were Labour it'd be front page.

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:Are those figures the donations, or values of the arms deals? These are also meaningless without figures for countries that donated but did not get an arms deal, or that didn't donate but did get an arms deal. Without that, you don't even have a correlation, let alone causation.

I don't know what sort of oversight the US govt has of arms deals i.e. in practical terms how does a donation to HRC improve odds of closing your guns deal?

Then you should do more reading and less scoffing.

You miss the point altogether when it comes to elite corruption.

Julia Gillard didn't have to give money to the Clinton Foundation for Australia to buy F-35s.

Julia Gillard has a cushy job selling charter schools for the Clinton Foundation which is also funded by the makers of F-35s.

Get it?

Dude, I'm not scoffing. Why do you assume every reply to one of your posts is negative. You posted an assertion of a correlation, and an implied causation. The information in that post was insufficient for me to assess the likely veracity of those claims and I just want information enough to make that assessment.

I am certainly aware from my own professional field that US lawmakers appear to be more swayed by corporate lobbyists than those in comparable jurisdictions. I am prepared to believe that this is at least partly due to direct financial considerations including political donations (and a system that tolerates lobbying to an extraordinary degree) as well as more nebulous back-scratching. The pathways between Congress, corporate boards and lobbyists offices are disturbingly well-trod.

I'm just curious to know the strength of this particular allegation.

Zhivago wrote:On a slight tangent related to election fraud - here's a map of police forces investigating the Tories for election fraud. Somehow stays low down on the news.

Who made the claims?


Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:Are those figures the donations, or values of the arms deals? These are also meaningless without figures for countries that donated but did not get an arms deal, or that didn't donate but did get an arms deal. Without that, you don't even have a correlation, let alone causation.

I don't know what sort of oversight the US govt has of arms deals i.e. in practical terms how does a donation to HRC improve odds of closing your guns deal?

Then you should do more reading and less scoffing.

You miss the point altogether when it comes to elite corruption.

Julia Gillard didn't have to give money to the Clinton Foundation for Australia to buy F-35s.

Julia Gillard has a cushy job selling charter schools for the Clinton Foundation which is also funded by the makers of F-35s.

Get it?

Dude, I'm not scoffing. Why do you assume every reply to one of your posts is negative. You posted an assertion of a correlation, and an implied causation. The information in that post was insufficient for me to assess the likely veracity of those claims and I just want information enough to make that assessment.

I am certainly aware from my own professional field that US lawmakers appear to be more swayed by corporate lobbyists than those in comparable jurisdictions. I am prepared to believe that this is at least partly due to direct financial considerations including political donations (and a system that tolerates lobbying to an extraordinary degree) as well as more nebulous back-scratching. The pathways between Congress, corporate boards and lobbyists offices are disturbingly well-trod.

I'm just curious to know the strength of this particular allegation.

The State Department must approve foreign arms sales. The Clinton Foundation is a bag operation.

Julia Gillard has a cushy job selling charter schools for the Clinton Foundation which is also funded by the makers of F-35s.

[/quote]

No fucking way.

What a cunt.

Zhivago wrote:On a slight tangent related to election fraud - here's a map of police forces investigating the Tories for election fraud. Somehow stays low down on the news.

Isn't that map more than a little "misleading"? It shows the geographical spread of police forces, who cover entire counties, who may be investigating 1 constituency that, geographically, makes up a tiny portion of that county. Its designed to make it look as if most of England is under investigation for election fraud, when the reality is hugely different.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk